WI: Feuillants prevail in the French Revolution

[Circle of Willis]

The most famous factions of the French Revolution's chaotic early years were the radical Jacobins and their slightly less radical Girondin rivals, who they destroyed in the Terror. However, long under-discussed in the threads on the Revolution that I have seen over the years were the Feuillants, a group of moderate constitutional-monarchists whose leaders included no less than the Marquis de Lafayette, famous for aiding the American Revolution (in which he basically became a surrogate son to George Washington, and named one of his own sons after his honorary father in turn) and for leading the French National Guard starting on the day after the Storming of the Bastille. These guys actually had a lot of influence in the first two or so years of the Revolutionary period (a lot more than one might think from how often they're overshadowed by the Jacobins/Girondins), but fell out of favor with the French public between the Flight to Varennes and the eruption of hostilities with the First Coalition. Lafayette himself had to surrender to the Austrians so his own countrymen wouldn't kill him, which was what happened to fellow Feuillant leader Antoine Barnave among others.

So - how can the Feuillants be made to prevail over all comers, charting a middle course for France that gives way to neither the all-consuming fires of revolution desired by the Jacobins nor to the reversion to absolutism sought out by the hard-line ultra-royalists? And how different would the world look with the French Revolution's biggest names being Lafayette, Barnave and Mirebeau rather than the likes of Robespierre, Marat and Saint-Just?

 

[stevep]

Now that's an interesting idea. It might be difficult because in times of acute conflict, both physical and social moderate elements tend to be squeezed out by the extremists on either/both flanks. Also were they intent on keeping Louis XVI as the constitutional monarch? Having a quick look at his wiki entry for some basic background he seems to have some interest in reform early on but that was stifled by opposition from the aristocratic and clerical establishment and he was hencefore too tightly bound to the ancient regime. You would need him to be persuaded to make a clear break with the existing establishment and openly support reform including a restricted and constitutional monarchy. Which could be a big ask. Would definitely need to avoid his OTL flight to Varennes in June 1791.

If you did do it however then while there would be rocky times ahead for France it could have some interesting developments. Also it would gain continued support from reformers in Britain although whether that would strengthen them or prompt a stronger reaction from the establishment over the channel could go either way.

However a France which manages to gain a level of stability with a limited monarchy and some parliamentary system could see a lot of developments socially and economically and without the OTL devastation's in the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars could be a lot richer and more powerful. Which would be a major challenge both to the developing industrial revolution in Britain and also the old system across much of the rest of the continent. How they react to those challenges and what level of conflict could develop is difficult to say but a France that combined its own unified strength, a more open route for talent to develop and still have a lot of experienced generals and commanders plus their improved artillery that was being developed before the revolution its likely to be able to really hammer unreformed rivals on the continent.

 

[Circle of Willis]

Agreed that the key to a Feuillant success would be to have L16 not nuke his own credibility with the Flight to Varennes and in general maintain a more compromising attitude. Even the Women's March on Versailles which directly precipitated the Flight wasn't all bad for the mainline Bourbons, since it gave Marie Antoinette a chance to impress the revolutionaries with her dignified posturing to the point that the mob ended up yelling 'Vive le Reine' for some time. Maybe having the Duke of Orleans actually turn out to have helped engineer the Women's March, as some conspiracy theories suggest, and Lafayette chewing him out over it (on top of helping to defuse the situation as he did historically) would get the King to trust the latter more and feel safer leaving himself & his family under the Marquis' protection?

I feel like France making the successful jump to a constitutional monarchy without all the worst tumult & excesses of the revolution would definitely help it remain the continent's premier power in the 19th century, if not outright turn that century (in hindsight the prelude to the protracted and painful decline of the 20th) into a France-wank. Hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen who historically died over the course of the Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars would still be alive to have kids of their own (as well as their opponents/victims of course) - might France avert its demographic decline and remain a powerhouse population-wise? If France's switch to moderate constitutionalism helps it reconcile with Britain you'd also have the makings of a second Diplomatic Revolution, one which could produce a Franco-British block that'd basically be unbeatable for most if not all of the 19th century. (Well, if the HRE reforms to form an alternate unified Germany that teams up with Russia they'd have a worthy opponent, but that's about all I can imagine in terms of alternative counterweights to such a powerful coalition)

Lots of territorial changes with the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars being avoided, as well - no mediatization of Germany, no Belgium (just a longer-lasting Austrian Netherlands), no end to the Italian republics, even continued Papal rule over the Comtat Venaissin, etc. Not to say that these can't be undone in a later war of course, but any such drastic territorial changes will have been put off for years if not decades at the earliest with the Revolution avoided and mass conscript armies not displacing the small professional ones of the 'cabinet wars' (and the trend of wars being such relatively limited affairs in the first place) at the turn of the century. Also America wouldn't be able to grab the Louisiana Territory (not even French at the time of the Revolution itself, it was still Spanish then) nor would the various Latin American wars of independence happen without the turbulence of the Rev/Napoleonic Wars and their horrible impact on Spain.

