WI Hamilton got his wish for war on France and Spain in 1798-1801?

WI Hamilton got his wish for war on France and Spain in 1798-1801?

  • a) USA wins Louisiana and Florida in that timeframe

    Votes: 13 41.9%
  • b) Spain fends off US attack in that timeframe

    Votes: 18 58.1%

  • Total voters
    31
and Britain won in Egypt only to lose Malta.

You mean the Knights of Malta lost Malta, the French garrison found itself besieged by the locals and then the British started to lend those some help by interdicting French efforts at reinforcement. Ultimately thanks to Nappy's little adventure the British gained Malta which had been under the suzerainty of Naples before that.


You literally just suggested that Britain Blockade the US as a way of cutting off French supply. That's what they did in haiti, send a squadron to the carribbean.

The thing is British ships off the Florida coast can choose to let US flagged ships pass so long as they are not delivering supplies to the Spanish or French and detain those ships whose cargos they have reason to suspect are destined for the enemies of the United States. It is unlikely under such circumstances that even the likes of Hamilton would protest such British actions.

The key question for this thread though is how many Spanish regulars were in Florida as they were tough opponents and might well if present in sufficient force render the whole question of French relief (ooh la la) moot.
 
But they did fight everywhere else, from Haiti, to Buenos Aires, to Java, etc. And when war resumes in 1803, Napoleon would withdraw from the US to concentrate on Europe, which Realty mattered, unlike Louisiana.

You overestimate the US's ability to not fold like a house of cards in a single year. They have no army, only ad hoc militias, much of their population is sympathetic to France, and they are plagued by debt and bad commanders. They will fold before Britain even declares war.

And again Britain was stretched at this point. They couldn't send forces to help their Russian and Austrian Allies, who have either already dropped out or were about to drop out respectively, AND they couldn't send forces to retake Malta. They had wasted 30,000 men in Egypt and Syria, around a third of which are currently French prisoners and the rest are stuck garrisoning Egypt for the Ottomans, their navy is stretched across half the world currently and will take time to concentrate for any action, and they'll probably want to send forces to Malta before they help out a country as antagonistic to them as the US. Remember, the US refused British Trade proposals and were raising tarriffs on All british goods at this point in order to protect native industry. Hardly sympathetic, not an easy sell to the public.

Like you have this idea of Britain being some invincible power when it wasn't really effective as a force fighting the french in this period.

You mean the Knights of Malta lost Malta, the French garrison found itself besieged by the locals and then the British started to lend those some help by interdicting French efforts at reinforcement. Ultimately thanks to Nappy's little adventure the British gained Malta which had been under the suzerainty of Naples before that.




The thing is British ships off the Florida coast can choose to let US flagged ships pass so long as they are not delivering supplies to the Spanish or French and detain those ships whose cargos they have reason to suspect are destined for the enemies of the United States. It is unlikely under such circumstances that even the likes of Hamilton would protest such British actions.

The key question for this thread though is how many Spanish regulars were in Florida as they were tough opponents and might well if present in sufficient force render the whole question of French relief (ooh la la) moot.

I don't have exact numbers for 1800 but by 1820 there were only a few hundred Spanish Colonial Troops in Florida.

Also a blockade is only effective if it stops everyone. Flying false flags is a thing and the US population was largely sympathetic to France for much of the Napoleonic Period.
 
You overestimate the US's ability to not fold like a house of cards in a single year. They have no army, only ad hoc militias, much of their population is sympathetic to France, and they are plagued by debt and bad commanders. They will fold before Britain even declares war.

And again Britain was stretched at this point. They couldn't send forces to help their Russian and Austrian Allies, who have either already dropped out or were about to drop out respectively, AND they couldn't send forces to retake Malta. They had wasted 30,000 men in Egypt and Syria, around a third of which are currently French prisoners and the rest are stuck garrisoning Egypt for the Ottomans, their navy is stretched across half the world currently and will take time to concentrate for any action, and they'll probably want to send forces to Malta before they help out a country as antagonistic to them as the US. Remember, the US refused British Trade proposals and were raising tarriffs on All british goods at this point in order to protect native industry. Hardly sympathetic, not an easy sell to the public.

Like you have this idea of Britain being some invincible power when it wasn't really effective as a force fighting the french in this period.

