a different USA

[herricks]

hey i was thinking of starting a TL about a stronger US & was wanting to run some ideas by yall & see how plausible my ideas were & if its even worth attempting

1. Have the US between 1790 & 1800 decide to create a larger & stronger army & navy

2. Have the US between 1800 & 1810 fight France &/or Spain with the coalition

3. Have the US between 1810 & 1820 fight Britain & win

Are these ideas to start up a TL even plausible or should i forget the whole idea before I waste my time?

Any & all input would be appreciated. Thanks

 

[Wendell]

hey i was thinking of starting a TL about a stronger US & was wanting to run some ideas by yall & see how plausible my ideas were & if its even worth attempting

1. Have the US between 1790 & 1800 decide to create a larger & stronger army & navy

2. Have the US between 1800 & 1810 fight France &/or Spain with the coalition

3. Have the US between 1810 & 1820 fight Britain & win

Are these ideas to start up a TL even plausible or should i forget the whole idea before I waste my time?

Any & all input would be appreciated. Thanks

Of the three, only rwo is remotely plausible, nd even that is hard. Part of what made U.S. expansion successful in our timeline was that the country had time to actually absorb its gains. What you're poposing with any of these really goes against that.

 

[herricks]

Of the three, only rwo is remotely plausible, nd even that is hard. Part of what made U.S. expansion successful in our timeline was that the country had time to actually absorb its gains. What you're poposing with any of these really goes against that.

well number one was what i wanted to do the most & then either have 2 or 3 happen. or both if thats possible though even with a bigger navy the only chance the US has against Britain will be when its fighting France

 

[Wendell]

well number one was what i wanted to do the most & then either have 2 or 3 happen. or both if thats possible though even with a bigger navy the only chance the US has against Britain will be when its fighting France

A bigger navy is much more plausble than a bigger army, but the country cannot afford a bigger navy so early in its existece, let alone man one.

 

[herricks]

A bigger navy is much more plausble than a bigger army, but the country cannot afford a bigger navy so early in its existece, let alone man one.

well i wasn't thinking super big just like have the 6 original frigates become 10 or 12 & go from there

 

[aoravec75]

Why Would the U.S. fight France between 1800 and 1810? aside from the Qusi-War there was little animosity between the two countries. as for the U.S. taking on Britain Between 1810 and 1820, if you can keep Napoleon on Elba then the War of 1812 may grow into something bigger. but the U.S. would really have to have its Big Boy Pants on to take on the full might of the Empire

 

[Comte de Geneve]

A bigger army is out of the question. Please remember that one of the most significant complaints of the colonists against GB was quartering a standing army in the colonies. That was consistent with English Whig opposition to a standng army. Establishment of a standing army, even in the face of real threats, was inconsistent with early independent American political thought. Establishing a real navy capableof projecting real geo-political power was simply beyond the capacity of the early republic.

 

[herricks]

Why Would the U.S. fight France between 1800 and 1810? aside from the Qusi-War there was little animosity between the two countries. as for the U.S. taking on Britain Between 1810 and 1820, if you can keep Napoleon on Elba then the War of 1812 may grow into something bigger. but the U.S. would really have to have its Big Boy Pants on to take on the full might of the Empire

could Napoleon backing out of a Louisiana deal work? I've not put a whole lot of thought into the why yet cause i was just wanting to see how possible this could be before i put a lot of thought into it

Establishing a real navy capableof projecting real geo-political power was simply beyond the capacity of the early republic.

i wasn't meaning around the world. just like to the Gulf & Caribbean

 

[Widukind]

Hey herricks, it seems to me that you are looking for an America where the Federalists (and particularly Alexander Hamilton and his allies) are in power. They wanted America to side with Britain against France, and they advocated a stronger army and navy. Hamilton exerted influence during the Washington and Adams administrations, but the 'Jeffersonian revolution' of 1800 meant that the Democratic-Republicans seized power, and they were subsequently in charge for a good long time.

