USA w/ Napoleonic Europe

[John Fredrick Parker]

How would you say the Fall of Napoleon has affected the historic course of the young republic of the United States specifically? Assuming a late 1809 PoD,* how is North American history altered?

To start, I imagine there won’t be a War of 1812 TTL; how does the republic deal with issues in the west etc instead? How does America handle the diplomatic balance of dealing with both a Royal Navy on edge and a European continent more “sensitive” to French and Russian power? Depending on how Spanish America is affected -- which I realize is a bit of a topic in itself -- how do her expansionist tendencies manifest? On the whole, is the US in a better or worse position?

What do you guys think?

CONSOLIDATE: Is there enough info here for a discussion -- like, I realize, in an effort to talk about how the US does overall, I put aside the tricky question of the fate of Spain's Empire; even so, there seems like there should be enough to get started. Take for example the War of 1812 -- I mentioned it likely wouldn't happen, but that means that things other than impressment that were creating tensions between the young nation and their former colonists (like the native nations in the west using Canada as a place to run to) would still have to be resolved one way or the other; and if they do still lead to war, Britain is now likely to perform significantly better, without worrying about the continent. Meanwhile, US military maneuvers to gain Spanish Florida may be affected as well.

Does anyone have any thoughts here?

*Austria crushed in War of the Fifth Coalition as OTL, but there’s no subsequent Invasion of Russia

 

[rfmcdonald]

Are we talking a France that is able to sustain a maritime rivalry with Britain, or more a cold war between Britain and the continent?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Are we talking a France that is able to sustain a maritime rivalry with Britain, or more a cold war between Britain and the continent?

Closer to the latter -- the Battle of Trafalgar is well prior to the PoD, and Britain isn't going to be making any kind of peace that opens the door for France to navally threaten them. So it's basically a world where the continent is given to be mostly under French or Russian "spheres of influence", while in return no serious effort is made to challenge the British at sea. ("Mostly" here serves to, again, try to kick the can of discussing Spain, Portugal, and their empires -- since again, that's a topic in itself.)

 

[omnidirectional]

I think, given the Louisiana Purchase, and lingering tension from the American Revolution, the USA sort of leans towards Napoleonic France, but given the Talleyrand bribe scandal and Quasi-War, doesn't fully support them either.

 

[rfmcdonald]

Closer to the latter -- the Battle of Trafalgar is well prior to the PoD, and Britain isn't going to be making any kind of peace that opens the door for France to navally threaten them. So it's basically a world where the continent is given to be mostly under French or Russian "spheres of influence", while in return no serious effort is made to challenge the British at sea. ("Mostly" here serves to, again, try to kick the can of discussing Spain, Portugal, and their empires -- since again, that's a topic in itself.)

In that case, especially with a potentially revanchist UK focused against its former colonies, I wonder if we might end up getting a sort of inversion here, British and Spanish America switching fates. OTL the US gained its independence relatively peaceably while the Spanish American states fought bruising decades-long wars of independence. In this TL, we might be set to have recurrent Anglo-American wars, while depending on what Spain does its American colonies might break away peaceably. (A Britain that can interdict Spanish lines at sea can make sure that these countries in becoming, promising markets, can gain independence without these wars.)

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

In that case, especially with a potentially revanchist UK focused against its former colonies, I wonder if we might end up getting a sort of inversion here, British and Spanish America switching fates. OTL the US gained its independence relatively peaceably while the Spanish American states fought bruising decades-long wars of independence. In this TL, we might be set to have recurrent Anglo-American wars, while depending on what Spain does its American colonies might break away peaceably. (A Britain that can interdict Spanish lines at sea can make sure that these countries in becoming, promising markets, can gain independence without these wars.)

Honestly the problem with that was that Fernando VII was a idiot who ruined everything he touched and here it wouldn't be different, the fact was that the Hispanic colonies were aching for independence the more Spain ruled them due to a mixture of them being treated as a piggy bank AND because the Spanish alienated the Criollos via their reforms that put more power in Spain's hands, while places like La Plata weren't very valuable and Spain was willingly to let them go, places like Peru, New Spain, New Granada and Venezuela were places that made lots of wealth and thus Spain was willing to spend a ton of blood and money into it, Britain wouldn't have much say unless they decided to attack Spain to force their hand in which case it just starts the war with Napoleon again. Whether the colonies succeed or not is up in the air.


