WI,AHC: America Sides with England during Napoleonic Wars.

[Tales Weaver]

Exactly what it sounds on the tin. In real life, The United states had went to war with england in 1812.
So here is the question. If Independent, Republican US entered Napoleonic wars on the side of England (instead of against them to add), what will be the implications? (that means US wins in AMerican wars of independence, and Washington refuses the crown.)

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

This possibility came up when discussing this PoD.

 

[AlanJWhite]

However much it offends the American ego, the USA was pretty much irrelevant to the European wars of the 1800s.

IMHO the British would treat a DoW from USA vs Bonaparte much as they did the "Quasi War" of the USA vs Republican France... nice to have but no practical effect in their on going struggle with France (however it is governed)

This irrelevance is best demonstrated by observing that the direct opposite. i.e. the OTL war of of 1812, was a very minor sideshow for the British.

IMHO US support against Napoleon changes almost nothing up until 1815
... and even in that year would have had no significant effects to the end results.

Despite its early successes against RN vessels, by 1814 half the ocean going USN had been destroyed by a small percentage of the RN. Inversely adding the USN to the RN in 1812, would do very little as there would be very few targets for the US raider/privateer tactics.

Similarly while some British flagged merchantmen had been captured in OTL (though many were retaken)
US flagged merchantmen were decimated to the point where US investors refused to finance further voyages.
However due to the vast difference in the sizes of their merchant fleet , while this exchange damaged the US for the UK it was only around break even.

Inversely, it is true that up to 1812 US raw materials and US merchant vessels had been useful supplying British bases and armies meaning that would have continued to be advantageous.
However when these became unavailable the British found adequate alternative sources e.g. Egypt.
A US alliance with Britain would at least have stopped some of the the US traffic to Bonaparte
though IMHO some Yankee traders would have continued to smuggle extensively (money talks).

On land, Initial US aggression against Canada had been repeatedly repulsed from purely local resources
so there was little impact on the Peninsular War. Reinforcements from Europe were only available after Bonaparte's first abdication, meaning the British could only take the offensive after mid 1814.

And that diversion, supposedly in time of Peace in Europe, is where this POD might have some impact.
Without the extra troops in North America, Britain would have been able to respond better to the 100 days.
Some of the battalions sent west in OTL would have been demobilised iTTL but even these could certainly have been remustered more quickly than shipped home.

Not that the result would have changed of course, but perhaps the mechanism.

Given some extra veteran troops and better subordinates, perhaps Wellington could have taken the offensive in the afternoon of Quatre Bras and moved against Bonaparte's his left flank at Ligny
(Effectively swapping roles with Blucher compared to two days later at Mont St Jean)


Given this degree of insignificance, I do not foresee any mid term consequences
and long term America has to become strongly anti British to become the dominant world power.

 

[Dave Howery]

about the only scenario I see that would lead to this POD would be if Napoleon refuses to sell LA to the USA, and the USA basically declares war when Napoleon is on the ropes so they can grab New Orleans before anyone else does...

 

[TRH]

Given this degree of insignificance, I do not foresee any mid term consequences
and long term America has to become strongly anti British to become the dominant world power.

Unless you subscribe to the school of thought that the British Empire would have survived to today without American sabotage, I'm not sure how to square this with OTL. American policy wasn't as pro-British as it possibly could have been, but it was definitely pro-British on the whole.

Anyways, co-belligerency with England is certainly possible, with a declaration of war in 1798. I don't think it'd last too long, as we'd take St. Louis and New Orleans and keep up some naval engagements until we were satisfied, but that does it for the OP's conditions.

 

[Just a Rube]

Technically the Quasi-Wars are still early enough not to be officially "Napoleonic," as the French Republic is still a Republic. I'd expect a 1798 war to end fairly quickly; certainly after the Peace of Amiens in 1802, the US would more or less have to drop out (if they were even still in), probably aiming for Louisiana as its spoils. The US isn't going to send troops to Europe, and while the US Navy will participate, it's only a drop in the bucket compared to the already dominant Royal Navy. The only effect would be some more colonial warfare against the colonies of the various European allies of France.