This may help you get the results you want:

- Get a strong, capable Federalist to be Washington's vice president, instead of John Adams. That Federalist can then become president when Washington retires, and start pushing for a stronger navy and/or army. Hamilton himself would ideologically be the perfect candidate, but he's a very difficult guy. He'll make enemies, which is not what you want. You might alternatively consider John Jay, John Marshall, Thomas Pinckney or Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.

- Keep Jefferson in France. Or kill him off early. Something like that. He basically was the Democratic-Republican Party. Patrick Henry, who started out as an avowed anti-federalist, ultimately went over to the Federalists. James Madison was intially a Federalist, and went over to the Jeffersonians. Without Jefferson, you can plausibly keep him a Federalist.

- Then make the Democratic-Republican Party field a weak candidate in 1800. George Clinton, maybe? If the Democratic-Republican Party can be discredited by some scandal or political mess-up, that's a bonus. The Federalist candidate gets elected instead. Supports Britain against France.

- Eventually, the public gets tired of the Federalist government, and a Democratic-Republican gets elected. It happened in 1800 IOTL, suppose it happens in 1808 or 1812 ITTL. From there, you can set the stage for a dimplomatic reversal, wherein the US turns against Britain. That eventually leads to war with Britain, and there you go: all your aims have been achieved.

 

[herricks]

Hey herricks, it seems to me that you are looking for an America where the Federalists (and particularly Alexander Hamilton and his allies) are in power. They wanted America to side with Britain against France, and they advocated a stronger army and navy. Hamilton exerted influence during the Washington and Adams administrations, but the 'Jeffersonian revolution' of 1800 meant that the Democratic-Republicans seized power, and they were subsequently in charge for a good long time.

This may help you get the results you want:

- Get a strong, capable Federalist to be Washington's vice president, instead of John Adams. That Federalist can then become president when Washington retires, and start pushing for a stronger navy and/or army. Hamilton himself would ideologically be the perfect candidate, but he's a very difficult guy. He'll make enemies, which is not what you want. You might alternatively consider John Jay, John Marshall, Thomas Pinckney or Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.

- Keep Jefferson in France. Or kill him off early. Something like that. He basically was the Democratic-Republican Party. Patrick Henry, who started out as an avowed anti-federalist, ultimately went over to the Federalists. James Madison was intially a Federalist, and went over to the Jeffersonians. Without Jefferson, you can plausibly keep him a Federalist.

- Then make the Democratic-Republican Party field a weak candidate in 1800. George Clinton, maybe? If the Democratic-Republican Party can be discredited by some scandal or political mess-up, that's a bonus. The Federalist candidate gets elected instead. Supports Britain against France.

- Eventually, the public gets tired of the Federalist government, and a Democratic-Republican gets elected. It happened in 1800 IOTL, suppose it happens in 1808 or 1812 ITTL. From there, you can set the stage for a dimplomatic reversal, wherein the US turns against Britain. That eventually leads to war with Britain, and there you go: all your aims have been achieved.

all sounds cool to me

 

[herricks]

what would be the best way to get a federalist VP though?

 

[PoeFacedKilla]

i always thought an America with a king, usually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Henry_of_Prussia_(1726–1802) Henry Louis, would lead America against the French; Remember America was mostly conservative.

Or maybe America could side with France at first? Its unlikely but if Spain and Britain are busy in France while America attacks some of there N. American territory if they manage to come out on top they would have a pretty strong Army/Navy then maybe when Napoleon launches his coup America could switch to Britains side in the name of Democracy or something?

It have to be well researched but less likely things have happened.

 

[Widukind]

what would be the best way to get a federalist VP though?

Well, Adams was a Federalist, but he was too moderate to implement the policies you are looking for. But him being Washington's vice president was never a given. Adams had a background in law, so suppose this: John Jay, the OTL first Chief Justice, fullfills the role Adams did IOTL. And Adams is made Chief Justice instead.

For Washington's second term, either Jay runs again and becomes VP again (as Adams did IOTL), or some other strong Federalist (maybe Hamilton himself? He'd made his name as secretary of the treasury. This would be his chance.) runs instead, and Jay gets made secretary of state or something.

Whoever is Washington's VP runs for president when he retires, and wins.