As for OP's post, I would say that the USA is both investing more in the army and navy given "The British Menace" would be here, so we're likely to see a party that supports that as well as increased governmental power to deal with what they see as a outside threat, a war of 1812 is likely to happen depending on how things go, but as long as the US doesn't do anything too rash they can sit out of a potential war with Britain. There's always of course the possibility that further down the line as the west is being settled and disputes over lines and the Nootka Sound flair up, it could go hot, in which case war could happen and France would be more happy to attack Britain and force them into a two front war, either way France or the US win big time.

 

[omnidirectional]

Its also possible that, with a long term Napoleonic Empire in Europe, there would be knock on effects in America. Like, for example, if Napoleon manages to keep an independent Poland, there will be less Polish immigration down the line. Or a "revolutionary Emperor" becomes a political concept in America, and you get maybe Aaron Burr or someone trying the same sort of power grab.

Also, who would be Napoleon's successor? His marriage to the Austrian princess might be butterflied here. Joseph? Bernadotte? I'm also kind of wondering how a long term Napoleonic empire deals with the rise of socialism and anarchism and workers rights movements.

 

[OxSpace]

Can the OP clarify what they're asking, the title clearly says "USA with Napoleon Europe" but the content indicates an early fall of Napoleon, ie "no 1812".

while in return no serious effort is made to challenge the British at sea.

If we're talking about Napoleonic Europe, Britain was not going to win the naval war in the long run.
To quote Richard Glover:

So at the war's end the French had over 80 line of battleships ready-a number dangerously close to that of the Royal Navy, whose declining strength could muster only 102 such ships in commission in 1812 and 1813 and no more than 99 in 1814. Worse still, these figures misrepresent the real balance of force, because force depends on firepower; and while the French had 6 ships of 130 guns and none of less than 74, British totals include ships of as few as 60 guns, no ships of more than 120 guns, and only 2 of those. The French had only to complete and man the 35 ships reported as building in order to gain a clear superiority over the highest total that Britain was ever able to put to sea, namely, 113 in 1808 and 1809; and there is a grim point to be added here. Though I have given the French figures reported at the war's end in 1814, these figures would in most cases be correct for the autumn of 1812. Preparations for the Russian campaign and news of its disastrous end had first slowed and later stopped work in French dockyards as shipwrights and sailors were marched away inland to reinforce the army.

...the Royal Navy was already stretched to the limit when Bonaparte launched his Russian campaign; and the cabinet were under no illusions about it.

He[Napoleon] had only to tolerate Alexander I's conduct a little longer, to maintain his aim of overpowering the Royal Navy, and perhaps as early as 1814 or 1815 he would have gained a sufficient superiority at sea to master the British.

Napoleon was massing line of battleships at the Texel, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Flushing, Antwerp, Cherbourg, Brest, L'Orient and Rochefort, Bordeaux, Toulon, Genoa, Naples, and Venice and was building frigates in lesser dockyards. Napoleon's Empire could facilitate the naval build-up, and no amount of seamanship could prevail against the odds Napoleon was building, which was 150 line battleships. Britain was hurting from the expenses of the war, lack of materials to build & repair ships, shortage of crews to man them, insufficient money and complaints that even these ships were gravely undermanned were frequent.

...a potentially revanchist UK focused against its former colonies, I wonder if we might end up getting a sort of inversion here...

No, the relationship was important and it's why they renounced their absurd demands at Ghent so that they could renormalize Anglo-American relations.

 

[Elfwine]

I have not read Glover, but those seem like lower figures for the British than I'm familiar with (source: The Frigates: An Account of the Lighter Warships of the Napoleonic Wars 1793-1815, by James Henderson CBE):

Per Henderson, the Royal Navy had 7 first rates in full commission, 5 second rates in full commission with 3 in reserve or repair, 87 third rates in full commission with 16 in reserve or repair. This not counting anything below a 3rd rate (the table is not more precise than the rating of 64-80 guns).

This does not count relegated ships (2 first rates, 4 second rates, 80 third rates).

