What if Canada joined the American Revolution?

[Skallagrim]

The Nipissing Line - is this a NS or WE line?
If NS - the US would get land to the west OR east of it - I'm very confused ...

It is a border following the Ottawa River and then cutting to Lake Nipissing. See this map:

In this scenario, the border would run from (as things are marked on the map) Cornwall on the St. Lawerence, to the river bend just South-West of Ottawa, then along the Ottawa River, then straight West to Lake Nipissing.

Some leeway exists for specific negotiations. The 1763 border gave a line running South of the Ottowa River, cutting from the St. Lawrence to Lake Nipissing in a straight line. Quebec would be pushing for that (so they control the Ottawa River). They may wellget their way on that.

West of Lake Nipissing, things are open to interpretation. That map I linked in post #3 shows that as of 1774, the British marked the difference between Canada and Prince Rupert's Land (a.k.a. the Hudson Bay territory) as following the watersheds. In the ATL negotiations, the USA will want all of "1774 Canada" that doesn't become Quebec.

The British, conversely, can argue "we keep the Great Lakes coastline West of Lake Nipissing and South-East of Lake of the Woods." This, however, may not be attractive to Britain. The only way to get there directly would be through Prince Rupert's Land, which is a ludicrous wilderness trek. I'm confident that Britain would cede the entire Great Lakes coastal region to the USA, in exchange for free civilian access to the Great Lakes. (That's smarter than doggedly insisting on keeping your shitty strip of coastline in the middle of nowhere, and subsequently not getting free access to the Lakes via the USA and Quebec.)

As I've reasoned before, it's in fact quite realistic that Britain might unload all of Prince Rupert's Land on the USA. There are loads of highly attractive trade concessions et cetera that you can get in exchange, after all. With the Maritimes lost, Rupert's Land would appear basically unprofitable. (Because getting there would be borderline impossible, except via the USA. While the British will no doubt demand -- and get -- unimpeded trade acces, the simple fact is that America will have the demographic adavantage and will be much closer. So even if Britain keeps Rupert's Land... it'll be inhabited by an overwhelming American majority in a matter of decades.)

I agree with @stevep that Britain will probably keep Newfoundland, though. I hadn't given that much thought, but keeping it is more sensible than giving it away. They only want it for the fishing rights, so it costs nothing to keep. If the USA is friendly, you won't even have to protect it, really.

I still think Britain would keep Newfoundland for its economic value, i.e. the Grand Banks. Its possible they might make a deal with the US, possibly with France being squeezed out? However could they trust the US who went back on a number of agreements in this time period. [For instance refusing compensation for loyalists who choose to resettle and then after 1814 blocking British trade up the Mississippi].

They may not squeeze France out -- they didn't even in OTL -- but I think that if Quebec is independent, it'll side with Britain and the USA against the French Republic. Quebec was conservative and monarchist; they'd hate Robespierre and his bullshit. So a possible outcome is that St. Pierre & Miquelon are handed over to Quebec during the wars.

As far as trusting the USA in concerned: this would, by default, be a USA politically dominated by the pro-British faction. You basically get a bunch more Federalist states, and also pretty much all loyalists are now US citizens. The compensation for loyalists was one thing Franklin was willing to negotiate on, so this scenario (esp. with those loyalists set to become US citizens), I can see the USA being reasonable about that. The messing with British trade (and in fact the whole War of 1812 debacle) was a result of Democratic-Republican policies. They were pro-Republican France. They won't be in power in this ATL. Jefferson and Madison will never be President.

I think the result of this scenario is that the 'era of good feelings' between the USA and Britain simply starts in 1782. And it'll be friendlier than in OTL.

 

[Buba]

At that time - and for two generations in the future - Rupert's Land was accessed by sea. During those 4-5 months when it was possible
It was as good as an island, as getting to it from the south sucked balls.
I'm not sure that it'd even register on the radar of American expansionists - I'd expect it to be perceived among entities such as Greenland or Alaska ...
There'd be no American majority there, as it was - and is to this day - mostly swampland covered by taiga and tundra (a little bit in the extreme south/SW is a steppe, I admit, and partly in the USA ).