 

[Sergeant Foley]

The most famous factions of the French Revolution's chaotic early years were the radical Jacobins and their slightly less radical Girondin rivals, who they destroyed in the Terror. However, long under-discussed in the threads on the Revolution that I have seen over the years were the Feuillants, a group of moderate constitutional-monarchists whose leaders included no less than the Marquis de Lafayette, famous for aiding the American Revolution (in which he basically became a surrogate son to George Washington, and named one of his own sons after his honorary father in turn) and for leading the French National Guard starting on the day after the Storming of the Bastille. These guys actually had a lot of influence in the first two or so years of the Revolutionary period (a lot more than one might think from how often they're overshadowed by the Jacobins/Girondins), but fell out of favor with the French public between the Flight to Varennes and the eruption of hostilities with the First Coalition. Lafayette himself had to surrender to the Austrians so his own countrymen wouldn't kill him, which was what happened to fellow Feuillant leader Antoine Barnave among others.

So - how can the Feuillants be made to prevail over all comers, charting a middle course for France that gives way to neither the all-consuming fires of revolution desired by the Jacobins nor to the reversion to absolutism sought out by the hard-line ultra-royalists? And how different would the world look with the French Revolution's biggest names being Lafayette, Barnave and Mirebeau rather than the likes of Robespierre, Marat and Saint-Just?

Morning. Subscribed and I am looking forward to reading more of this timeline

 

[stevep]

Agreed that the key to a Feuillant success would be to have L16 not nuke his own credibility with the Flight to Varennes and in general maintain a more compromising attitude. Even the Women's March on Versailles which directly precipitated the Flight wasn't all bad for the mainline Bourbons, since it gave Marie Antoinette a chance to impress the revolutionaries with her dignified posturing to the point that the mob ended up yelling 'Vive le Reine' for some time. Maybe having the Duke of Orleans actually turn out to have helped engineer the Women's March, as some conspiracy theories suggest, and Lafayette chewing him out over it (on top of helping to defuse the situation as he did historically) would get the King to trust the latter more and feel safer leaving himself & his family under the Marquis' protection?

I feel like France making the successful jump to a constitutional monarchy without all the worst tumult & excesses of the revolution would definitely help it remain the continent's premier power in the 19th century, if not outright turn that century (in hindsight the prelude to the protracted and painful decline of the 20th) into a France-wank. Hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen who historically died over the course of the Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars would still be alive to have kids of their own (as well as their opponents/victims of course) - might France avert its demographic decline and remain a powerhouse population-wise? If France's switch to moderate constitutionalism helps it reconcile with Britain you'd also have the makings of a second Diplomatic Revolution, one which could produce a Franco-British block that'd basically be unbeatable for most if not all of the 19th century. (Well, if the HRE reforms to form an alternate unified Germany that teams up with Russia they'd have a worthy opponent, but that's about all I can imagine in terms of alternative counterweights to such a powerful coalition)

Lots of territorial changes with the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars being avoided, as well - no mediatization of Germany, no Belgium (just a longer-lasting Austrian Netherlands), no end to the Italian republics, even continued Papal rule over the Comtat Venaissin, etc. Not to say that these can't be undone in a later war of course, but any such drastic territorial changes will have been put off for years if not decades at the earliest with the Revolution avoided and mass conscript armies not displacing the small professional ones of the 'cabinet wars' (and the trend of wars being such relatively limited affairs in the first place) at the turn of the century. Also America wouldn't be able to grab the Louisiana Territory (not even French at the time of the Revolution itself, it was still Spanish then) nor would the various Latin American wars of independence happen without the turbulence of the Rev/Napoleonic Wars and their horrible impact on Spain.

In general agreement although I think that the changes in France would still spur a new wave of nationalism on the continent, albeit almost certainly a lot slower.

Ditto with the Spanish empire in the Americas as without serious reform inside Spain itself its going to continue to both decline and increasingly alienate its subjects in the new world. Although how long that would last and how it would end I don't know. It might even fall a bit earlier if some sort of autocratic reaction to the revolution prompts a major war between France/Britain and the rest of the great powers. In that case Spain is likely to be trashed, at least as a power in the Americas and Britain, France and probably even an opportunist US would seek to end the empire so they could trade with/expand into. [Although given that Prussia and Russia had an higher priority in the Polish partitions that coalition could fail to develop or be some time in coming].

