WI the First Coalition Defeats France?

The US would be kept alone. Assuming France does not revert to republicanism, the US may or may not go to war with Britain. There were lots of reasons behind it, after all, and many of them would exist even with the French Revolution crushed. If the US does go to war with Britain, Britain will pull its full might into the war, and the US may lose a chunk of the Midwest in such a war.
I could see the US become more oligarchic with the Southern planter elites gaining political power and influence as they might present themselves as more "acceptable" to a Europe in a reactionary mood.
 
If the French Revolution ends early, there's no way the US does anything other than stay isolationist.
England won't provoke the US needlessly, the US won't see a need to change things until it runs out of room, which it wouldn't until at least the 1830s.

Would Bolivar be handwaved?
 
If the French Revolution ends early, there's no way the US does anything other than stay isolationist.
England won't provoke the US needlessly, the US won't see a need to change things until it runs out of room, which it wouldn't until at least the 1830s.

Many of the feelings behind the War of 1812, such as American jingoism, and a feeling that all the Americans had to do to conquer Canada was march in, would still exist. An alt-War of 1812 isn't entirely out of the question by any means.

Also, without Louisiana, the US would absolutely run out of room before the 1830s.

Would Bolivar be handwaved?

Depends. Does France become a republic again, and is a War of the Second Coalition kicked off? The larger version of the White Terror that would occur ITTL may very well inspire the Paris Commune to rebel yet again.
 
Many of the feelings behind the War of 1812, such as American jingoism, and a feeling that all the Americans had to do to conquer Canada was march in, would still exist. An alt-War of 1812 isn't entirely out of the question by any means.

Also, without Louisiana, the US would absolutely run out of room before the 1830s.
The US clashing with Spain over New Orleans and Florida seems pretty likely.
 
Part of the reason that the US went to war with the British was over Impression, which was a direct result of the war with Napoleon. If the First Coalition succeeds, that circumstance obviously does not exist any more, and the US for the most part tries to stay isolationist. A clash with Spain over control of the Mississippi and over Florida would be a far greater likelihood than invasion of Canada without the impetus of impressment.
 
At the peak of its power, without the Peninsular War? I think not.

Spain's peak was roughly 150 years ago at this point but it still wouldn't be a rollover for the US. However by any objective measure Britain is a far tougher opponent than Spain so it would be a more winnable war, though not necessarily a winnable war.
 
Last edited:
Spain'speak was roughly 150 years ago at this point but it still wouldn't be a rollover for the US. However by any objective measure Britain is a far tougher opponent than Spain so it would be a more winnable war, though not necessarily a winnable war.

That's true. Still, winning such a war would be nearly impossible. Spain still has a massive navy at this point, so I'd expect it to start bombarding every major American city, and there are a high number of Spanish troops that can be moved along the Mississippi in Luisiana. The US should just wait a few decades for war with Spain, when the delayed Latin American revolutions happen.
 
That's true. Still, winning such a war would be nearly impossible. Spain still has a massive navy at this point, so I'd expect it to start bombarding every major American city, and there are a high number of Spanish troops that can be moved along the Mississippi in Luisiana. The US should just wait a few decades for war with Spain, when the delayed Latin American revolutions happen.

There's no guarantee that they do happen. Of if they do, that they succeed. Napoleons disposal of the two legitimate monarchs of Spain was a pivotal moment in Spanish history. People forget that even with the immense devastation of the Napoleonic Wars (which encompassed things like political polarization as much as it did money and material), Spain still had successes in places like New Spain and Peru. I think the idea that successful revolution is inevitable is buying into nationalist propaganda a little too much.
 
There's no guarantee that they do happen. Of if they do, that they succeed. Napoleons disposal of the two legitimate monarchs of Spain was a pivotal moment in Spanish history. People forget that even with the immense devastation of the Napoleonic Wars (which encompassed things like political polarization as much as it did money and material), Spain still had successes in places like New Spain and Peru. I think the idea that successful revolution is inevitable is buying into nationalist propaganda a little too much.

The Napoleonic invasion of Spain was certainly a catastrophe and the war caused an enormous weakening of central authority in the Spanish Empire but the tension between the Criollos and the Peninsulares was not going to go away.
 
There's no guarantee that they do happen. Of if they do, that they succeed. Napoleons disposal of the two legitimate monarchs of Spain was a pivotal moment in Spanish history. People forget that even with the immense devastation of the Napoleonic Wars (which encompassed things like political polarization as much as it did money and material), Spain still had successes in places like New Spain and Peru. I think the idea that successful revolution is inevitable is buying into nationalist propaganda a little too much.

The causes of the rebellions were all there, they just exploded after the Peninsular War, and Spain was in a steep decline long before the Peninsular War. Certainly, those rebellions be weaker, they'd happen a good time later, and they would have less British support, but they would still occur. I also think that, with conservatives still believing in the legitimacy of the Spanish king, these revolutions would be more revolutionary.
 
The US clashing with Spain over New Orleans and Florida seems pretty likely.

Or they might could just arrange the purchase of the region, instead. Most of that territory was on the very peripheral edge of the Spanish sphere, and was very poorly populated (and most of the European population was French). Florida was also a point of conflict between the two nations (mostly over West Florida, granted, but including Florida proper just due to the isolation of the territory).

Still, Spanish population centers are much farther from the center of US population (the northeast) than British population centers are, meaning that any campaign taken against the US is going to be more limited in scope and delayed compared to the OTL war of 1812.

Although, all of this is being discussed in a vacuum. Who knows what wars that Europe would get itself involved in in the absence of Napoleon. This would be 10-15 years after the PoD.
 
The Napoleonic invasion of Spain was certainly a catastrophe and the war caused an enormous weakening of central authority in the Spanish Empire but the tension between the Criollos and the Peninsulares was not going to go away.

The causes of the rebellions were all there, they just exploded after the Peninsular War, and Spain was in a steep decline long before the Peninsular War. Certainly, those rebellions be weaker, they'd happen a good time later, and they would have less British support, but they would still occur. I also think that, with conservatives still believing in the legitimacy of the Spanish king, these revolutions would be more revolutionary.

There were already some rebellions before the peninsular war. The Revolt of the Comuneros in New Granada and Tupac Amaru's rebellion in Peru. They failed miserably. You're also discounting any possibility of reform. For example, proposals for autonomous Kingdoms in the Americas had been floated multiple times at the highest levels of government before and after the Peninsular war. The members of the Spanish Elite in power were well-acquainted with the need for reform (which is why reform continued after Charles III but before the RW took up all of Spains attention). The OP's PoD weakens the reformers but it's certainly doesn't destroy them and make "stagnation" inevitable. Not to mention that crushed rebellion can cause reform (see the Indian Rebellion).

The Creole/Peninsular divide is exaggerated by Nationalist historiography. Loyalist Criollo's managed to take back New Spain with virtually no help from Spain. It was only after Spain implemented a liberal constitution that they rebelled as well (this is what I mean by political polarization being as important as the loss of the navy).
 
Top