 

[Skallagrim]

At that time - and for two generations in the future - Rupert's Land was accessed by sea. During those 4-5 months when it was possible
It was as good as an island, as getting to it from the south sucked balls.
I'm not sure that it'd even register on the radar of American expansionists - I'd expect it to be perceived among entities such as Greenland or Alaska ...
There'd be no American majority there, as it was - and is to this day - mostly swampland covered by taiga and tundra (a little bit in the extreme south/SW is a steppe, I admit, and partly in the USA ).

I agree that it's very inaccessible. Getting there via the Bay was difficult; and although getting there via the interial surelely did suck balls... it was still the preferred method. The Great Lakes and various rivers were the best routes of approach. Those our now no longer in British hands, hence my estimation that Rupert's Land has largely become useless to Britain.

Although settling there is not going to be a big thing, Rupert's Land was used for getting furs and some other lucrative stuff. The same people involved in that business will keep doing it. Most of them will just be US citizens in this ATL, whereas they were proto-Canadians in OTL.

An American majority will therefore be the default. In a barekly settled region, a small population is a majority. It'll take a few decades to build up, because the Quebecois and the Metis are also represented in the region, as well as the British (via various Huson Bay Compnay factories -- meaning trade posts -- along the Bay's coast). All these will remain, the British presumably guaranteed continued access for all private traders. Nevertheless, after a few decades, the Americans will become the demographic majority -- same reason the Anglo-Canadians gradually became the majority in Ontario and regions beyond in OTL, instead of those areas ending up Quebecois-majority or Metis-majority.

Naturally, even if the ATL USA extends all the way to the Arctic, it's Great White North is still going to be very, very empty. (Given a presumed Federalist dominance in this USA, it may be even emptier than in OTL, since such a USA would see more urbanisation, and less of a Westward drive. The East Coast might be more populated, and the interior less populated.)

 

[Buba]

A USA gets Rupert Land scenario opens a new possibility for canal building.
I once asked about canals - or making rivers navigable - between Lake Winnipeg and either Hudson Bay or Lake Superior. And thus move praire grown grain by barge and not rail.
Knowledgeable People pointed out to me that it would be easiest to connect Lake Winnipeg to the ... Missouri

EDIT: in the last sentence replace Missouri with Mississippi.

 

[Skallagrim]

A USA gets Rupert Land scenario opens a new possibility for canal building.
I once asked about canals - or making rivers navigable - between Lake Winnipeg and either Hudson Bay or Lake Superior. And thus move praire grown grain by barge and not rail.
Knowledgeable People pointed out to me that it would be easiest to connect Lake Winnipeg to the ... Missouri

That's interesting. What route makes sense, there? I assume the idea is Assiniboine-Souris, and then a canal from the Souris to Lake Sakakawea?

An alternative might be following the Red River and then the Bois de Sioux to Lake Traverse, and then a canal to Big Stone Lake. From there, you have access to the Minnesota. I'm not sure if the Bois de Sioux has the required capacity. If it does, that seems easier than using the Missouri. But that's an open question for me.

 

[Buba]

Yes, the Traverse Gap was suggested.
Sorry - I got my Mississippi and Missouri mixed up

 

[Skallagrim]

Aha, so that's connecting to the Minnesota, not the Missouri. If that's viable capacity-wise, that does seem like a pretty interesting option.

We should keepin mind the area wasn't even surveyed until the decades after the Civil War in OTL. If the USA is oriented in a more North-Western direction (due to no Mexican Cession, which is credible) then some exploration mission to these parts may occur earlier. Making a canal there won't be a realistic option before the early 20th century, though. (Just not enough people around to do it any earlier.)

