[What-If] British/American anti-French Alliance in 1798

[Straha]

One of those oft-known "unknown facts" is that the United States and France had a running undeclared naval war from 1798 to 1800. One of the things that people don't know is that after the disastrous XYZ affair the British Ambassador to the U.S. and John Adams actually met multiple times, and there was serious talk of an alliance between the U.S. and Great Britain directed against France (much of it pushed for by Alexander Hamilton, who had great de facto influence over the U.S. Government.) Any of a half-dozen changes would have removed the existing roadblocks to the alliance and would have made it a significant and real possibility. To pick just two:

1. Elbridge Gerry was one of the American diplomats involved with the XYZ affair, but he was a last minute nomination for the post picked because the man whose spot he took declined the offer. Gerry was the most pro-French member of the American delegation, and prolonged the negotiations and argued for taking a much more conciliatory line towards France. If he hadn't been selected as the replacement, the American delegation would have returned much quicker and there would be a much firmer line for outright war on France.

2. The main reason Adams delayed action towards France was because Gerry stuck around in Paris after the other two delegates left. Gerry was charged with full diplomatic powers for that mission and Adams didn't want to go to war as long as a minister of his government was still negotiating. If Gerry had left France with the other two ministers (Charles Pinckney and John Marshall) then there would have been no reason for Adams to not immediately seek a Declaration of War.

So, here's the question: What would have happened if an alliance between Great Britain and the U.S. had worked out? Obviously American bases and naval power would have helped to clear the French out from the West Indies (as they essentially did in OTL), and Louisiana would have been fair game for American armed forces (as Hamilton was pushing for.) But what would have been the implications (if any) for the European war?

Title Typo Fixed ~Shep

[Force Lord]

I could see Haiti going independent sooner than historically if Britain and the U.S. attempt to push out the French from the Carribbean and the British and the Americans taking over the smaller French possesions. Louisiana I'm not so sure, since it was still Spanish territory at that point (Spain officialy gave Louisiana back to France in 1800 under the Treaty of San Ildefonso, but it was kept secret and Spain remained in control of Louisiana until finally transfering it to France on November 30, 1803, just three weeks before the Louisiana Purchase). The U.S. might invade it if Spain allied itself with France, as in OTL, but since the U.S. military only had a small standing army it may not advance much without help from Britain.

The effects of a British-American alliance on Europe are likely to be small, considering the U.S. had little interest in European issues and was a military lightweight. The U.S. might send ships and some troops, but given that France at that point was fighting more capable enemies and defeated them (at least temporarily) on land, then the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars continue on as historically, only with more American involvement, along with the (possible, if the anti-French powers aren't as lenient as in OTL) final destruction of the French empire in the Americas.

I don't know if an outright alliance between the U.S. and Britain is workable, however. There's still going to be some bad blood between both countries, given that the American War of Independence ended 15 years before the XYZ Affair and still fresh in the minds of many prominent Americans and British. Besides Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, which are pro-French, would cry bloody murder if they see the U.S. aligning itself with its former colonial master, and would give the Federalists an even worse showing in the 1800 presidential elections, which they lost in OTL anyway.

That's my take on it, anyway. If my speculation is wrong in any way, please feel free to point it out. And yes, I used Wikipedia, but I needed info quickly.

PS: Minor nitpick, but the title says "[What-If] British/American anti-French Alliance in 1788". The so-called Quasi-War happened between 1798 and 1800. A alliance between Britain and the U.S. could only possibly happen after the XYZ Affair in April 1798. So the title is misleading.

[Duckie]

Force Lord: Would the US even be politically capable of supporting Haitian independence? The South was already leery of a slave-revolt nation before, if the US were to as part of an anti-french alliance start supporting blacks in the carribean rising up against the French you'd be pissing off every Democratic-Republican and every southerner. I don't think New England and New Yorker Federalists have that much political capital to spend on an ill-fated carribean adventure.

They could try to take it over as a slave state/US colony, but then you'd just end up with the US fighting a rebellion against those very same slaves and exacerbating northern federalist vs everybody else problems.

[Force Lord]

Force Lord: Would the US even be politically capable of supporting Haitian independence? The South was already leery of a slave-revolt nation before, if the US were to as part of an anti-french alliance start supporting blacks in the carribean rising up against the French you'd be pissing off every Democratic-Republican and every southerner. I don't think New England and New Yorker Federalists have that much political capital to spend on an ill-fated carribean adventure.

They could try to take it over as a slave state/US colony, but then you'd just end up with the US fighting a rebellion against those very same slaves and exacerbating northern federalist vs everybody else problems.

Then they might just give Haiti to Britain to avoid the problem, but it depends on the level of the interest the British have for Haiti, however. IIRC Haiti was at that time one of the prime producers of sugar in the world, but the slave revolts leading to independence are only a few years away (1804?) on the timeline we are discussing, so Haiti might just end up to be more trouble than it's worth for Britain and the U.S..

[Knife]

Uhm, we kind of did that anyways with Jay's Treaty of 1794 that more or less stopped the British from seizing our ships but was kind of the reason France started up. the problem for America at this point was it really didn't have enough juice to do much about nothing and all Britain and France.