The French would Not even land before 1802, just like in Haiti. By that time, the US would have Taken Florida and Louisiana. And yes, the Royal Navy can thrash the French Navy and prevent the French from crossing the Atlantic. Napoleon would simply write off Louisiana and Florida and concentrate ON Europe.
 
So I



The French would Not even land before 1802, just like in Haiti. By that time, the US would have Taken Florida and Louisiana. And yes, the Royal Navy can thrash the French Navy and prevent the French from crossing the Atlantic. Napoleon would simply write off Louisiana and Florida and concentrate ON Europ.

You only say that because of Trafalgar, which was a lot closer of a battle than you seem to think and hasn't even happened yet. Mostly because Britain doesn't have the ship concentration for it at the moment.

And when France sends a force and takes New York in a single battle? Or seizes the US Capitol in a few weeks? Hamilton will fold and give them back Everything he's taken and probably be forced to fork over an indemnity. This will happen before any British Declaration of War because the US was just that damn bad at war in this period.
 
You only say that because of Trafalgar, which was a lot closer of a battle than you seem to think and hasn't even happened yet. Mostly because Britain doesn't have the ship concentration for it at the moment.
And the Nile. And the There is nothing that Revolutionary and Napoleonic France that gives me reason they can beat the Royal Navy. Unlike the Bourbon Navy—they can beat the Royal Navy. But not the Revolutionary and the Napoleonic ones.
 
You only say that because of Trafalgar, which was a lot closer of a battle than you seem to think and hasn't even happened yet. Mostly because Britain doesn't have the ship concentration for it at the moment.

And when France sends a force and takes New York in a single battle? Or seizes the US Capitol in a few weeks? Hamilton will fold and give them back Everything he's taken and probably be forced to fork over an indemnity. This will happen before any British Declaration of War because the US was just that damn bad at war in this period.
The US did not fold when Washington was burned. And the French would not land as they cannot beat the Royal Navy. So the French cannot even inflict that kind OF defeat ON Britain.
 
I don't have exact numbers for 1800 but by 1820 there were only a few hundred Spanish Colonial Troops in Florida.

Also a blockade is only effective if it stops everyone. Flying false flags is a thing and the US population was largely sympathetic to France for much of the Napoleonic Period.

I tend to think the Spanish would hold on their own, they had some good forts in Florida and previous efforts to shift them from those had been at best mixed with a strong tendency for the Spanish to hold.

As to blockades though flying false flags was the whole point of declaring Blockade™. A blockade is a formal notification to neutrals that they will be stopped and searched. The British likely would not even consider this as requiring an additional declaration in addition to the numerous ones already in force. The idea the British cannot maintain a squadron off Florida is a bit of a stretch.

You are better taking a closer look at the regular garrison, local militia, state and allegiance of the local Indian tribes (Seminole?) and the fortifications. I strongly suspect those would have been enough to give Hamilton a black eye and bloody nose.
 
And the Nile. And the There is nothing that Revolutionary and Napoleonic France that gives me reason they can beat the Royal Navy. Unlike the Bourbon Navy—they can beat the Royal Navy. But not the Revolutionary and the Napoleonic ones.

At this point not all the Bourbon Officers are dead or driven out. A lot of them are still in Service in the Spanish Navy, due to Spain Still Having a Bourbon Monarch at this point.

The US did not fold when Washington was burned. And the French would not land as they cannot beat the BRoyal Navy.

And yet they did just that at Diamond Rock.

The Us didn't fold because the population was anti british. In this scenario Hamilton is acting against the sentiment of his people, who were sympathetic to france

I tend to think the Spanish would hold on their own, they had some good forts in Florida and previous efforts to shift them from those had been at best mixed with a strong tendency for the Spanish to hold.

As to blockades though flying false flags was the whole point of declaring Blockade™. A blockade is a formal notification to neutrals that they will be stopped and searched. The British likely would not even consider this as requiring an additional declaration in addition to the numerous ones already in force. The idea the British cannot maintain a squadron off Florida is a bit of a stretch.

You are better taking a closer look at the regular garrison, local militia, state and allegiance of the local Indian tribes (Seminole?) and the fortifications. I strongly suspect those would have been enough to give Hamilton a black eye and bloody nose.

Maintaining a squadron off florida isn't what we're talking about, we're talking about a full blockade of the US coast.
 
Last edited:
Maintaining a squadron off florida isn't what we're talking about, we're talking about a full blockade of the US coast.