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

If we're talking about Napoleonic Europe, Britain was not going to win the naval war in the long run.

Supposing Britain makes peace before their navies fully go at each other again; what would France actually be doing with this navy, outside of deterring the British from influencing continental affairs?

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

Supposing Britain makes peace before their navies fully go at each other again; what would France actually be doing with this navy, outside of deterring the British from influencing continental affairs?

Expand French influence abroad, you need a powerful navy in order to go around the world and secure trade deals and such as well as establishing and reinforcing colonies. Plus Britain would never accept French hegemony forever and would be itching for any chance to knock down the French Empire, Napoleon would very much built up his fleet in preparation for the day something like that comes in order to not get caught off-guard.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Expand French influence abroad, you need a powerful navy in order to go around the world and secure trade deals and such as well as establishing and reinforcing colonies.

Well, France doesn’t have any colonies by 1810, so it would be “establishing”; except, would France be so eager to start another conflict with Britain for the sole purpose of starting a colonial empire from scratch, especially so soon after they just got peace with them? If not, then what does “expanding their influence” look like, practically speaking?

To bring it back to the OP -- would French global commercial interests resemble those of the OTL United Stares in this respect? And how would that affect their relationship with the republic?

 

[Beatriz]

Well, France doesn’t have any colonies by 1810, so it would be “establishing”; except, would France be so eager to start another conflict with Britain for the sole purpose of starting a colonial empire from scratch, especially so soon after they just got peace with them? If not, then what does “expanding their influence” look like, practically speaking?

To bring it back to the OP -- would French global commercial interests resemble those of the OTL United Stares in this respect? And how would that affect their relationship with the republic?

It seems like this conflict ultimately allows for Britain to directly or indirectly administer all the overseas colonies European powers did IOTL excluding Portuguese ones over the 19th century

 

[OxSpace]

I have not read Glover, but those seem like lower figures for the British than I'm familiar with (source: The Frigates: An Account of the Lighter Warships of the Napoleonic Wars 1793-1815, by James Henderson CBE)

His source was William James, Naval history of Great Britain from 1793 to the accession of George IV, ed. Captain Chamier, R.N. (London, 1837)

Supposing Britain makes peace before their navies fully go at each other again; what would France actually be doing with this navy, outside of deterring the British from influencing continental affairs?

Nothing, a large portion of the navy would probably be decommissioned once Britain is out of the picture.

 

[Elfwine]

His source was William James, Naval history of Great Britain from 1793 to the accession of George IV, ed. Captain Chamier, R.N. (London, 1837), V, 11

I will have to look further into this, thank you for sharing.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

No, the relationship was important and it's why they renounced their absurd demands at Ghent so that they could renormalize Anglo-American relations.

It seems like this conflict ultimately allows for Britain to directly or indirectly administer all the overseas colonies European powers did IOTL excluding Portuguese ones over the 19th century

How would this affect the way the British Empire perceives American territorial ambitions?

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

How would this affect the way the British Empire perceives American territorial ambitions?

Probably would try to stop it given the not exactly friendly USA would be growing more powerful with each territory they occupy, them having New Orleans is already scary for the Brits as the Americans can have fleets both in the Caribbean and Atlantic and them reaching the Pacific would be even worst. So expect Britain to both "lose" caches of weapons and horses to Indians in the west as well as driving a hard bargain when it comes to stuff like the Nootka Sound and Washington but short of war(Which France would jump in to try and finish them off), Britain can't do much to stop the USA from expanding.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Looking over old threads, realized this question has been asked before:

realistically a Napoleon-wins scenario is going to improve US-France relations relative to OTL at least for a few decades after the Napoleonic wars. It was Napoleon after all that supported the Louisiana purchase. France and the US were both fighting Britain in 1812. And it had only been a few decades since the French made American independence possible (as long as people are living that remember this first hand, it's going to be important). The two nations have no reason to fight, and every reason to be friendly to each other. Because in any Napoleon-wins scenario, Britain is going to be grumpy for a loooong time.