[Thanas]

Nothing changes.

The US is not in any position to influence Europe and the French are under British Blockade.

[Adrian Laguna]

Not quite "nothing changes". I expect with an alliance there wouldn't be a War of 1812, which would have subtle knock-on effects on the development of the United States as a nation.

[Thanas]

Not quite "nothing changes". I expect with an alliance there wouldn't be a War of 1812, which would have subtle knock-on effects on the development of the United States as a nation.

That assumes an alliance may go through in the first place. However, you are right in that it would stave of a war of 1812 - I am however not sure if it would not have happened later. Because the expansionists were very, very keen on getting canada.

[Knife]

Still trying to figure out how that will work. Britain has the option of not fucking with the small kid on the block, or unleashing it's furry on them. America won it's revolution with Frances big stick standing behind us. History happened the way it did because of the two super powers at the time decided to tiff about us, not necessarily because we decided to make a tiff about it. I love my country but damn do Americans need to be reminded of this shit.

Change it a bit and it means little, the USofA can't do jack and shit at this time against the super powers.

[Sea Skimmer]

It could never happen. Nothing can remove the roadblock of the American population having no damn interest in allying with England against France when the dead from the Revolution are still freshly buried! If the American government made such a foolish move the most likely result would be the immediate calling of a new constitutional convention, and the disbandment of the federal government in the interim. That government was literally a year old in 1788, and very hard pressed to get itself formed in the first place. Making such an absurdly radical move before the Bill of Rights was even passed isn’t happening. In fact the US government did very little before those amendments were made because the acceptance of the constitution was largely conditional of them being added.

[Knife]

Not true, a strong sentiment was there, mainly Hamilton. Plenty of folk saw this way, we call them federalists. True, anti federalists got their turn under the Jefferson administration but it took a while and proved wrong with Jefferson's increasing federalism in his administration.

[Sea Skimmer]

Not true, a strong sentiment was there, mainly Hamilton.

So one person is a strong sentiment in a fairly disunited nation of millions? Yeah that’s awful strong. Hamilton’s own party meanwhile was in fact very deeply split on the issue. When you can’t even get your own party inline and are against the sitting president, how do you get a whole nation behind you? It’s not going to happen unless a French fleet appears and burns down Boston. As it was we didn’t even launch the war of 1812 against the hated British until over FIFTEEN YEARS of British impressments of American sailors, not to mention the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair when the British acutally attacked as US warship and on top of all that about five years of heavy restrictions on the movements of American ships running out to the declaration of war. France demanding a bribe is nothing compared to all that.

Plenty of folk saw this way, we call them federalists. True, anti federalists got their turn under the Jefferson administration but it took a while and proved wrong with Jefferson's increasing federalism in his administration.

Federalists support the idea of a strong central government. Many of them supported it specifically because only with a strong government could US be strong enough to keep itself out of European Wars. The amounts of money ultimately spent on ships vs. troops and fortifications in reply to the Quasi War reflect this. Ships got the short end, even though they were absurdly more relevant to the conflict.

It is a huge fucking leap to go from that to supporting the idea of immediately turning around and attacking a former ally when 250,000 Americans just got killed a few years ago. George Washington was a key part of the success of the federalists getting the constitution accepted… and guess what George Washington also issued a Proclamation of Neutrality in 1793 specifically concerning the conflict between the British and French. This was formalized by Congress as the Neutrality Act of 1794. Meanwhile the formal defensive alliance with France remained in effect until 1798.

[Straha]

Not just Hamilton (and the Secretary of State, and a number of other politicians on top of that) but Adams as well, and he even said outright that he thought it would be in the best interest of the nation during a conversation with Robert Liston, the British Ambassador to the U.S. And said

If all depended on him, Adams said, he would enter into a temporary alliance without scruple or loss of time. The nature of the constitution, however, compelled him to wait until such a commitment could gain the approbation of the people, who were now deliberating over it.

On top of that the United States was already borrowing cannons from British forces based in Nova Scotia, while the British armed American privateers in English ports and gave convoy protection to American ships. While the French and Americans fought a Quasi-War the British and the Americans had a de facto quasi-Alliance.


As for Washington, he had accepted command of the recently raised American army, gave some militant counsel to Adams, engaged in Adams' trooping militarism (appearing publicly and during addresses in the Senate at Adams' side in full military dress), and he didn't argue directly for peace negotiations with France until 1799, well after the war fervour had cooled down. Moreover, he requested Alexander Hamilton, the most fervent war hawk, as his second-in-command and then fought for his appointment even when Adams didn't want to give the post to him. He then kept Hamilton there even when Alexander was arguing for invading Louisiana and other Spanish held territories. Ironically enough, this may have been what killed the chances for a real war because Adams didn't want to give Hamilton, his political enemy, any chance for real military glory.



EDIT: Of course, as the original post makes clear, the title is a typo and should read 1798. My apologies for that. Also, fixed some minor things when I hit submit instead of preview.