The biggest effects would be on American domestic politics; the Federalists would be much stronger, and would paint the Democratic-Republicans as pro-French traitors (assuming a 1798 war that lasts), which would have significant effects on the new republic.

It's also interesting to consider what might have happened in Haiti; OTL Toussaint L'Ouverture was officially an officer of the French Republic and loudly proclaimed his loyalty, but also quietly struck a neutral policy (trading with the British and Americans, while discouraging efforts to support slave revolts elsewhere). OTL this status quo lasted until Napoleon decided to reconquer Haiti and install his own government, but if the US is officially at war then L'Ouverture's position is more precarious (especially if some American commander decides to invade Haiti and get rid of its troublesome example for American slaves).

 

[AlanJWhite]

American policy wasn't as pro-British as it possibly could have been, but it was definitely pro-British on the whole.

hardly ... the betrayal over Manhattan, the exclusion of Britain from the Marshall Plan and the Suez crisis are only some of the most obvious examples

From around 1900 the USA wanted to be top dog ...
and as top dog at the time Britain was always it's main target
(with France & its empire a distant second).

The support given in WW1 and WW2 was simply because they believed (correctly IMO) that a declining British Empire was a better prospect than an expanding German one.

Notice I wrote declining. I do not believe the British Empire as constituted in 1900 could have lasted much longer than the mid 20th century anyway. Partly that was politics but mostly it was logistics. Once railways had become common, sea borne empires were less efficient than land borne ones, especially if the rulers were ruthless enough to ethnically/culturally cleanse their occupied territories to ensure effective control.

Believe it or not, I have no problem with these attitudes - they were and are perfectly natural.
No problem that is as long as the beneficiaries are honest about the facts and don't try to claim some kind of moral high ground.

 

[TRH]

hardly ... the betrayal over Manhattan, the exclusion of Britain from the Marshall Plan and the Suez crisis are only some of the most obvious examples

The British received significant loans outside of the Marshall Plan, to say nothing of the Lend Lease during the war. The Manhattan falling out was more complicated than you describe, and Suez was simply a terrible idea regardless of American interference. A true American attack on the British Empire would have been far stingier with financial aid and left London indebted for generations, but somehow that didn't happen.

The support given in WW1 and WW2 was simply because they believed (correctly IMO) that a declining British Empire was a better prospect than an expanding German one.

If you believe in realpolitik at all, then that's a meaningless distinction. Nobody would ever adopt a "pro-some other country" foreign policy "sincerely", but because it's in their own interests. That being the case, the fact that support was given is enough to make American policies not "strongly anti-British", as you say.

Believe it or not, I have no problem with these attitudes - they were and are perfectly natural.
No problem that is as long as the beneficiaries are honest about the facts and don't try to claim some kind of moral high ground.

Well, if there's no hard feelings. But still, if the Truman Administration was Britain's enemy, they must not have needed friends. Probably enough of this digression, though.

 

[AlanJWhite]

Probably enough of this digression, though.

I have no intention of starting a flame war (personal or national) but

I don't agree that my point about the USA being fundamentally anti British is a digression.

My take of the suggested POD was in two parts:

Firstly that USA participation again Bonaparte was irrelevant to the course of the ongoing Wars between European powers anywhere in the world

and

secondly that any diplomatic reconciliation it might generate between the UK and US in the early 1800s

would be very soon swamped by the US fundamental drive to replace the UK a world top dog
so no long term effects.

Both seem to me to be very much on point.

 

[Clandango]

The French loved grabbing American ships. Lots of money to be made in it. Part of the Louisianna Purchase had the federal government taking on the debt for the several million dollars worth of ships and cargo the French stole. As the French didn't really actually buy much from the Americans, I don't see too much changing with how they treat Yankee vessels.