WI the US had sided with either France or GB in the 1790ies?

I've been watching John Adams miniseries, which I founded very interesting, as I didn't know much about the history of the post-independent US. [1]

Anyway, according to the series, there were strong pressures for the US to join the war (on both sides). Many wanted to join France in the war, based on the Treaty of 1778. These people apparently saw GB as the US natural enemy.

Others, like the the Federalists , wanted and alliance with G.B. and advocated for going to war against France.

So, what if the US had entered the war on the French side? What if they had sided with G.B.?


[1] I've quoted the source because I'm not sure how accurate it is. Maybe this presures were exagerated, and going to war was never in the cards- You surely know better than I do.
 
It would have been stupid for the US to take either side. It was a minor power that would have little influence in the war and greatly anger a great power while receiving little or nothing from the other great power. It matters little which side it takes as it can only do very limited damage to either power.
 

Skokie

Banned
I doubt they would get entangled. But if I had to bet, I'd say they'd sooner aid GB than France. Lot of anti-French sentiment in the US at that time.
 
Admiral Brown,

I am glad that you enjoyed the John Adams miniseries. It was a favorite of mine also (although it did portray a certain Secretary of the Treasury in a rather unflatering manner, but this was certainly true to Adams' view).
On the whole, the series was entertaining and reasonably accurate, but very, very compressed. In real life the dispute over which side to take in the long series of wars between Revolutionary France and GB not only lasted through the Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison Adminstrations, it was one of the defining issues that lead to the creation of the first party system in the U.S. It also almost broke the new nation as the passions unleashed by the dispute resulted in riots, effigy burnings (John Jay said that after he returned with his treaty with GB he could have made his way from Boston to Philadelphia at night by the light of the burning effigies of him the Jeffersonians had in every town) and it nearly drove Washington out of politics.
I agree with earlier posters that full U.S. support for one side or the other in these wars would have been marginal at best in Europe. However, such support could have been disastrous for the U.S. The Jefferson Embargo Acts showed how the U.S. economy could be devistated and Mr. Madison's war showed how ill prepared the U.S. was to face any professional European opponent in a war.
I think Washington and Hamilton's policy of a neutrality (which was essentially pro-British, but not enough to start a full fledged war with France) was the wisest course for a new and weak nation and it postponed the conflict with Britain long enough so that the U.S. was large enough and strong enough to survive the War of 1812, despite the incompetence of its political, financial and military leaders at the time.
 
... On the whole, the series was entertaining and reasonably accurate, but very, very compressed.

I agree. I thought they may have better served focusing on a shorter piece of time. Although, obviously they would lose much of the content of the book ... it still would have been better for me if they focused on either the Revolutionary period or the Constitutional period. Course, I may just be greedy and want a 29 part series that unrealistic :)


I agree with earlier posters that full U.S. support for one side or the other in these wars would have been marginal at best in Europe.

Yes, there was not a good choice or situation during that time. Everything had many more negatives than positives.

I think Washington and Hamilton's policy of a neutrality (which was essentially pro-British, but not enough to start a full fledged war with France) was the wisest course for a new and weak nation .

Ditto ... while hindsight is always 20/20 I think that course was the wisest for the time.
 
It would have been stupid for the US to take either side. It was a minor power that would have little influence in the war and greatly anger a great power while receiving little or nothing from the other great power. It matters little which side it takes as it can only do very limited damage to either power.
I recommend reading If By Sea, written by George Daughan. It goes into great detail about the impact of American privateers on British and French trade. He also illustrates the speed at which American shipbuilders could turn out new vessels and even raise a whole fleet from nothing in the course of months. So if the Americans wanted to, they could do some damage to either side.

Correct me if I am wrong but in that time period I believe the United States fough a war with Great Britain, some War of 1812 type thing ;)
The War of 1812 was fought from 1798-1800? :confused:
 
Top