 

[Buba]

True that there might never be need for a Traverse Gap Canal due to low quantity of exportable produce from the Red River basin.

The Nipissing Line - IMO it completely guts Canada/Quebec and condemns it to a backwater.
Something which might not be apparent c.1780, though.

BTW - for all we know ITTL Louisiana will end up in British hands and the USA will never reach from sea to shinning sea ...

 

[Skallagrim]

True that there might never be need for a Traverse Gap Canal due to low quantity of exportable produce from the Red River basin.

The Nipissing Line - IMO it completely guts Canada/Quebec and condemns it to a backwater.
Something which might not be apparent c.1780, though.

BTW - for all we know ITTL Louisiana will end up in British hands and the USA will never reach from sea to shinning sea ...

Quebec is going to be a US vassal forever, basically. As long as there's trade, they're not going to be poor because of it. (nd if they're smart, they can clevery use their 'little brother' position in the modern era, by having low corporate taxes and/or Swiss-like banking laws. They can be to the USA what Switzerland is to the EU.)

Louisiana in British hands is... kind of doubtful. Napoleon wanted to sell it in OTL because holding it would be a nightmare anyway. While Britain won't have a Haiti-analogue fresh in the memory, and does possess Jamaica in the region, it's unlikely the British will want all Lousiana. Even the USA actually wanted to just buy New Orleans, but Nappy insisted on "all or nothing".

An interesting alternative would be if the vast interior goes to the USA, but New Orleans becomes an Anglo-American free port, run by a joint commission, to ensure that American and British traders both have unfettered access to the whole watershed. If relations between the two countries are good (and this would presumably be happening after they jointly fought France and Spain, so that's a 'yes'), this would probably be feasible.

 

[Buba]

Jolly good idea - Quebec could make a killing on the Seaway (which will be built at some point) and providing its bigger neighbour with services which for whatever reason are not available there.

Well, at this point of time Louisiana is Spanish.
I could be jumping the gun in seeing it as British.
Holding it was difficult for a France at war with Britain ... if, a big IF, France gets it and is not at war with Britain, holding it against the USA is not a problem.
Spain not wrecked by the French Revolutionary&Napoleonic Wars - which might not happen - also can preserve against the USA, in the early XIXth century at least.

As to New Orleans - my favourite "joke scenario" is the city going to the USA while the right bank goes to somebody else. And that somebody else clears the logjam on the river with the unpronounceable name starting with A and accidentally makes the Mississippi change course ...

Atchafalaya River - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ATP]

So,let assume that Canada minus Quebec joined,they get Fllorida and Louisiana,but not Mexico lands,and they are friendly with England.And that they have bigger army and fleet.

What it means later ?
No cyvil war,or smaller one.
Still 1898 war with Spain,Mexico still end in ruins,USA still get Alasca, still WW1 war just like OTL - They could decide to crush soviets instead of help them - if so,big change amd no commie genocides.
but after WW1 USA keep stronger army and fleet.


As a result,more battleships allowed for everyone in Washington treaty.

WW2 - they sold more weapons to France,maybe some to Poland,Belgium,Greece and Holland - but nothing change.
Did USA provoke Japan to attack like in OTL,and gave everything to soviets ? if not,we have another real changes.

 

[lordhen]

During the Treaty of Paris negotiations there was a map made by the British, not shown to the Americans, called the red-lined map it showered the border America could have had if they knew about it and with it America could have part of Canada.

 

[stevep]

So,let assume that Canada minus Quebec joined,they get Fllorida and Louisiana,but not Mexico lands,and they are friendly with England.And that they have bigger army and fleet.

What it means later ?
No cyvil war,or smaller one.
Still 1898 war with Spain,Mexico still end in ruins,USA still get Alasca, still WW1 war just like OTL - They could decide to crush soviets instead of help them - if so,big change amd no commie genocides.
but after WW1 USA keep stronger army and fleet.


As a result,more battleships allowed for everyone in Washington treaty.