 

[herricks]

Well, Adams was a Federalist, but he was too moderate to implement the policies you are looking for. But him being Washington's vice president was never a given. Adams had a background in law, so suppose this: John Jay, the OTL first Chief Justice, fullfills the role Adams did IOTL. And Adams is made Chief Justice instead.

For Washington's second term, either Jay runs again and becomes VP again (as Adams did IOTL), or some other strong Federalist (maybe Hamilton himself? He'd made his name as secretary of the treasury. This would be his chance.) runs instead, and Jay gets made secretary of state or something.

Whoever is Washington's VP runs for president when he retires, and wins.

ok so could something like this work?

After Washington retires his Federalist Vp (whomever it is) is elected president & begins distancing itself with France while getting closer to Britain.

New president calls for a larger navy for a reason (maybe Quasi War or something?)

US still with the Federalists in charge fights France & its allies during War of the Third or Fourth Coalition capturing territory.

A new party is elected to office that signs separate peace with France angering the British & ending their short time as friends.

Now I know a lot more needs to go into this to make it good but are these base ideas possible?

 

[herricks]

bump........

 

[Widukind]

ok so could something like this work?

After Washington retires his Federalist Vp (whomever it is) is elected president & begins distancing itself with France while getting closer to Britain.

New president calls for a larger navy for a reason (maybe Quasi War or something?)

US still with the Federalists in charge fights France & its allies during War of the Third or Fourth Coalition capturing territory.

A new party is elected to office that signs separate peace with France angering the British & ending their short time as friends.

Now I know a lot more needs to go into this to make it good but are these base ideas possible?

This is absolutely possible. Certainly if you go with president Hamilton: he explicitly aimed to turn the quasi-war into a full-on war with France and Spain, and wanted to use that to annex both Florida and Louisiana. That might just work, but would be costly, leading to the Democratic-Republicans getting into office, leading to America dropping out of the war...

...and then Britain is angry at that. Relations cool. And when the time comes, war becomes a realistic option.

 

[herricks]

anyone else got any other input for me?

 

[TheNordicBrit]

The two main ways I envisage a larger army and navy would be:

• Some Caribbean islands rebel alongside the 13 Colonies and so a navy is required to defend the island states and territories of the USA - though this might change the USA politically so-much that it's unrecognisable, though I doubt that.
• Alexander Hamilton becomes President after Washington.

A war with France or Spain isn't too difficult:

• Have the Quasi War go worse.
• IOTL the slave-owners in Saint Domingue tried to gain support from the Americans in the event of the abolition of slavery, if Hamilton, of a more anti-French Jefferson were President then they could guarantee that and follow through if the French still abolished it.
• In 1804 Spain denied American merchants the right to sell and ship in New Orleans, which caused a diplomatic break until the Spanish restored the rights a year or two later. You could theoretically have a Spanish-American War over New Orleans, which could expand into a general war over Louisiana, Florida and perhaps even Cuba.

I think overall the best way for these scenario's to happen is to have Hamilton become President, as he was in favour of a larger army and navy, and was anti-France and relatively anti-Spanish.

The only way I could imagine the third one happening would be, say, Hamilton creating a larger army and navy, then Jefferson taking over as President and having an alternate Anglo-American War, but with the Americans in a much better state to fight they might be able to win a victory - though I'm unsure if they could gain much territorialy.

 

[herricks]

[*]IOTL the slave-owners in Saint Domingue tried to gain support from the Americans in the event of the abolition of slavery, if Hamilton, of a more anti-French Jefferson were President then they could guarantee that and follow through if the French still abolished it.

are you meaning to have slavery abolished in the US in the early 1800's?

if so how would i go about that?

 

[TheNordicBrit]

are you meaning to have slavery abolished in the US in the early 1800's?

if so how would i go about that?

No, I mean when the French Republic abolishes slavery in Saint Domingue, have the USA support the slave-owners as they were considering IOTL. The slave-owners wanted to create an independent nation away from France if slavery was abolished, but needed the support of the USA to do so, otherwise the ex-slaves and French authorities would put down any independence movement.