Not sure that a Franco-British alliance would be long lasting however as a France as powerful as you suggest would still be a major threat to Britain if the other continental powers were seriously humbled and the two nations had spent over a century as bitter rivals so that's another issue. There was support for the early stages of the revolution in Britain - until it went off the deep end which doesn't happen here - but that was largely from radical/reformist elements who were in fairly bitter competition with the current power brokers. As such you could see the latter worried by the relationship and an attempt to suppress further reform inside Britain. Also in the longer run the two nations are likely to be the foremost naval and colonial powers so that would be an issue.

In terms of French demographics it could be helped. Both in terms of far less men, both in France and across the rest of Europe not being killed/maimed or even simply out of France for years as they were OTL marching across so much of Europe. However I have read that one of the issues was that in France land inheritance, at least for the lower classes, saw it split between the sons of the father rather than going to the oldest son. This meant that as plots grew smaller there was greater difficult to maintain a successful agricultural base and also an incentive to have less children. How much that was an issue I don't know. Its all rather unclear as nothing in the ~200 years since Napoleon was finally defeated seems to have altered the relatively low birth rate in France. [I don't know whether this was an issue before the revolution?]

Good point that it could also change the future of Louisiana, although whether a reformed French state would be that eager to get it back, unless possibly as war gains after stomping a reactionary alliance say. In which case some French governments might seek to encourage settlement in the region to secure it. This would potentially cause a clash with the US at some stage as the latter would see itself as locked into the area south of Canada and east of the Mississippi. [Which is still a huge and very wealth region but the Americans would as OTL want more.]

In terms of developments inside Europe a lot would depend on the circumstances. A liberal/reactionary war could overthrow a lot of apple carts or without that the eastern autocracies could end up seeking to repress similar ideas in their own territories which would work in the short term or backfire later. You could see Spain and Austria say get hammered trying to suppress the revolution in France while Prussia and Russia are carving up Poland. [Although if Louis and his wife are reasonably happy with their new condition this would be less likely]. Alternatively you could see the Netherlands and some of the smaller German states seeking to copy reforms which could lead to conflict within the HRE which might draw in France to support potential allies. Things could go in all sorts of ways.

 

[ATP]

Agreed that the key to a Feuillant success would be to have L16 not nuke his own credibility with the Flight to Varennes and in general maintain a more compromising attitude. Even the Women's March on Versailles which directly precipitated the Flight wasn't all bad for the mainline Bourbons, since it gave Marie Antoinette a chance to impress the revolutionaries with her dignified posturing to the point that the mob ended up yelling 'Vive le Reine' for some time. Maybe having the Duke of Orleans actually turn out to have helped engineer the Women's March, as some conspiracy theories suggest, and Lafayette chewing him out over it (on top of helping to defuse the situation as he did historically) would get the King to trust the latter more and feel safer leaving himself & his family under the Marquis' protection?

I feel like France making the successful jump to a constitutional monarchy without all the worst tumult & excesses of the revolution would definitely help it remain the continent's premier power in the 19th century, if not outright turn that century (in hindsight the prelude to the protracted and painful decline of the 20th) into a France-wank. Hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen who historically died over the course of the Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars would still be alive to have kids of their own (as well as their opponents/victims of course) - might France avert its demographic decline and remain a powerhouse population-wise? If France's switch to moderate constitutionalism helps it reconcile with Britain you'd also have the makings of a second Diplomatic Revolution, one which could produce a Franco-British block that'd basically be unbeatable for most if not all of the 19th century. (Well, if the HRE reforms to form an alternate unified Germany that teams up with Russia they'd have a worthy opponent, but that's about all I can imagine in terms of alternative counterweights to such a powerful coalition)

Lots of territorial changes with the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars being avoided, as well - no mediatization of Germany, no Belgium (just a longer-lasting Austrian Netherlands), no end to the Italian republics, even continued Papal rule over the Comtat Venaissin, etc. Not to say that these can't be undone in a later war of course, but any such drastic territorial changes will have been put off for years if not decades at the earliest with the Revolution avoided and mass conscript armies not displacing the small professional ones of the 'cabinet wars' (and the trend of wars being such relatively limited affairs in the first place) at the turn of the century. Also America wouldn't be able to grab the Louisiana Territory (not even French at the time of the Revolution itself, it was still Spanish then) nor would the various Latin American wars of independence happen without the turbulence of the Rev/Napoleonic Wars and their horrible impact on Spain.

Rump polish state,too.In 1793 Kościuszko started uprising against Moscov using french money.Not going to happen here.
If Our King do not betrayed in 1792 and continued fighting,Poland in borders from 1773.

 

[PsihoKekec]

I think the key to Barnave prevailing is to have the radicals escalate their goals into open conflict before the Flight to Varennes. The only way the likes of Robespierre, Marat, Danton and the like can be stopped is through violence, as they will just continue escalating to achieve their increasingly radical goals, so the sooner conflict erupts, the better.