WW2 - they sold more weapons to France,maybe some to Poland,Belgium,Greece and Holland - but nothing change.
Did USA provoke Japan to attack like in OTL,and gave everything to soviets ? if not,we have another real changes.

I think your assuming far too much in events parallying OTL. We're going to see no end of butterflies even assuming things go as Skallagrim thinks. Possibly, assuming the French revolution still occurs and you get a military dictator like Napoleon it might not necessarily be him. A different French emperor might either be less militarily successfully or less reckless than Nappy and end up maintaining control of France, albeit somewhat smaller than OTL 1812 France. Which would generate huge butterflies in itself. A hell of a lot can happen in a century or so.

 

[Skallagrim]

Well, at this point of time Louisiana is Spanish.
I could be jumping the gun in seeing it as British.
Holding it was difficult for a France at war with Britain ... if, a big IF, France gets it and is not at war with Britain, holding it against the USA is not a problem.
Spain not wrecked by the French Revolutionary&Napoleonic Wars - which might not happen - also can preserve against the USA, in the early XIXth century at least.

France was in dire financial trouble. If the French Revolution is averted, then the next war will certainly involve (monarchist) France and Spain allied against some coalition involving Britain. The USA being allied to Britain, this will be an opportunity to grab anything French or Spanish they can get. (Note that Jefferson sought to buy land, but Hamilton openly advocated taking it by force. That was the Federalist view, and that'll be dominant here -- meaning also a stronger US military from the start.) France will still be fiscally shaky, and the Spanish Empire was... poorly governed at this time. I see them tied up in Europe, and unable to project much power in the Americas.

If the French Revolution happens and Nappy (or someone like him) shows up, you have good odds he'll make a move on Spain and force them to ally with France. Then we have casus belli, too.

Only if the French Revolution is crushed early on do we get a better scenario for Spain. They keep Louisiana, and might be able to hang onto their Empire for longer. But still, the "Far North" was always a backwater to them, super-sparsely settled. The simple reality of Americans trekking West (even if in relatively moderate numbers) will ensure that the USA gets at least a good but of the Louisiana Country when the Spanish Empire eventually starts crumbling at the edges...

As to New Orleans - my favourite "joke scenario" is the city going to the USA while the right bank goes to somebody else. And that somebody else clears the logjam on the river with the unpronounceable name starting with A and the Mississippi changes course ...

That would be pretty dramatic. Would ruin New Orleans as a city, obviously. Major problem: the new mouth of the river will by 'coughing up' mud for a while. It'll be a huge, swampy mess for years -- if not decades. You're basically ruining the Mississipi River for everybody for a while, just to spite the USA. That's... well, a bit of an excessive move!

So,let assume that Canada minus Quebec joined,they get Fllorida and Louisiana,but not Mexico lands,and they are friendly with England.And that they have bigger army and fleet.

What it means later ?
No cyvil war,or smaller one.

I'm going to side-step the latter ideas, because those assume a lot of covergence between OTL and the ATL. As Steve points out, that's not plausible.

But the note about the Civil War is interesting. America still has its built-in slavery problem. With much more of a "North", it's going to be clear which way the wind is blowing. I suspect this may lead the slave states to seek assurances. So on the one hand, I think that slavery can be kept from expanding West. Maybe it can even be kept East of the Appalachians (which was actually proposed). But at the same time, when the day comes to replace the Articles of Confederation with a more tightly-organised Constitution, the slave states (in this situation) will near-certainly insist that their 'peculiar insitution' is given iron-clad protection.

Various outcomes are possible, depending on how this matter is handled. On the extreme side, it's possible that the slave states don't get the assurances they want, and refuse to ratify the Constitution at all. At this early stage, it's still very widely assumed that the Union is fully voluntary. So that could mean the slave states split off and become a separate country early on. But that's pretty unlikely.

More probably, the slave states will get Constitutional guarantees, and it'll be a difficult political knot to untie a century or so down the line.