Now, if an ASB forces the Americans and French to fight, and at the same time puts up an impenetrable barrier around the UK to make sure the Royal Navy doesn't intervene, France wins. The USN until the ACW was rubbish for anything more than fighting pirates and looking cool. The US economy came pretty close to crashing in OTL's War of 1812, and faced with any more serious an opposition than the British expeditionary force, it would have fallen to bits. Probably taking the idea of a USA with it.

If the PoD is Napoleonic Europe avoiding the Russian Campaign altogether (say Nappy is killed late 1809), could that make things considerably worse for the US, at least in terms of their position relative to the British Empire? In this case, Britain doesn't have a major campaign in Europe they'd rather be pouring resources into -- or, even worse for the young republic, the French Empire might have finally made peace with Britain in part by effectively writing off Latin America -- which would mean that Canada, the Royal Navy, maybe even Spanish American allies, could have considerable leverage if Madison or one of his successors wants to push issues like support for the Indian nations, expansion plans, or what have you.

Considering it was Britain's policy to continue recognizing the authority of the legitiment Spainish government in the colonies (Simon Bolivar actually had a famous instance relating to this where, by insisting Venezuala be independent rather than autonomous against the wishes of the rest of the deligation, lost the opportunity for aid), Britain to have Latin American allies is either going to have to sink itself into the violent social and political quagmire of the independence power-struggle, or prop up the Royalists and deny Madrid's authority.

Ok, I'll admit the US is going to be in a better position vis a vis the British Empire in any event of the Napoleonic Empire doing better; if the latter two make peace, it will only open up new opportunities for the Americans as the remnants of the Spanish Empire have to consolidate their holdings, and if they remain in a state of conflict, the US can utilize France and her European allies to distract the British and vice versa.

Indeed. Interestingly enough, such a result would (I theorize) actually flip British priorities in terms of Free Trade vs. Protectionism and, as a result, their stance on the independence of New World nations. Considering their Bourbon client is liable to be fairly generious in terms of trading concessions to their British suzerian (while slapping on pretty heavy tariffs and the traditional monopolies of the Crown otherwise in order to raise funds), if London wants to keep France from potentially muscling into her commercial sphere in their new rivalry she'll have a real incentive to maintain the "closed" state of the Spainish Imperial economy, with Britain replacing Iberia as the destination for South American and Carribean goods/cash crops. Assuming France is unable to get its hands back on Haiti, this gives Britain a virtual monopoly on the global sugar and coffee trade to go along with her existing monopolies in India, which she'd want to prevent France from getting a foothold in so she can drain gold/silver from the continent and thus limit Nappy's ability to make war. In terms of its impact on the US, this might actually incentive the Southern economy away from cottan (Which France can get from alternative sources, such as plying good trade relations with the Ottomans) and towards tropical goods like sugar. Given its much higher mortality rate among slaves and needs refining close to the source, I wonder how that would affect the pressure to re-open the slave trade and industrialization of the North...

What's interesting there is, in the time that Europe will need to recover from its wars, our scenario will have Latin America in a very vulnerable position itself trying to get it's shit together, which makes it a juicy target for the United States. So by the time that France is looking to push out of Europe and build a new colonial empire, the US is more likely than not to be in a better position to defend their territory and interests in the Western Hemisphere.

Overall to get back to main idea of this thread. The risks to the US would be greater than iOTL. The British had a very friendly and profitable trade with the US.

How a France that wanted to become as great as Britain if not greater in terms of colonial empire would look at North America.

In the first 25 years of the 19th century the US control all land east of Mississippi but out west is different game. Florida might of been sold by sold to France at time of peace 1809-1810.

Note: please do not say that the relationship between US and France be the same as iOTL. This would of been a France that would of been probably twice as powerful and feeling assured and cocky in its rightful place in world.

@Lusitania I think, over the 1810’s and 20’s, (Bourbon New) Spain is unlikely to sell NW territories to France, since that (a) will annoy the British and (b) bring a whole new threat to their lands to threaten their remaining possessions. I think if they are going to just write off any territories (eg Pensacola or tense) they’ll sell to the US, since that will pacify an existing threat, at least for the time being.

Victory for Napoleon is very bad for the US. The revolutions in Latin America are likely crushed meaning no Monroe Doctrine and South America becoming part of the French Sphere. While a French dominated Europe means a French controlled import/export market over Europe giving France immense control over the US economy.