 

[S'task]

Good point that it could also change the future of Louisiana, although whether a reformed French state would be that eager to get it back, unless possibly as war gains after stomping a reactionary alliance say. In which case some French governments might seek to encourage settlement in the region to secure it. This would potentially cause a clash with the US at some stage as the latter would see itself as locked into the area south of Canada and east of the Mississippi. [Which is still a huge and very wealth region but the Americans would as OTL want more.]

Ehh, I could still see France selling it to the US. They're still going to have massive financial issues even with a much less bloody revolution, and if they're going a more moderate path they might well accept continuity of debts owed by the French Monarchy, thus would need the money.

Plus, given the warm relations between the French Moderates and the US, they probably wouldn't see selling Louisiana to the US as a real loss, but rather helping one of their allies and allowing them to focus on the reforms needed in France.

The long term implications of this are actually even more dramatic than people realize. Within the modern liberal west all the core tensions can be traced to what amounts to conflicts between Anglo-American Liberalism and French Liberalism. Anglo-American Liberalism is more moderate and right wing as well as incrimentalist (making small changes and steps to improve things without throwing out what worked before) and arguably outright conservative than French Liberalism, which is inherently Left wing and progressive (inherently revolutionary and hostile to prior norms).

In this timeline there is no French Liberalism. Functionally what happens is the French adopt Anglo-American Liberalism and France likely adopts a Constitution modeled on the American one (likely with direct input from the very framers of the US Constitution itself). No rise of Jacobins, no Terror, and revolutionary liberalism and progressivism is effectively killed before it becomes a thing. The intellectual decedents from French Liberalism also will have a much harder time coming about... which means potentially no Marxism and such.

Basically, this represents a complete triumph of the American Revolution when it comes to being the foundational Liberal Revolution: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are the core calling cards of the West, rather than Life, Liberty, and Fraternity. This also means that it is likely the Common Law becomes the universal baseline of the West rather than the division between Anglo-Common Law and French derived Code Law, and you see overall less universalism in western political thought, as Anglo-American Liberalism is much more localist in thought and structure with a stronger emphasis on the idea of local communities being the primary foundation for society rather than the top down approach that French Liberalism enforced.

Honestly, that world would be so different it's hard to project where things would go beyond the first few decades... long term it has so many ramifications, the lack of the Napoleonic Wars ALONE completely derail the 19th century in ways that are MASSIVE.

 

[ATP]

Ehh, I could still see France selling it to the US. They're still going to have massive financial issues even with a much less bloody revolution, and if they're going a more moderate path they might well accept continuity of debts owed by the French Monarchy, thus would need the money.

Plus, given the warm relations between the French Moderates and the US, they probably wouldn't see selling Louisiana to the US as a real loss, but rather helping one of their allies and allowing them to focus on the reforms needed in France.

The long term implications of this are actually even more dramatic than people realize. Within the modern liberal west all the core tensions can be traced to what amounts to conflicts between Anglo-American Liberalism and French Liberalism. Anglo-American Liberalism is more moderate and right wing as well as incrimentalist (making small changes and steps to improve things without throwing out what worked before) and arguably outright conservative than French Liberalism, which is inherently Left wing and progressive (inherently revolutionary and hostile to prior norms).

In this timeline there is no French Liberalism. Functionally what happens is the French adopt Anglo-American Liberalism and France likely adopts a Constitution modeled on the American one (likely with direct input from the very framers of the US Constitution itself). No rise of Jacobins, no Terror, and revolutionary liberalism and progressivism is effectively killed before it becomes a thing. The intellectual decedents from French Liberalism also will have a much harder time coming about... which means potentially no Marxism and such.

Basically, this represents a complete triumph of the American Revolution when it comes to being the foundational Liberal Revolution: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are the core calling cards of the West, rather than Life, Liberty, and Fraternity. This also means that it is likely the Common Law becomes the universal baseline of the West rather than the division between Anglo-Common Law and French derived Code Law, and you see overall less universalism in western political thought, as Anglo-American Liberalism is much more localist in thought and structure with a stronger emphasis on the idea of local communities being the primary foundation for society rather than the top down approach that French Liberalism enforced.

Honestly, that world would be so different it's hard to project where things would go beyond the first few decades... long term it has so many ramifications, the lack of the Napoleonic Wars ALONE completely derail the 19th century in ways that are MASSIVE.

No French Liberalism ? Much better future.
And,this time polish Constitution/1792/ could survive,too.With normal Poland.

P.S i remember some AH story when France remain relatively normal/No King,though/ and in 1810 or so retired french colonel Napoleon meet retired british Captain Nelson and together cursed unnatural peace drinking their sorrows.
Forget title and author,as usual.