During the Treaty of Paris negotiations there was a map made by the British, not shown to the Americans, called the red-lined map it showered the border America could have had if they knew about it and with it America could have part of Canada.

This is very interesting. I didn't know they considered giving away this much. To be fair, though, this was presumably something that would only be on the table as an ultimate concession, in return for major counter-concessions elsewhere. (Not necessarily territorial ones. More financial ones.)

Do note that the interpretation of this map given in the thread you link is certainly incorrect: there's a close-up of this map right here. You can see that the line marked (by George III) as being mr. Oswald's boundary actually wraps around Maine, and then (barily visible & smudged) traces the border of Quebec.

This means that the Maritimes and Newfoundland were not meant to be included in the offer. The British were willing to offload Quebec on the USA, but not their more valuable (and loyal) possessions. This is also, no doubt, why they keep Rupert's Land in the proposal on this map. If they keep the Maritimes and Newfoundland, they have at least some realistic way of getting there. And of projecting naval power, since they'll have Halifax.

In the context of this thread -- assuming that Quebec and the Maritimes are lost to Britain -- we may be confident that Britain would offload Rupert's Land, too. They'll probably keep Newfoundland for the fishing rights, and that'll be that. After all, if they were considering this much in OTL, there's no way they're going to try and keep as much as they can when 99% of inhabited/explored British North America has already declared independence.

 

[ATP]

I think your assuming far too much in events parallying OTL. We're going to see no end of butterflies even assuming things go as Skallagrim thinks. Possibly, assuming the French revolution still occurs and you get a military dictator like Napoleon it might not necessarily be him. A different French emperor might either be less militarily successfully or less reckless than Nappy and end up maintaining control of France, albeit somewhat smaller than OTL 1812 France. Which would generate huge butterflies in itself. A hell of a lot can happen in a century or so.

Indeed.We would have other wars then WW1 and WW2,probably.At least there would be no commies here.

 

[Val the Moofia Boss]

This USA will have land enough. It's economic expansion will be more of an urbanisation than a major land-grab like the Mexican Purchase. I don't think even Texas will be tempting enough. (Especially not if the slave power already got some Caribbean slave states earlier.)

Regarding slavery: I expect the North will be able (and willing) to force it to be formally contained much earlier. Ohio Country will be free soil, no doubt. West of the Mississippi, they may just go back to the Mason-Dixon line, and extend that to the USA's Western border. With further expansion off the table, that'll essentially "solve" the slavery issue for a long time. There will be a bloc of slave states, but they won't be expanding, and they'll never get anything like the Taney Court, so no moving slaves into (or even through) free states.

Eventually, there will still be a clash over the issue. The proximate causes will be different, though.

I'd argue that close British-US relations would result in the US navy becoming weaker than it was OTL. In OTL, up until the ACW, Congress just didn't really care about the navy. They just wanted a barely large enough navy to deter invasion from a European power (Britain/France/Spain), and that was it. And Congress didn't even fully fund that barely large enough navy; they cheaped out (only 1 of the 6 proposed ships of the line were produced, not to be confused with the 6 frigates).

With close British-US relations, the US would need not worry about any invasion from European powers. So the US would only really bother with a coast guard to ward off pirates and to collect taxes, etc.

If the US doesn't go to war with Mexico, and if the Civil War is less severe (either because of the North's sheer advantage, so that the South is defeated/concedes more quickly, or the South doesn't make a move in the first place), then the US won't have built up momentum, a conquest mentality, and a preexisting war machine in place to go on a full blown colonialism spree after the ACW. That means no conquest of the Philippines, Japan, Korea, or the rest of the Pacific (or it won't be anywhere near as extensive). Which means the US economy won't boom as much from reaping tribute from their colonies and exporting goods to them. Which means that the US won't have as much of a built up infrastructure by the time WW1 rolls around. Whichever side the US supports in WW1 (probably the side Britain is on), that side isn't going to have nearly as much of a resource advantage, and won't have a large enough advantage to win the war of attrition. So the war will drag out, far more people will die, and there won't be a decisive victory. A truce will signed, and the post-war period without the consolation of a decisive victory will be much, much more bitter. Without one side being totally quashed (indeed, both sides might actually gain territory), then there might be much more war in Europe as nations feel that getting into a war during the modern period won't be an existential threat to their existence. It could feel like a continuation of the Napoleonic period.