No neither Tonifranz nor I nor anyone but you has mentioned a full blockade of the US. It would be superfluous to requirements. The British did not mind people shipping stuff to America, they did a lot of it themselves. The aim here would be to interdict the supply chain of a Franco-Spanish army which could largely be accomplished with ships already deployed to the Caribbean.
 
I'm curious as to why Britain would care whether the French went to war with the Americans. This is 1800, Britain lost the colonies only a few decades ago at this point. Why would they have any love for the Americans, most of which are still led by the same people who were key members of the Revolutionary War? There isn't a special relationship between the two or any-kind of Anglophone brotherhood.

In the public image of the time; most of the American generals and government are seen as largely traitors, and the UE loyalists in Canada would be largely in favour of a war against the Americans . George III is still King at this point, he definitely wouldn't be pro-American. To clarify, I'm not saying that London would be pro-France but I don't see them going out of their way for the Americans.

What seems likely to me is that they try to pro-long any Franco-American war as long as possible so as keep Napoleon's attention away from Europe.
 
I'm curious as to why Britain would care whether the French went to war with the Americans. This is 1800, Britain lost the colonies only a few decades ago at this point. Why would they have any love for the Americans, most of which are still led by the same people who were key members of the Revolutionary War? There isn't a special relationship between the two or any-kind of Anglophone brotherhood.

In the public image of the time; most of the American generals and government are seen as largely traitors, and the UE loyalists in Canada would be largely in favour of a war against the Americans . George III is still King at this point, he definitely wouldn't be pro-American. To clarify, I'm not saying that London would be pro-France but I don't see them going out of their way for the Americans.

What seems likely to me is that they try to pro-long any Franco-American war as long as possible so as keep Napoleon's attention away from Europe.

American trade, the British want more and want the French to have less. It is all part of the long term policy of the British Government at this time. So influence with the Americans that makes them more positive towards certain orders in council is useful. However the main motivation is just the chance to mess up yet another French expeditionary force while it is vulnerable.
 
Even so I don't believe that American trade would be so impactful as to lead Pitt or George to expend any special effort for the Americans.
 
Does anyone think that if we declared war on France and Spain that this would have butterflied away the War of 1812. Because I’d imagine Britain would like us a lot more and maybe even take our side and maybe get some of the Natives to help us out too.
 
Britain would be, at the very least, a helpful neutral ally of the US.


Spain is not a paper tiger at this point. They still have some teeth. Florida is somewhat vulnerable due merely to proximity, but Louisiana is a different story. the US is going to have a hard time convincing short term militias to march that far. The Spanish still have some native allies they could use to stir up trouble on the supply line. Spain is likely to send an army up from Mexico. France props up Spain, but doesn't send masses of troops.

This is NOT mid- late 1800s where the US is overwhelming top dog on the continent. Trafalgar is still in future, so Spain/France still have a Navy. They are still in a fragile state with no military prowess. They would lose the fight, or as in the war of 1812 not invaded and conquered so therefore it counts as 'victory'. There's no quick victory for the US, so Spain/France just has to hang tight until economic forces wreak havoc on the US.
 
Even if the Spanish only have a few hundred troops in Florida, they may be able to call up their own militias in the area who would probably take issue with US aggression towards them, and possibly even get some of the 5 Civilized tribes (the Seminoles more than likely, and probably some of the other ones) to harass and hamper what would likely be smallish and undertrained militia, a fighting force that hasn't yet learned the lessons of the War of 1812, or even a lot of the lessons from some of the various Native American wars they were fighting. They may eventually be able to take Florida, but not before they suffer significant losses, drain the coffers, and take up so much time that Spain further fortifies New Orleans, which is the prize of the Caribbean, the key to the Mississippi River.

No, I think the most likely thing is the Spanish teach the Americans a lesson they would never forget before the British and French have a chance to lean in and influence anything.
 
Some of the replys on this thread astound me. France was only alwode to send in army to Haiti becuz the British where freced out that the Haitian revolution would spread to Jamaica, I don't know about Spain in Florida but from what I know in later times (not much later like the 1820s and 30s) the Spanish where very weak and in general not the strongest in the americas but nether then America I sapose but from what I know the real down turn of the American army don't happen until after the jaffersonians came into office. The American army was small but not as bad as the "army" was in 1812.
 
Top