WI: USA declares war on France during Adam's presidency

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, the US

Well, the US was (historically) raising a 10,000-man force to do just that, in addition to the existing 3,000-man regular army, in 1799.

Half the force would, presumably, come west along the Ohio and south along the Mississippi from Louisville, Kentucky (US territory since 1788) to St. Louis, Natchez, and points south.

The other half would, presumably, come south and then west from Georgia, by land and sea, along with whatever American militia decide to join in, into Florida and what is (today) the Gulf Coast, picking up Saint Augustine, Pensacola, Mobile, etc.

Join up in New Orleans and that's the end.

Given that France and Spain is at war with Britain at the same time, the French and Spanish navies are not particularly well placed to intervene from the Atlantic, and the USN is quite capable, given its historical record against the French in the Quasi-War at exactly this time.

Moreover, given that the largest force the Spanish were able to deploy to Florida historically was about 7,000 at the Battle of Pensacola in 1781, seems doubtful they could do more in 1799, given the losses their fleet had suffered to the British in the meantime.

All in all, it looks well within the capabilities of the US during the Adams administration.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Well, the US was (historically) raising a 10,000-man force to do just that, in addition to the existing 3,000-man regular army, in 1799.

Half the force would, presumably, come west along the Ohio and south along the Mississippi from Louisville, Kentucky (US territory since 1788) to St. Louis, Natchez, and points south.

The other half would, presumably, come south and then west from Georgia, by land and sea, along with whatever American militia decide to join in, into Florida and what is (today) the Gulf Coast, picking up Saint Augustine, Pensacola, Mobile, etc.

Join up in New Orleans and that's the end.

Given that France and Spain is at war with Britain at the same time, the French and Spanish navies are not particularly well placed to intervene from the Atlantic, and the USN is quite capable, given its historical record against the French in the Quasi-War at exactly this time.

Moreover, given that the largest force the Spanish were able to deploy to Florida historically was about 7,000 at the Battle of Pensacola in 1781, seems doubtful they could do more in 1799, given the losses their fleet had suffered to the British in the meantime.

All in all, it looks well within the capabilities of the US during the Adams administration.

Best,

The logistics would be... awful. We dont have steamboats, and sailing craft ascending upriver are even less reliable than steamboats. So. You build boats, fill them with supplies and send them down river on a one way trip? Ooo... thats going to be expensive. Send those supplies on rafts and hope more than half the supplies survive the trip?

Oh, its probably doable, theoretically, but the US rarely manages to bite the bullet in terms of actually PAYing for the military forces they want to use. Given how much problem the US had with supplying forces in Ohio in the War of 1812 (with FAR more mature infrastrucure in Ohio/Kentucky a decade later), I suspect that trying to project force all the way down the Mississippi would be economically unfeasible. It's as likely to lead to a revolt by Kentucky farmers as it is to lead to a US Louisiana.

Might the US figure out the problem only after 5-10k troops are starving, and out of gunpowder? Entirely possible.
 
The logistics would be... awful. We dont have steamboats, and sailing craft ascending upriver are even less reliable than steamboats. So. You build boats, fill them with supplies and send them down river on a one way trip? Ooo... thats going to be expensive. Send those supplies on rafts and hope more than half the supplies survive the trip?

Keelboats, aka rowing.

Its not as easy to do as it is to type, but its not asking for miracles, either.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yep; plus Kentucky is more "settled" in this period

Keelboats, aka rowing. Its not as easy to do as it is to type, but its not asking for miracles, either.

Yep; plus Kentucky is more "settled" in this period than Ohio, actually.

Kentucky's population in 1800 was 221,000; Ohio's was 45,000. Plus the weather is significantly "better" in Kentucky, Tennessee, and points south than it is in Ohio, Michigan, and points north...and east.

The US also would have had the ability to supply by sea from the southeast (Georgia and the Carolinas) around Florida, and overland (to a degree) from Georgia.

The Wilderness Road and Natchez Trace, although both far from all weather, show that the beginnings of a surface wagon road/pack trail was at least in place for some of the region presumably being contested.

Best,
 
Ohio was only slightly behind 1800 Kentucky by 1810, but the numbers are still interesting.

I do worry that the army is going to be stuck between penny pinching politicians (better than the Democratic-Republicans, who felt a standing army was almost an unnecessary evil, but still) and gouging civilian contractors when it comes to building those keelboats and hiring those ships, though.

That, and a general lack of regulars (in the sense, trained and/or experienced men) - as noted in your BROS thread, volunteers can fight just fine - but staff/administrative work is going to be more hit or miss as far as those coming from civilian life go.

Some will be talented, some will not - but they sure have their work cut out for them.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yep; it would not have been easy, but not impossible, either

Ohio was only slightly behind 1800 Kentucky by 1810, but the numbers are still interesting.

I do worry that the army is going to be stuck between penny pinching politicians (better than the Democratic-Republicans, who felt a standing army was almost an unnecessary evil, but still) and gouging civilian contractors when it comes to building those keelboats and hiring those ships, though.

That, and a general lack of regulars (in the sense, trained and/or experienced men) - as noted in your BROS thread, volunteers can fight just fine - but staff/administrative work is going to be more hit or miss as far as those coming from civilian life go.

Some will be talented, some will not - but they sure have their work cut out for them.

And its worth adding that the finest Spain and France could have deployed to the Western Hemisphere in this period are sort of busy, elsewhere.

Best,
 
And its worth adding that the finest Spain and France could have deployed to the Western Hemisphere in this period are sort of busy, elsewhere.

Best,

Definitely. That (and the other points you made in an earlier post) why I think that if you can get the US army to Louisiana in a shape to fight that the safe money is on the Americans.

Not inevitable, but I'd be willing to gamble on it.

Getting there will be the fun part, but the actual campaigning - what exactly do Spain and France have that can face a well lead ten thousand man army (allowing for units not being up to full strength for the usual reasons, and rounding down) here? And the US navy's record indicates changing that is going to be facing one thorny problem - if they could focus everything on North America that would be one thing, but what they can spare from facing Britain will be even less impressive than what Britain could spare from facing France in 1812-1814.

And we know the US's naval record in that war. :D I do not envy the French frigate captains at all.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
As long as the British are prowling the Eastern Atlantic,

Definitely. That (and the other points you made in an earlier post) why I think that if you can get the US army to Louisiana in a shape to fight that the safe money is on the Americans.

Not inevitable, but I'd be willing to gamble on it.

Getting there will be the fun part, but the actual campaigning - what exactly do Spain and France have that can face a well lead ten thousand man army (allowing for units not being up to full strength for the usual reasons, and rounding down) here? And the US navy's record indicates changing that is going to be facing one thorny problem - if they could focus everything on North America that would be one thing, but what they can spare from facing Britain will be even less impressive than what Britain could spare from facing France in 1812-1814.

And we know the US's naval record in that war. :D I do not envy the French frigate captains at all.

It is going to be difficult for the French and Spanish to send much to the Caribbean, which means what they have is what is in garrison when the balloon goes up; probably not a whole lot.

Best,
 
Some guy named Blochead made a great TL about this called The Franco-American War. It does a good job of plausibly exploring this scenario. The US does get really lucky, but how is that any different from OTL?
 
Well, President John Adams definitely wins re-election, but I'm not sure what happens after his second term. Does he set the same precedent as Jefferson and retire, or if he's still popular, is he pushed to keep running by the Federalist leadership?
 
Top