With little to no US presence in the Pacific, that leaves the door open for Britain or Russia to take it over. Whichever side takes over the Pacific will wind up richer and more militarily powerful (due to have to build up a navy to conquer and hold those islands and protect their trade over there), and thus more likely to emerge on top in WW1 and as the dominant world power. Mainland America will probably never be threatened by invasion, but they won't be running the show like in OTL.

 

[Buba]

Which means that the US won't have as much of a built up infrastructure by the time WW1 rolls around.

What do you mean by "infrastructure"?
In terms of armaments industry in 1914 the USA was in the neighbourhood of Italy or Japan (if not lower) - and then tried (and largely failed) to expand in 1917-18.

This means that the Maritimes and Newfoundland were not meant to be included in the offer. The British were willing to offload Quebec on the USA, but not their more valuable (and loyal) possessions. This is also, no doubt, why they keep Rupert's Land in the proposal on this map.

Nice to see my suspicions confirmed

 

[Skallagrim]

I'd argue that close British-US relations would result in the US navy becoming weaker than it was OTL. In OTL, up until the ACW, Congress just didn't really care about the navy. They just wanted a barely large enough navy to deter invasion from a European power (Britain/France/Spain), and that was it. And Congress didn't even fully fund that barely large enough navy; they cheaped out (only 1 of the 6 proposed ships of the line were produced, not to be confused with the 6 frigates).

With close British-US relations, the US would need not worry about any invasion from European powers. So the US would only really bother with a coast guard to ward off pirates and to collect taxes, etc.

One thing to consider is that "screw the navy, we don't need that kind of militarism, we'll just have a coast guard" was very much a Jeffersonian policy. Somewhat ironic, since Jefferson was also the guy who wanted to remain in opposition to Britain (the world's foremost naval power), but his ideas here stemmed from his general opposition to centralised military power of any kind.

More Northern states = more Federalist states, and those guys wanted... well, primarily more of an army, but they also favoured more investment in the navy. Good Anglo-American relations means the OTL impressment controversy never comes up, so a navy to combat Britain is utterly pointless, but the same premise means no move to maybe ally with France. (Which, again, was Jefferson's thing, because long live all revolutions ever.) This means we'll see the USA siding with Britain against Republican France, which means open naval conflict instead of the Quasi-War. So I daresay the need for a navy is demonstrated early on, i.e. to protect American shipping from French raiding. (Britain will be friendly, but they won't just be going out of their way to protect American ships out of the goodness of their hearts. So America will need to defend its own shipping. Hence, America needs a navy.)

It won't be powerful, but I think it'll be stronger than in OTL's situation.

If the US doesn't go to war with Mexico, and if the Civil War is less severe (either because of the North's sheer advantage, so that the South is defeated/concedes more quickly, or the South doesn't make a move in the first place),

I'm still not clear on how this would plsy out, but "no Civil War" is considerably more probable in this scenario. Either because the South splits very early on (in a time where a war to crush a peaceful secession would simply not be accepted by the wider Northern public), or because the South gets constitutional guarantees, and abolishing slavery eventually becomes a long legal battle involving constitutional amendments and federal compensation for planters.

then the US won't have built up momentum, a conquest mentality, and a preexisting war machine in place to go on a full blown colonialism spree after the ACW. That means no conquest of the Philippines, Japan, Korea, or the rest of the Pacific (or it won't be anywhere near as extensive).