 

[stevep]

Ehh, I could still see France selling it to the US. They're still going to have massive financial issues even with a much less bloody revolution, and if they're going a more moderate path they might well accept continuity of debts owed by the French Monarchy, thus would need the money.

Plus, given the warm relations between the French Moderates and the US, they probably wouldn't see selling Louisiana to the US as a real loss, but rather helping one of their allies and allowing them to focus on the reforms needed in France.

The long term implications of this are actually even more dramatic than people realize. Within the modern liberal west all the core tensions can be traced to what amounts to conflicts between Anglo-American Liberalism and French Liberalism. Anglo-American Liberalism is more moderate and right wing as well as incrimentalist (making small changes and steps to improve things without throwing out what worked before) and arguably outright conservative than French Liberalism, which is inherently Left wing and progressive (inherently revolutionary and hostile to prior norms).

In this timeline there is no French Liberalism. Functionally what happens is the French adopt Anglo-American Liberalism and France likely adopts a Constitution modeled on the American one (likely with direct input from the very framers of the US Constitution itself). No rise of Jacobins, no Terror, and revolutionary liberalism and progressivism is effectively killed before it becomes a thing. The intellectual decedents from French Liberalism also will have a much harder time coming about... which means potentially no Marxism and such.

Basically, this represents a complete triumph of the American Revolution when it comes to being the foundational Liberal Revolution: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are the core calling cards of the West, rather than Life, Liberty, and Fraternity. This also means that it is likely the Common Law becomes the universal baseline of the West rather than the division between Anglo-Common Law and French derived Code Law, and you see overall less universalism in western political thought, as Anglo-American Liberalism is much more localist in thought and structure with a stronger emphasis on the idea of local communities being the primary foundation for society rather than the top down approach that French Liberalism enforced.

Honestly, that world would be so different it's hard to project where things would go beyond the first few decades... long term it has so many ramifications, the lack of the Napoleonic Wars ALONE completely derail the 19th century in ways that are MASSIVE.

One other factor here on finance. IIRC the US took the opportunity OTL to use the revolution as a reason to cancel their debts to the French for all their aid during the ARW. Although probably dwarfed by the amount of debt of the French government this is less likely to happen here so French finances could be improved somewhat.

The big issue of course is that the 1st and 2nd estates will see their tax exepmptions removed so the government will have a lot more revenue available to them, ideally without having to spend massive amounts of assorted wars and the disorder of the total removal of the old system.

 

[Circle of Willis]

One more development springing from a Feuillant France I've thought of is that there'd almost certainly be a quicker end to slavery and probably also a lessening of future racial tensions. Historically the Haitian Revolution got out of control and ended with the genocide of white Haitians due in large part to the turnover of French regimes during the revolutionary period, with Touissaint L'Ouverture actually supporting the French Republic for a while until Napoleon took over, arrested him and tried to restore slavery. The 'horrors of St. Domingo' didn't just get France to destroy Haiti's economy by way of imposing a huge indemnity payment (pretty much designed to trap them in debt forever) on them but also represented pure nightmare fuel to American slaveowners, whose fear of a repeat genocide in the slave states played a massive role in the entrenchment of slavery and the idea that race relations were a zero-sum game. You can see this echo well into the post-slavery period in white supremacists' attitude that even the smallest concession would inevitably lead blacks to kill whitey and rape his wife & kids to death, so they had to keep both boots firmly on the blacks' throats at all times & costs - hence why (for example) 'Pitchfork' Ben Tillman and company flipped their shit over Booker T. Washington dining with Teddy Roosevelt decades after the ACW.

However! Without events in France spiraling out of control the Haitian Revolution either wouldn't start at all, or if it did it'd be crushed pretty quickly by an undivided France. Lafayette himself was a committed abolitionist who asked Washington to free his slaves and who was a member of France's leading abolitionist organization at the time of the Revolution. With no Haitian Revolution and a more gradual, orderly push toward abolition in Saint-Domingue rather than the slaves rising up and exterminating les blancs on their side of Hispaniola, the paranoia about a re-run of the 'horrors of St. Domingo' wouldn't exist to justify the shift in attitude toward slavery among Americans from 'necessary evil' to 'positive good' and to undergird later forms of white supremacism. Could we see the US moving toward gradual, probably compensated abolition on a consistent timetable and having much less fraught race relations ITL?

