WI: Full Out Quasi-War

So, in OTL, from 1798-1800 the Quasi-War took place, which was an undeclared war between the USA and France. It was mostly a naval war, and was a result of French attacks on American shipping. So let's say, there was a full out war between the two republics. If other nations such as Great Britain and Spain did not participate in this war, and nations like Prussia and Austria stopped fighting Napoleon, (I know this is highly unrealistic and probably ASB) what would have happened and who would have one for each of these scenarios?

Scenario A: It is mostly a naval war, with pretty much the entirety of the war consisting of several large naval actions and lots of smaller ones.

Scenario B: France decides to launch an invasion of the United States. How long could France last before the invasion force is destroyed? How much land could they occupy/conquer?

Scenario C: The USA decides to launch an invasion of France. How long could the USA last before the invasion force is destroyed? How much land could they occupy/conquer?
 
I don't really see how you can disentangle it from the French Revolutionary Wars, to be honest. If it wasn't for the US trading with France's dire enemy Britain at the height of a war, the crisis would have been resolved diplomatically.

Anyway, all that aside, in a war between the US and France, France probably couldn't conquer anything for any length of time, and the US wouldn't even try sending a force across the Atlantic. They'd pose a significant threat to Louisiana though.
 
Thanks for the response.

I thought I should probably make it clear: I'm not really looking for the answer to the question: "What if the United States and France had a full out war in 1798-1800", but rather, I am really looking for an answer to the question: "In 1798-1800, how would American armies and American fleets do against French armies and French fleets?".
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Responses:

Thanks for the response.

I thought I should probably make it clear: I'm not really looking for the answer to the question: "What if the United States and France had a full out war in 1798-1800", but rather, I am really looking for an answer to the question: "In 1798-1800, how would American armies and American fleets do against French armies and French fleets?".

1, the British and French were still at war in 1798-1800, so there will not be any French armies in the Americas, much less French fleets.

2, on those occasions during the QW the regular USN and French navies met, the results were almost universally in the US favor; the same issues that had an impact on French capabilities at sea against the UK were just as present in terms of French capabilities at sea against the US.

3, the largest French expeditionary effort in this period in the Western Hemisphere was the 1801-1803 effort to reconquer Haiti; the French sent an estimated total of 55,000 and something around 10,000 returned to France. The US generally did not have the climate and disease issues Haiti did, but it does give an idea of the difficulties of European powers seeking to sustain an expeditionary force in the Western Hemisphere in this era. Same for the various and failed efforts of the Spanish to reconquer various territories after the end of the Napoleonic wars, much less the British in North America. It's just too far for a European power to sustain an expeditionary force significant enough to force a political settlement beyond - at best - the status quo.

4, the US did some planning and organizing of a Provisional Army to invade and occupy Louisiana in this period; a force of 10,000 in addition to the regular army was envisaged, and given the ability to both overland from Georgia west, down the Ohio and Mississippi from the north, and sail around Florida into the Gulf and approach New Orleans (and Natchez, etc), odds are pretty heavily in the US favor in terms of expeditionary warfare in the Mississippi Valley and Gulf of Mexico by the turn of the century.

Short answer is the US under Adams is likely to win big, and the US and UK find themselves actual allies against France, as opposed to de facto ones.

It would make for a different early Nineteenth Century, which, presumably, would serve to alleviate many of the issues that led to war in 1812-15 between the US and UK.

Best,
 
On the other hand, if ASBs do cause the British et al. to pull out and the US to stay in, then the US is in trouble. Look at both the American Revolution and the War of 1812 for examples of what is likely to happen; individual American ships may be better one-on-one, but the French have way more and way larger warships. So the French can maintain a blockade with possible occasional amphibious landings, while the Americans are restricted to commerce raiding. And of course the French Army is vastly better trained and equipped compared to the American militias that make up the bulk of US forces.

Disease would be bad in the South, but not insurmountable, especially if the Haitians (who are still nominally loyal subjects of France, even if Louverture had been heavily flirting with the US and Britain) actively involve themselves on the French side. OTL they stayed more or less neutral during the Quasi-War (and both actively traded with the US and discouraged French privateers from using Haiti as a base), but in a major land war they may not have that luxury.

That said, I can't imagine any situation in which the US fights France without British help. Even if Amiens somehow both still happens and excludes the US, a major French expedition is likely to be viewed as a cause for war by the British, just as they reacted to the Haitian expedition.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Except the history of British diplomacy throughout the confrontation

On the other hand, if ASBs do cause the British et al. to pull out and the US to stay in, then the US is in trouble. Look at both the American Revolution and the War of 1812 for examples of what is likely to happen; individual American ships may be better one-on-one, but the French have way more and way larger warships - snip - That said, I can't imagine any situation in which the US fights France without British help. Even if Amiens somehow both still happens and excludes the US, a major French expedition is likely to be viewed as a cause for war by the British, just as they reacted to the Haitian expedition.

Except the history of British diplomacy throughout the confrontation with France ultimately amounted to a search for allies; as (jokingly) summed up:

Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?

Amiens is half a decade away from the period of the QW; the US, UK, and the UK's allies (the Dutch, for example) actually cooperated during the QW against the French, especially their privateers.

And Adams, obviously, was pretty sharp - he managed the US through the rocks and shoals of the conflict, and the period, quite capably. He's not going to go to war with France at a disadvantage - and, for that matter, neither are the French going to embark on a campaign in the Western Hemisphere they can't win; they sold Louisiana for a reason.

Haiti was, presumably, seen as weak - not so much the US, even in the 1790s. The French, after all, were unlikely to have forgotten why they were willing to commit to the Americans in the first place; the Americans had, after all, demonstrated their ability to prevail over the British at Boston and, notably, the Saratoga Campaign (Bennington, Oriskany, Freeman's Farm, and Bemis Heights) before the French committed Rochambeau's expeditionary force.

Best,
 
Top