With little to no US presence in the Pacific, that leaves the door open for Britain or Russia to take it over. Whichever side takes over the Pacific will wind up richer and more militarily powerful (due to have to build up a navy to conquer and hold those islands and protect their trade over there), and thus more likely to emerge on top in WW1 and as the dominant world power.

I agree that there would be far less of a militarist build-up in the latter 19th century, without the Civil War as an, ah... "learning experience". On the other hand, an ATL without much Jeffersonianism means that the kind of centralist tendencies (and a move towards ever bigger government) would succeed earlier. Albeit more gadually. This kind of thinking informed the Federalists, and later the 19th century Republicans. It would be more of a norm in this ATL.

One might expect the USA to become more of an economic power-house, instead of becoming a military superpower. The USA might well end up being one half of a world-dominating Anglo-American alliance.

As far as Pacific influence goes: I'd expect the USA to still get the Pacific North-West (as well as OTL British Columbia, and probably Aslaska) by demographic default. But without California, the American presence in the Pacific will be limited. Hawaii will remain "the Sandwich Islands (GB)" in this ATL.

Which means the US economy won't boom as much from reaping tribute from their colonies and exporting goods to them. Which means that the US won't have as much of a built up infrastructure

Mainland America will probably never be threatened by invasion, but they won't be running the show like in OTL.

Industrialisation and modern capitalism in general will be much bigger early on, though. I don't see the USA suffering economically, compared to OTL.

by the time WW1 rolls around. Whichever side the US supports in WW1 (probably the side Britain is on), that side isn't going to have nearly as much of a resource advantage, and won't have a large enough advantage to win the war of attrition. So the war will drag out, far more people will die, and there won't be a decisive victory. A truce will signed, and the post-war period without the consolation of a decisive victory will be much, much more bitter. Without one side being totally quashed (indeed, both sides might actually gain territory), then there might be much more war in Europe as nations feel that getting into a war during the modern period won't be an existential threat to their existence. It could feel like a continuation of the Napoleonic period.

I don't think that there will be a World War I as we know it. The last line about developments feeling more like a continuation of the Napoleonic period is very accurate, though. Europeans also learned some things from observing the American Civil War in OTL, after all.

 

[ATP]

If USA have alliance with England,then they would support their politic of defeating every country which become strong enough to conqer Europe.
And since England would not support french revolution here,/they did it in OTL till 1791 as revenge dir french support for USA/ we probably would never have it.Without revolution,18th century could last to our days.
Not bad thing to happen.

 

[stevep]

If USA have alliance with England,then they would support their politic of defeating every country which become strong enough to conqer Europe.
And since England would not support french revolution here,/they did it in OTL till 1791 as revenge dir french support for USA/ we probably would never have it.Without revolution,18th century could last to our days.
Not bad thing to happen.

I can't see any alliance for the US in this period being linked to areas outside the immediate NA area. Other than possibly for trade protection elsewhere.

The French revolution was initially seen as weakening France by conservatives elsewhere while it gained a fair measure of support by the more liberal elements in Britain. Then it started going into the terror period which alienated most of those liberals and after the aborted Austro-Prussian intervention it suddenly started on an expansion spree which was when Britain moved clearly into the opposing camp. I very much doubt the US in this scenario would have had much involvement other than for trade protection and attempts to seize French colonies while it [and others] were occupied elsewhere. Later Spanish ones if/when Spain ends up allied to France.

That raises the question of a possible American Caribbean empire if they start picking up islands like Guadalupe or Martinique and then possibly latter Haiti, Dominican Republic or Cuba sometime around 1800. Those were very valuable properties at the time and would have boosted the power and influence of slavery in the republic even if as colonies rather than states they wouldn't have come under any 3/5ths rule and hence increased the voting power of the slave states.

One good side for Britain [as well as obviously the US] of this would be that bases for French privateers would be removed somewhat earlier. Although if there's some equivalent of the Peace of Ameins would the US be willing to give up any such gains? If so would they continue to be at war with republican/imperial France when Britain made peace?