 

[ATP]

One more development springing from a Feuillant France I've thought of is that there'd almost certainly be a quicker end to slavery and probably also a lessening of future racial tensions. Historically the Haitian Revolution got out of control and ended with the genocide of white Haitians due in large part to the turnover of French regimes during the revolutionary period, with Touissaint L'Ouverture actually supporting the French Republic for a while until Napoleon took over, arrested him and tried to restore slavery. The 'horrors of St. Domingo' didn't just get France to destroy Haiti's economy by way of imposing a huge indemnity payment (pretty much designed to trap them in debt forever) on them but also represented pure nightmare fuel to American slaveowners, whose fear of a repeat genocide in the slave states played a massive role in the entrenchment of slavery and the idea that race relations were a zero-sum game. You can see this echo well into the post-slavery period in white supremacists' attitude that even the smallest concession would inevitably lead blacks to kill whitey and rape his wife & kids to death, so they had to keep both boots firmly on the blacks' throats at all times & costs - hence why (for example) 'Pitchfork' Ben Tillman and company flipped their shit over Booker T. Washington dining with Teddy Roosevelt decades after the ACW.

However! Without events in France spiraling out of control the Haitian Revolution either wouldn't start at all, or if it did it'd be crushed pretty quickly by an undivided France. Lafayette himself was a committed abolitionist who asked Washington to free his slaves and who was a member of France's leading abolitionist organization at the time of the Revolution. With no Haitian Revolution and a more gradual, orderly push toward abolition in Saint-Domingue rather than the slaves rising up and exterminating les blancs on their side of Hispaniola, the paranoia about a re-run of the 'horrors of St. Domingo' wouldn't exist to justify the shift in attitude toward slavery among Americans from 'necessary evil' to 'positive good' and to undergird later forms of white supremacism. Could we see the US moving toward gradual, probably compensated abolition on a consistent timetable and having much less fraught race relations ITL?

Very probable.Free blacks could go to french Luizjana.No powerfull USA - also good.

 

[Sergeant Foley]

I think the key to Barnave prevailing is to have the radicals escalate their goals into open conflict before the Flight to Varennes. The only way the likes of Robespierre, Marat, Danton and the like can be stopped is through violence, as they will just continue escalating to achieve their increasingly radical goals, so the sooner conflict erupts, the better.

Would Marie Antoinette and Luis XIV still get executed in this timeline?

 

[Circle of Willis]

Very probable.Free blacks could go to french Luizjana.No powerfull USA - also good.

Oh yeah, disease and the harsh working & environmental conditions on Saint-Domingue killed like 50% of the slaves who were sent there within a year of their arrival. If slavery is ever ended I don't think it's a huge leap to assume that the new freedmen are going to want to get off the island the minute they can afford to do so, and French Louisiana would be a natural destination for them (it's certainly much closer and less expensive than a return trip to Africa).

Would Marie Antoinette and Luis XIV still get executed in this timeline?

No, keeping the Bourbons alive and in power (well, with less power than before, but still as Kings of France) is part of the point to the Feuillants winning.

 

[S'task]

No powerfull USA - also good

I don't see how this prevents the rise of the US. There's no reason to expect the US to not expand into what would be the Louisiana purchase, heck there's no reason to not expect them to buy up large chunks of that from France anyway, though perhaps not Louisiana itself. The lack of the Napoleonic Wars likely means no War of 1812, but that doesn't change the pressures that led to the early 19th century waves of immigration to the US from Ireland (Potato Famine is still on and is likely as mishandled by the British as much as it was OTL) and other areas of Europe, in fact, without the large amount of life lost in the Napoleonic Wars you might see an INCREASE in immigration to the US from Europe as people pursue economic advancement they cannot get on the continent. Further the industrial strength of the US and economic growth was mainly driven by the industrialization of the old northwest, north east, and mid-Atlantic (all areas the US still owns here), and slavery's influence and importance on the US' economic growth is widely overstated, with it barely accounting for 5% of the GDP of the US in the OTL and in this TL it likely is even less.

Eventually the US and France will have to have it out concerning what was the Louisiana Territory as population pressure in the US to spread westwards isn't going away and France has little motive or interest in holding back the US in N.America (they're not going to have the motive or resources to develop up the Mississippi River and around the Great Lakes).

Seriously, the only way to prevent a powerful US is to, quite literally, prevent the US period. Once no longer fettered by British mercantile interest the geography, population, and raw resources of N.America basically guarantee a powerful country rising along the eastern seaboard.

 

[PsihoKekec]

We also might see earlier conquest of Barbary coast and French settlement in Algeria. There would also be a continued existence of Venice and Dubrovnik republics, although Austrians might start a war with Venice over Adriatic ports.

Without France distracting Russia and Austria for quarter of century, Ottomans will come much worse off.

