Saphroneth
Banned
Honestly after about 1790 we weren't even thinking of trying. From there on the British relations with America are kind of "okay, you're independent, just don't bug us. Stop it, that's Ontario, ow."
WI: America Declares War on the British in 1804
- Thread starter redlightning
- Start date
Faeelin
Banned
As an aside, Canadian newspapers from the Civil War are really funny, because they usually claim "holy shit, there are a ton of Americans and they have lots of guns and don't respect self-determination."
The civil war was the moment where canada realized that they lived next to a giant. Power in North america fundamentally shifted after the civil war, and canada knew it. Clever diplomacy and Canadian charm insured their survivial more then force of arms.
Saphroneth
Banned
In fairness, Seward was agitating for a war of annexation in Canada to try and patch things up between the CS and the US, so it's more like "Holy shit, have you seen what the US Secretary of State wants to do to us?"
With Jefferson as President, I don't see the US as likely to declare any kind of war.
Note that Great Britain may not have been as economically drained in 1804 but are certainly disheartened, having been beaten in Europe for over a decade by this point.
Also note that this point may be the best shot of an American-French alliance as Jefferson was in power (an ardent Frenchophile) and Europe was at peace. By this point, many other prominent American Polits were tired of the violent Revolution (again, Jefferson not so much) and probably looked forward to the "stability" that the newly self-crowned Emperor may have represented. Napoleon may have found a ready ally in the country to which he just sold Louisiana. Britain would likely have targeted Louisiana for conquest as it was "illegally" taken from Spain (which was France's ally at the time).
It is interesting to think that this potential "colonial" conflict with Britain may help stem some larger campaigns later. With a little distraction by an American alliance, Napoleon may not follow through on his worst mistakes of his reign like the invasion of Portugal and Spain. Austria was already tired of getting it's ass kicked, Russia , Denmark (certainly), Sweden, etc were more enemies of Britain than France near these times, especially after the imposition of the continental system, which may or may not come about.
1x1, yes, Britain beats America fairly handily if they don't have any distractions. With France as America's ally...
Note that Britain probably accepts peace at the status quo when/if war breaks out in Europe again. 1803-04, I think, were the only real times of peace in Europe for 25 years.
Note that Great Britain may not have been as economically drained in 1804 but are certainly disheartened, having been beaten in Europe for over a decade by this point.
Also note that this point may be the best shot of an American-French alliance as Jefferson was in power (an ardent Frenchophile) and Europe was at peace. By this point, many other prominent American Polits were tired of the violent Revolution (again, Jefferson not so much) and probably looked forward to the "stability" that the newly self-crowned Emperor may have represented. Napoleon may have found a ready ally in the country to which he just sold Louisiana. Britain would likely have targeted Louisiana for conquest as it was "illegally" taken from Spain (which was France's ally at the time).
It is interesting to think that this potential "colonial" conflict with Britain may help stem some larger campaigns later. With a little distraction by an American alliance, Napoleon may not follow through on his worst mistakes of his reign like the invasion of Portugal and Spain. Austria was already tired of getting it's ass kicked, Russia , Denmark (certainly), Sweden, etc were more enemies of Britain than France near these times, especially after the imposition of the continental system, which may or may not come about.
1x1, yes, Britain beats America fairly handily if they don't have any distractions. With France as America's ally...
Note that Britain probably accepts peace at the status quo when/if war breaks out in Europe again. 1803-04, I think, were the only real times of peace in Europe for 25 years.
RodentRevolution
Banned
Do you mean the Treaty of Amiens as that seems to have collapsed in May of 1803?
I am also somewhat confused by the OP premise now. It seems HMS Leopard was most likely home ported or off Boulogne in 1804. Maybe the idea is just a Royal Navy ship in general and by Americans do they mean Americans who were not British born?
Just to clarify, they were taking the stance that the North wasn't respecting the South's self-determination?
Napoleonrules
Banned
I love how anytime there's a war between the US and Britain before 1920 so many people on AH.com say America loses badly. That's laughable, and this isn't "American exceptionalism" as everyone likes to cry wolf around here. The facts are that the American navy during the Barbary Wars did what the Swedish, French, and yes even the oh so mighty British navy NEVER DID. They kicked the living butt out of Tripoli and any other Barbary state that tried to ignore the American blockade. The experience during that war is what gave the Americans a great navy experience against the British in the War of 1812 where they performed admirably (pun intended).
American resources, as in any war, is what makes the difference when the US goes up against another nation, you have New England industry and forestry and shipbuilding experience all along the northeast and a deep seafaring tradition that even Jefferson didn't ruin completely and later helped build back up. The Americans did quite well against the French in the Quasi-War as well.
In 1812-14 the British were relatively free from dealing with Napoleon; in 1804 the British would have been even more distracted. Yes, the Americans can't defeat the British, but all they have to do is better than expectations. Instead of just one John Paul Jones you'll have four or five men of his caliber if you have the war in 1804 (which is in the middle of the Barbary Wars under Jefferson and we have a huge armada in the middle of the Mediterranean working alongside the Swedes and Sicily; two British allies most of the time who even then would still take the American side in a British war against the US). The biggest problem with 1804 is that this is the worst time for the British to pick a fight and the best time for America to actually be able to take on the British. You'd almost guarantee under Jefferson that the US does an unofficial coordination with the French navy, and as I stated Sicily and Sweden can be drawn in. You're helping Napoleon and causing more trouble for yourself.
American resources, as in any war, is what makes the difference when the US goes up against another nation, you have New England industry and forestry and shipbuilding experience all along the northeast and a deep seafaring tradition that even Jefferson didn't ruin completely and later helped build back up. The Americans did quite well against the French in the Quasi-War as well.
