WI France and America go to war with Britain in the 1840's?

Baskilisk

Banned
What if the French and Americans went to war with Britain in the 1840-1850's? It's not completely unlikely, both had issues with Britain at the time.
A two big things that would affect the USA, The Mexican American War (whether it hasn't started yet, being fought, or was just fought.
Many things could instigate the war. Some issues that could split the USA and Britain:
-An annexation of Texas by Britain (although unlikely)
-An escalation of a Aristook type conflict over the Maine border dispute.
-Who gets Oregon, or at least Victoria Island
-Earlier secession in Southern States and the threat of the British breaking the blockade.
-Fishing off the coast of Newfoundland?
-This forum https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=2143879&posted=1#post2143879 suggested that there was a treaty that obligated Britain, France, and the USA to observe Hawaii's nuetrality/independance. Maybe that could escalate?
-Revenge for 1812. the USA is now much stronger, but so is Britain.
-Any combination of those issues.

With France, it would be amusing to have Napolean III go after Britain. The only issue is the whole Mexican puppet government he wants, that the USA could dispute. Depends on the year. Plenty of things could have sparked a war between Britain and Fance in this time period. What kind of effects would it have on the later Franco-Prussian war? Could be some interesting WWI butterflies...
Britain has little to gain, much to resolve...
 

Baskilisk

Banned
Bump.
Another interesting factor is the European powers like Spain that haven't truly declined yet. Plus that could really make the situation in the Caribean interesting depending on how they side.
 
The USA is still much weaker when compared to the British Empire, which still has the advantage in sea power. France had an economic crisis in 1847-1848 which, combined with the revolutions of 1848, might have forced France to pull out of any war at this time. If that happens, America loses the Oregon Territory and Hawaii and at best remains a second-rate power for decades to come. The Mexican American War probably wouldn't have happened and they might have had Britain as their allies after the war, slowing Western expansion considerably. The Democratic Party would have been torn between the expansionists and the moderates who were in the majority and who might have formed a new party. James K. Polk might very well have been impeached. The South might have blamed Northern politicians for the war and tried for independence earlier.
 
I don't know why France has enough reason to risk open war with GB. As for the states, some of the problems would have to be very bad in order to get them to go to war. I think it could go well for the US; with Britian worried about France, there may be a chance to seize a bunch of territory. Then again, I don't know how distracted France would keep Britian.
 

Baskilisk

Banned
Well France won't be able to keep Britain as distracted as they were in 1812, so the only way to make this war not be too one one sided you need a way to get Europe want to support the USA. Maybe in 1849 USA still has a large standing army, just victorious from Mexico, and either there was no Monroe doctrine or the president ignores it, and France is allowed to put Maximillian on the Mexican throne.
France has its economic crisis, and Napolean III decides that a war with Britain would be in the interests of France as they could make a grab for the Carribean. The USA would dissaprove, but may allow it in that they were in need of help. Fueled by Congres of Vienna-like ideas, Spain desires more influence in its former colonies, but has to go through Britain to get it. Britain blockades the east coast, but can't committ enough of its navy to fight the French and Spanish at sea as well.
The USA fight the British to a standstill in Canada (probably another dumb invasion plan) with constant threat of invasion, especially in New York or the Chesapeake. Britain invades and captures some coastal city, and US policy makers decide they are desperate enough to let African-Americans in the army, allowing veterans freedom and citizenship. If the war is a success, you have a war of the words in the 50's and 60's, but it may have effectively prevented the civil war, at least to some degree of severity. I really can't see Britain losing much from the war other than Canada and maybe a few islands of minimal value. Worst case scenario at that.
Europe is the wild card. Where Spain and France can actively fight Britain is anyones guess, and nobody wants to Nap III end up like Nap I. Maybe the British intervene in Belgium during its revolution or something in Portugal?
How would Prussia and Russia respond? Austria will be busy with their own revolutions.
Just one scenario. A war before the Mexican War will certainly be another 1812, if you consider that a defeat. Americans afterwards viewed that as a preservation of their sovereignty, economically and politically from Britain, whilst the British and Canadians saw it as a failed attempt at invasion.
 
The problem is more thqt it is unrealistic to assume a complete change of french policy for no reason. The french freign policy from 1830 onward can be resume as 'don't piss Uk off'.

You have to provide a reason to change this.
 

Baskilisk

Banned
You can use your imagination for that one.
Provide some reason that Britan would ally with Prussia or get possesive of Portugal, and you could piss off France and Spain. Maybe some conflict in Italy or North Africa could piss off the British at French actions. Or a gibraltar dispute gets out of hand. I don't know, you tell me!
Hell, its more likely Britain would be the aggressor. Maybe they make a grab in the Carribean or India. France isn't done with India yet.
 
A fairer fight in this period I think would be the whole world vs. the UK...But even then IIRC the Royal Navy would be the stronger.
And of course thats silly.

America is really going to get hurt heavily. Even before a shot is fired its economy will implode which won't make fighting the already unfair war easy.
I wonder how the Conservatives and Whigs would differ on what they want out of the war and whether one would be more interested in taking land. I'd think New England broken off as a new country is quite a given this time around... Beyond that it may depend on how hard a fight America gives. If they cause a bit of trouble in being beaten Britain will take more.
 

MrP

Banned
You can use your imagination for that one.
Provide some reason that Britan would ally with Prussia or get possesive of Portugal, and you could piss off France and Spain. Maybe some conflict in Italy or North Africa could piss off the British at French actions. Or a gibraltar dispute gets out of hand. I don't know, you tell me!
Hell, its more likely Britain would be the aggressor. Maybe they make a grab in the Carribean or India. France isn't done with India yet.

Another way of getting around the problem is the ASB forum. If one cannot think at first of a compelling reason for a war, just chuck it in that forum and get a load of responses to what would happen while you come up with a why there's a war.
 
Another way of getting around the problem is the ASB forum. If one cannot think at first of a compelling reason for a war, just chuck it in that forum and get a load of responses to what would happen while you come up with a why there's a war.

...If that ASB forum was, in fact, the "stuff with implausible PODs forum" as opposed to the "time-travelling sex-changing zombie nazi forum", yes, that could be true. ;)

Personally, I agree with Leej above; barring a Pan-European alliance, Britain wins. If they have even one decent-sized continental ally - hell, even a couple of second-raters, Hanover and Piedmont-Sardinia, say - France gets curbstomped. In the 1840s, Britian is the Hyperpower.
 
A fairer fight in this period I think would be the whole world vs. the UK...But even then IIRC the Royal Navy would be the stronger.
And of course thats silly.
.

That depends exactly when the fight is. The second empire is one of the few period in history when the Royal was a true rival of the RN - and sometime in advance ( e.g. Gloire ). -, though that's in the late 1850s; more likely 1860s.

But the whole world against UK is ASB.
 

MrP

Banned
...If that ASB forum was, in fact, the "stuff with implausible PODs forum" as opposed to the "time-travelling sex-changing zombie nazi forum", yes, that could be true. ;)

Personally, I agree with Leej above; barring a Pan-European alliance, Britain wins. If they have even one decent-sized continental ally - hell, even a couple of second-raters, Hanover and Piedmont-Sardinia, say - France gets curbstomped. In the 1840s, Britian is the Hyperpower.

Well, it used to be. I think it can be again. And this is starting to sound like a shite speech, so I'll stop. :D
 
Well, it used to be. I think it can be again. And this is starting to sound like a shite speech, so I'll stop. :D

Is that in reference to the ASB forum's long desired resurgance or Britain being hyperpower? :p
 
Top