 

[ATP]

I don't see how this prevents the rise of the US. There's no reason to expect the US to not expand into what would be the Louisiana purchase, heck there's no reason to not expect them to buy up large chunks of that from France anyway, though perhaps not Louisiana itself. The lack of the Napoleonic Wars likely means no War of 1812, but that doesn't change the pressures that led to the early 19th century waves of immigration to the US from Ireland (Potato Famine is still on and is likely as mishandled by the British as much as it was OTL) and other areas of Europe, in fact, without the large amount of life lost in the Napoleonic Wars you might see an INCREASE in immigration to the US from Europe as people pursue economic advancement they cannot get on the continent. Further the industrial strength of the US and economic growth was mainly driven by the industrialization of the old northwest, north east, and mid-Atlantic (all areas the US still owns here), and slavery's influence and importance on the US' economic growth is widely overstated, with it barely accounting for 5% of the GDP of the US in the OTL and in this TL it likely is even less.

Eventually the US and France will have to have it out concerning what was the Louisiana Territory as population pressure in the US to spread westwards isn't going away and France has little motive or interest in holding back the US in N.America (they're not going to have the motive or resources to develop up the Mississippi River and around the Great Lakes).

Seriously, the only way to prevent a powerful US is to, quite literally, prevent the US period. Once no longer fettered by British mercantile interest the geography, population, and raw resources of N.America basically guarantee a powerful country rising along the eastern seaboard.

No,when catholics/including Irish/ would go to Luizjana,not USA.Smaller USA,and not global power - but they would still be WASPS.
I bet,that many americans would prefer it,too.

We also might see earlier conquest of Barbary coast and French settlement in Algeria. There would also be a continued existence of Venice and Dubrovnik republics, although Austrians might start a war with Venice over Adriatic ports.

Without France distracting Russia and Austria for quarter of century, Ottomans will come much worse off.

And existing Poland.Still strong if France send some help in 1792,or rump state if they not.

 

[S'task]

No,when catholics/including Irish/ would go to Luizjana,not USA.

Why in the world would they go to Louisiana over New York and Massachusetts? "They're Catholic" isn't a reason as Catholics have been a major religious group in the US since its founding, with Maryland explicitly being founded as a Catholic haven, with its at least one Catholic Church being founded as far back as 1731.

Meanwhile, Louisiana has none of the economic opportunities that moving to the US provides. It's not going to industrialize like the US, but rather continue to be a port focused on agriculture and resource extraction. That's not going to draw more people to it especially in any great numbers. Further you have the language issue where it was simply easier for the Irish to immigrate to the fellow English speaking US. Finally you have the cost and time of transit. Ireland to Boston or New York is HALF THE DISTANCE to New Orleans, and thus would both be a cheaper ticket and take less time. There's a reason that New York and Boston were the primary ports of call for European migration to the US, rather than New Orleans or even Charleston or even Baltimore, and that increased distance (and thus increased cost) is a large part of it.

There's no reason to expect the migration patterns to change as a result of a change in the French Revolution. Irish Catholic immigrants to the US in actual history did not immigrate to locations that were already predominately Catholic, like the aforementioned Baltimore in Maryland, even though they could have, no instead they went to the cheapest and quickest ports available: New York and Boston.


And, as I've noted multiple times, you're making the assumption that France would keep New Orleans and Louisiana here, when the pressures that ended up having Napoleon sell it to the US from France haven't really gone away. In fact, the closer ties between the two as a result of the moderates taking power in France likely make it even more likely they'd sell it to their allies to help cover debts and strengthen an internationally ally by getting rid of territory they have little use for. There's a reason French development of the Louisiana territory never really went beyond building New Orleans and some forts along the Mississippi, they always had very different interests in N.America than the British and Americans did, and I see no reason why that would change here.

 

[ATP]

Why in the world would they go to Louisiana over New York and Massachusetts? "They're Catholic" isn't a reason as Catholics have been a major religious group in the US since its founding, with Maryland explicitly being founded as a Catholic haven, with its at least one Catholic Church being founded as far back as 1731.

Meanwhile, Louisiana has none of the economic opportunities that moving to the US provides. It's not going to industrialize like the US, but rather continue to be a port focused on agriculture and resource extraction. That's not going to draw more people to it especially in any great numbers. Further you have the language issue where it was simply easier for the Irish to immigrate to the fellow English speaking US. Finally you have the cost and time of transit. Ireland to Boston or New York is HALF THE DISTANCE to New Orleans, and thus would both be a cheaper ticket and take less time. There's a reason that New York and Boston were the primary ports of call for European migration to the US, rather than New Orleans or even Charleston or even Baltimore, and that increased distance (and thus increased cost) is a large part of it.

There's no reason to expect the migration patterns to change as a result of a change in the French Revolution. Irish Catholic immigrants to the US in actual history did not immigrate to locations that were already predominately Catholic, like the aforementioned Baltimore in Maryland, even though they could have, no instead they went to the cheapest and quickest ports available: New York and Boston.


