What if US became a vassal state to France?

Everyone is criticizing the approach, but is this so implausible? France wanted to make America into a satellite state, after all.

What do you mean by "a satellite state"?

A kingdom under a junior Bourbon?

Some kind of protectorate with a French proconsul sitting in New York or Philadelphia?

French governors for the 13 colonies?

I can't see the Americans conceding any sort of political authority to France. (Nor can I see France seeking such authority.) The arbitrary rule of King George was bad enough; but the arbitrary rule of King Louis was no sensible alternative.

f Congress agreed to such terms, it would alienate enough Americans to collapse the rebellion.
 
I don't usually call things ASB, but this is ASB.

If the Continental Congress decided to cut a deal that would make the colonies subordinate to France, they would be signing their own death warrants, not preventing them. The lower-level colonial representatives and likely the vast majority of the population would turn on them, and try to replace them, and the British would win as colonial government collapsed into chaos. Alternately (and I actually think this would be the most likely result) with 18th century rumor-mongering, the leaders responsible for offering the deal would be accused of being French agents from the start, and the entire Revolution would collapse from within.

If it looked like the British were winning and the top leaders were desperate to avoid death, they would simply flee to Europe, not try and cut such a deal which would make things even more hopeless. And if it was too late to flee, it would be too late for the French to get involved anyway.
Ok, now this is a good explanation of why it couldn't happen.
Thanks!
 
What do you mean by "a satellite state"?

A kingdom under a junior Bourbon?

Some kind of protectorate with a French proconsul sitting in New York or Philadelphia?

French governors for the 13 colonies?

I can't see the Americans conceding any sort of political authority to France. (Nor can I see France seeking such authority.) The arbitrary rule of King George was bad enough; but the arbitrary rule of King Louis was no sensible alternative.

f Congress agreed to such terms, it would alienate enough Americans to collapse the rebellion.
I'd say that satellite in this context would mean the concession of some monopolies to the French, and having as foreign policy to follow France.

Spain was a satellite to France during this period, after all, and despite that, it managed to actually increase its own influence and regain the status of first naval power.
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
I think the Patriot's fallback position if they lost was to organize an exodus into the American interior something like the Voortrek and build an independent state deep in the heart of North America far from the sea where British supply lines would be too far stretched to capture them. At least that's what I have read General Washington's plans were. It would make an interesting TL too.
 
If the Continental Congress decided to cut a deal that would make the colonies subordinate to France, they would be signing their own death warrants, not preventing them. The lower-level colonial representatives and likely the vast majority of the population would turn on them, and try to replace them, and the British would win as colonial government collapsed into chaos. Alternately (and I actually think this would be the most likely result) with 18th century rumor-mongering, the leaders responsible for offering the deal would be accused of being French agents from the start, and the entire Revolution would collapse from within.

I can't see the Americans conceding any sort of political authority to France. (Nor can I see France seeking such authority.) The arbitrary rule of King George was bad enough; but the arbitrary rule of King Louis was no sensible alternative.

This thread is weird. We know that by 1780 the American delegates in Paris had been instructed by Congress to seek whatever terms France would support, and that France envisaged a United States hemmed in by the Appalachians and restricted, perhaps, to the Midatlantic colonies. Would such an America have been able to stand on its own without the French alliance?
 
That wouldn't work in New England, because a good portion of its (legal) trade was with Britain.

EDIT: For example, say if your ideas were during the Articles of Confederation period post-1781. Now, assuming that the French tries your ideas then, New England would probably bolt and be its own country. In that case, you would not have representatives from the New England states working out on any potential Constitution but they would be separate - AND they might sway Vermont/the Green Mountain Republic over to New England's cause. A good reason for that is that the establishment in Massachusetts, even after rebelling against Britain, were still somewhat pro-British and a lot of trade was between the New England states and Britain (probably the majority, if not a big minority). That's an underlying reason why in OTL you had a bunch of rebellions leading up to the Hartford Convention.

It could happen, but not in this way, by which I mean not in one treaty....rather the French would have to develop influence on a state by state basis, maybe securing trade rights in frontier states ( which at the beginning may not be taken seriously given that the French lost all their North American properties) and increase their mercantile presence in places like New York. Furthermore Jefferson envisioned the US as an agrarian society, so maybe France places itself as THE market for American grain and in exchange becomes THE manufactory for the US. This would please the Jeffersonians, and might even convince much of Congress to adopt Jefferson's ideas. This would mean the French place themselves as the American partner...even over the British; however France being France isn't necessarily beholden to the Americans.
 
Last edited:
This thread is weird. We know that by 1780 the American delegates in Paris had been instructed by Congress to seek whatever terms France would support, and that France envisaged a United States hemmed in by the Appalachians and restricted, perhaps, to the Midatlantic colonies. Would such an America have been able to stand on its own without the French alliance?

Depends on the state. Some would be glad to take it; others would not be so sure.
 
That wouldn't work in New England, because a good portion of its (legal) trade was with Britain.

EDIT: For example, say if your ideas were during the Articles of Confederation period post-1781. Now, assuming that the French tries your ideas then, New England would probably bolt and be its own country.
But in a situation of collapse of the revolutionary war effort, they wouldn't go to be their own country. If they refused the French plan, they would go back to Britain.
 
Rubbish. Spain and France were allies, nothing more. The royal families were branches of the House of Bourbon, but France had no control of Spanish policy.
When there's an alliance between 2 countries with extremely different political weights and military powers, the less powerful country is rightly called a satellite.
A satellite is not the same thing as a puppet state.
 
I'd say that satellite in this context would mean the concession of some monopolies to the French, and having as foreign policy to follow France.

It's extremely unlikely that the US would have conceded to any treaty which would give the French control of their trade. It would provoke widespread discontent and outrage, much more than giving them control of foreign policy would.

Anyway, thinking about it, I can't think of any situation where it would be possible for this to occur during or shortly after the war period.

-If the British had already withdrawn from trying to retake the colonies and France tried to insist on a treaty that would subordinate the US to France, the US would just tell them to get lost.

-If France tried to insist upon such a treaty during the thick of the war, the US would either break off its alliance and try to fight Britain alone, or would accept and collapse for the aforementioned reasons in previous posts. The winner here would undoubtedly be Britain.

In the end the problem here is that I'm damned sure that any attempt to make the US subordinate to France during the war would result in a wave of outrage and rejection of it in the US. Even if that would mean losing the war. Nations aren't always entirely rational. Another thing to keep in mind is that during the ARW, American leaders hoped to make alliances with other countries in addition to France. While this eventually happened, Spain, with it's own colonies to worry about, only joined due to their alliance with the French, and the Dutch Republic joined the war late and was beaten at sea horribly by the British. So it wouldn't really pan out, but American leaders wouldn't know that ahead of time.
 
What about a French "win" in the Seven Year War (or French-Indian War if you are being provicial) - would this have lead to France bringing the 13 Colonies into their sphere of influance?

Admittedly since the French wanted to try GW for war crimes it is not likely to be him that signs any agreement!
 
What about a French "win" in the Seven Year War (or French-Indian War if you are being provicial) - would this have lead to France bringing the 13 Colonies into their sphere of influance?

Admittedly since the French wanted to try GW for war crimes it is not likely to be him that signs any agreement!

That's funny that the French wanted to bring GW up on war crimes when They allowed the Indians fighting under them to slaughter settlers in western New York and Pennsylvania.
 
Top