In 1812-14 the British were relatively free from dealing with Napoleon; in 1804 the British would have been even more distracted. Yes, the Americans can't defeat the British, but all they have to do is better than expectations. Instead of just one John Paul Jones you'll have four or five men of his caliber if you have the war in 1804 (which is in the middle of the Barbary Wars under Jefferson and we have a huge armada in the middle of the Mediterranean working alongside the Swedes and Sicily; two British allies most of the time who even then would still take the American side in a British war against the US). The biggest problem with 1804 is that this is the worst time for the British to pick a fight and the best time for America to actually be able to take on the British. You'd almost guarantee under Jefferson that the US does an unofficial coordination with the French navy, and as I stated Sicily and Sweden can be drawn in. You're helping Napoleon and causing more trouble for yourself.
Saphroneth
Banned
I'm pretty sure they were just reading the New York Herald. Or what the current SecState was saying.
"She [Canada] cannot refuse if you tender her annexation on just terms, with indemnity for the stuggle she may expect with Great Britain"- William H Seward, 31 January 1856
"On every prominent ledge you could see England's hands holding the Canadas, and I judged by the redness of her knuckles that she would soon have to let go." - Thoreau, "A Yankee in Canada," 1860
"Now that the confederacy is about to be shorn of more than half its strength in territory, and more than a third of its population, it is necessary to repair the loss, else we would sink to a third or forth-rate power. By peaceable means or force, therefore, Canada must be annexed... such is the decree of manifest destiny, and such the programme of William H Seward premier of the President Elect"- New York Herald, February 1861
"What, then, is the American Government to do with the immense fighting mass which will be left on its hands when the Southern war is over?... Cuba and Canada must be annexed at one blow to the United States." New York Herald, January 1862
Napoleonrules
Banned
If you want to know more about this time period, about the US Navy and the Barbary Wars read Jefferson's War:America's First War on Terror 1801-1805 by Joseph Wheelan
Saphroneth
Banned
To be clear on this - are you saying that the Barbary Wars demonstrate that the American Navy was better than the RN in combat power?
Because I think it's more that the RN didn't want to be bothered - partly because the Barbary states just didn't do much at that time.
In any case, as far as I can tell the Bombardment of Algiers (1816) did more direct damage to the Barbary State in question than the entire First Barbary War. (The second Barbary war was two days long and involved sinking two ships.)
The fact of the matter is that the US navy at this time, while skilled for its size, was not very big. We can talk exact size if you'd like, but we already know the size of the US battle line. (there is no us battle line)
RodentRevolution
Banned
Really because Sir Arthur Herbert (later Earl Torrington) begs to differ...he beat them so bad in 1682 that they behaved until 1816* when Edward Pellew, Baron (Later Viscount) Exmouth re-educated them.
*As noted above by Saphroneth
Actually, this period is when Britain was heavily invested in invading France and Spain over the two year period. Tens of thousands were poured into the Iberian Peninsular as well as money for the European powers and resources for their own armies and allies. The Navy was more at liberty to operate at this point, but there was still the blockade to maintain and the Navy would only serve one aspect of any conflict against the US.
TFSmith121
Banned
Leopard and Chesapeake was in 1807
The Leopard-Chesapeake incident was in 1807; President-Little Belt was in 1811. Neither led to war.
It's unclear what point of departure you are discussing. There were plenty of incidents around the fringes of the Anglo-French wars; it took until 1812 for them to get to the point it engendered a reaction.
There really was not a huge desire for war between the US and UK in the 1790s and early 1800s; both sides had had enough in 1775-83, and the British certainly had plenty of other things to worry about...
Even as late as 1811-12, it was probably an even bet that if the US got involved in the conflict, it would have been even odds to come in against the French, as during the Quasi-War, and for many of the same issues.
Best,
The Leopard-Chesapeake incident was in 1807; President-Little Belt was in 1811. Neither led to war.
It's unclear what point of departure you are discussing. There were plenty of incidents around the fringes of the Anglo-French wars; it took until 1812 for them to get to the point it engendered a reaction.
There really was not a huge desire for war between the US and UK in the 1790s and early 1800s; both sides had had enough in 1775-83, and the British certainly had plenty of other things to worry about...
Even as late as 1811-12, it was probably an even bet that if the US got involved in the conflict, it would have been even odds to come in against the French, as during the Quasi-War, and for many of the same issues.
Best,
I suppose it depends on many factors. I'm not totally well versed with Jefferson's presidency, but he was slowly reducing both the effectiveness of the army and the navy during his tenure (which led directly to many of the American problems in 1812) and IIRC American industry along the shores of Lake Erie and Ontario is not nearly as built up as it was in 1812 (so control of Lake Ontario at least most likely remains solidly British). Britain meanwhile has resources she could invest in North America (rather than say South America) which is probably to the detriment of campaigns in Europe, but I imagine a US openly aligned with Napoleon would make them a massive target that had to be put down.
There's also the problem of the frontier and the Native tribes there. The Battle of Fallen Timbers will still be fresh in their memories, and Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa are just starting down the path to their dream of Confederacy, so they may be willing to deal with the British against the Long Knives.
TBH I can't see any war coming before 1807 (when the Chesapeake–Leopard Affair) broke out) Jefferson was adamant at maintaining neutrality in the Napoleonic Wars, and without proper provocation I can't see him getting involved in European affairs.
There's also the problem of the frontier and the Native tribes there. The Battle of Fallen Timbers will still be fresh in their memories, and Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa are just starting down the path to their dream of Confederacy, so they may be willing to deal with the British against the Long Knives.
TBH I can't see any war coming before 1807 (when the Chesapeake–Leopard Affair) broke out) Jefferson was adamant at maintaining neutrality in the Napoleonic Wars, and without proper provocation I can't see him getting involved in European affairs.