And, as I've noted multiple times, you're making the assumption that France would keep New Orleans and Louisiana here, when the pressures that ended up having Napoleon sell it to the US from France haven't really gone away. In fact, the closer ties between the two as a result of the moderates taking power in France likely make it even more likely they'd sell it to their allies to help cover debts and strengthen an internationally ally by getting rid of territory they have little use for. There's a reason French development of the Louisiana territory never really went beyond building New Orleans and some forts along the Mississippi, they always had very different interests in N.America than the British and Americans did, and I see no reason why that would change here.

Why? they do not send settlers in OTL,becouse they need people for their wars.Without that,they would colonize for real.
And,becouse USA is friend,there is no reason to gave them something,especially when USA had debt to France,not otherwise.
And,irish was backed by catholic France from at least 1688.No reason to stop that - for example,using french fleet to evacuate them to Luiziana in 1848.
What England would do? start war in the name of starving catholics which they do not want anyway? even hardliners there would no go for that.

 

[S'task]

Why? they do not send settlers in OTL,becouse they need people for their wars.Without that,they would colonize for real.
And,becouse USA is friend,there is no reason to gave them something,especially when USA had debt to France,not otherwise.
And,irish was backed by catholic France from at least 1688.No reason to stop that - for example,using french fleet to evacuate them to Luiziana in 1848.
What England would do? start war in the name of starving catholics which they do not want anyway? even hardliners there would no go for that.

Firstly, no, as I mentioned, French engagement in N.America was systemically different than English engagement historically. Changing the outcome of the French Revolution like this does not mean that policy is going to change, and given that this is explicitly a moderate to conservative regime that means pre-revolution policies are MORE LIKELY, not LESS LIKELY to be continued, which includes non-colonization of N.America. To claim otherwise you'd need to show that those involved in this alt-timeline EXPLICITLY wanted to increase colonization into N.America in opposition to all French policy both of the Monarchy and later Empire.

. . . You really have no idea of the sheer scale of the Irish migration to N.America, do you? The French fleet, as it was, could in no way support that level of immigration, and New Orleans and the Louisiana territory could also in no way support or absorb the level of immigration we saw in the OTL. We're talking over a million Irish immigrating to the US in a few decades, and a depopulation of Ireland to the extent that in modern times there are more people of Irish decent in the United States THAN IN IRELAND. And again, there's literally NO REASON for said Irish to immigrate to Louisiana. There's no jobs. The farmland there is not suited to the type of farming they're used to, and you're dealing with an area where white migrants tended to die by the tens of thousands due to malaria (one of the major reasons for African slaves being so valued in the American south and Caribbean was their genetic resistance to malaria that EUROPEANS LACKED). And bear in mind, large parts of Louisiana where they would be initially migrating to IS A SWAMP which is prime breeding ground for mosquitoes. Oh, and did I mention that New Orleans periodically gets hit by hurricanes, as in, almost yearly? That's a BIG DAMPER on building up a city especially before the advent of modern weather forcasting.

Basically put, there is literally no reason to migrate to Louisiana when you can migrate to New York or Boston. Weather is better and more familiar there, farmland in the New England, Mid Atlantic and Old Northwest more familiar, and there's way more job opportunities from the new factories opening up in those regions. None of which Louisiana has, nor would the French develop there as Louisiana is piss poor for industrialization with no good fall lines for pre-steam powered mills, and far removed from any coal reserves for steam powered industrialization of the later half of the 19th century. There's a REASON Louisianan is a agricultural and shipping state IRL, and it's because it's one of the WORST PLACES for industrialization on the continent, between swamps, hurricanes periodically destroying everything, disease, and yeah. Frankly, if it wasn't the mouth of the largest navigable river system in the world, New Orleans would never have been settled where it was.

Long story short: there is literally no advantage to France to hold onto the Louisiana territory in this timeline. It doesn't have access to good raw materials, it doesn't provide access to good farmland that generates valuable crops. To develop it would cost continual money and need continual rebuilding from regular large storms that other locations do no suffer from, and to really develop it would require a level of commitment and population pressure that France, even in this timeline, likely does not have...

And finally, after doing more research on it, this entire point is moot. France doesn't even control Louisiana. It was under Spain's control per the 1763 Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Fontainebleau. After the American Revolution the the Peace of Paris, north America looked like this:

Note who's nowhere on the map as a major player: France.

So the question becomes would this French government pursue a similar arrangement to Napoleon and the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso in 1800, that saw the return of Louisiana to the French for territory in Italy. The events leading up to these territory exchanges are all part of the complicated fallout of the French Revolution, so it seems unlikely that the EXACT same exchange takes place. As such, it might end up that there's a Spanish-American War sometime around 1810s over Louisiana rather than the Quasi War and Britain vs US War of 1812...