US-France Relation in Nap. Ambition

[Kevin Mc Carthy]

In this scenario the US-French relationship is too high. The US will accept an alliance offer every time. The US in 1795 had no interest in European entanglements and was in no mood to tangle with the British again.

Either make the relationship worse or even better create a fictional alliance for the US so that it doesn't join in.

 

[AndrewT]

I've posted this back in the Beta testers' scenario forum for comment.

 

[AndrewT]

Your position has met with quite some resistance from the betas. They feel early US leadership was not isolationist, and point out they went to war with Britian only 17 years later.

I'll need some references to back up your contention if you want this change made. Thanks.

 

[Kevin Mc Carthy]

Please note that the US " went to war with Britian only 17 years later" not in an alliance but rather alone.

 

[viper37]

Originally posted by Kevin Mc Carthy
Please note that the US " went to war with Britian only 17 years later" not in an alliance but rather alone.

but they went to war because their ships, delivering supplies&ammunitions to the French were seized. I'd say if one is the customer of the other, the relations shouldn't be that bad...

And besides, even if not ally in 1812, they were still fighting the same ennemy and they bought Louisianna from France a few years before that.

 

[AndrewT]

I'll move this over to the Scenario foum. If discussion there agrees with you strongly, and they can gather some concrete evidence or backing so support this, Post a fresh "bug" report. Thanks.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

The fact that Madison went to war in 1812 is one fact. However, in 1799 (if I'm not mistaken) the US almost went to war with France over the xyz affair. There were several naval actions and several French warships were captured by the US. The Federalists tended to be pro-British, the Republican-Democrats pro-French. Even Jefferson's embargo in 1803 was directed against both Britain and France.

The US should not be getting into a French alliance in 1795. It makes no sense at all.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

As to reference's, Washington (president in 1795) gave his famous speech about 'avoiding foreign entanglements' in 1797. I don't know where that reference is but pretty easy to find.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Links on the war between France and the US in the late 1790s. Pretty US centered I'm afraid.
http://www.bartleby.com/65/xy/XYZAffai.html
http://www.mariner.org/usnavy/05/05f.htm

 

[Ichabod]

America during this time was very agressive to capture Canada (does the name Warhawk ring a bell?) and were very good friends with the French because they shared a common enemy, Britian, they were both revolutionary states, and the French helped them tremendously in their war for independence. It is not unthinkable that the Americans could have formally allied with the French to partition Britian(their's was and unoffical alliance). Anyway, Franco-American relations are good where they are

 

[arstal]

just read a book on US diplomacy for that time lately

the US is a bit too easy to ally with france. Relations should be good until XYZ event. Once Nappy comes in and puts in continental system (that should give a -100 to US-Fra relations at least, probably -200)

The US had some activities internationally in that time period, the EU devs are right in not making them totally independent (they did act on Barbary pirates)

 

[unmerged(6159)]

It is undoubtedly true that there were strong factions in the US (and in the government) that were very keen to take over Canada. There were also factions that were pro-French, however these were not necessarily the same. But I think it's incorrect to suggest that conquering Canada was anywhere near the top of the Washington administrations agenda, let alone the Adams administration. It was largely Westerners who pushed the Madison administration into the war of 1812, certainly New England was strongly opposed. There weren't so many Westerners in 1795 though! One of Washington's big legacies is the 'foreign entanglements' speech so beloved of American isolationists today. And it was his farewell speech - he meant what he said and meant it to be remembered. American French alliances have to be changed.

 

[unmerged(6603)]

I think that the solution is to give the USA another alliance... its seems pretty divided, but i support high American-French relations... the USA should be hesitent to get in any alliance though, but that cannot be reflected in the game.

 

[Ichabod]

I just had an idea, how about giving France an event where they can choose to implement the continental system or not. I think that would solve this whole thing.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

The US and France effectively went to WAR in the late 1790's before Napoleon came to power or even thought of the contintental system. If someone can explain to me how active hostilities are consistent with high relations I will agree that the present situation is acceptable. Maybe France and Russia should start with good relations too.

 

[Ichabod]

You are correct Isaac, France and the USA did go to war... with Britian. Explain to me how it is ou think they went to war when the USA had more diplomatic relations with France than any other nation.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Follow my links. The US and France were effectively at war in the late 1790s, with each other. The US Navy co-operated witht the British navy in hunting down and capturing ships of the French Navy. The French Navy seized many US merchant vessels. The only reason it wasn't a war was because Adams didn't ahve the votes in congress to get a declaration. This happened 15 years before the war of 1812, and 10 years before the continental system. I'm not saying that US-Britain relations should be good - clearly they were never great. The US shouldn't be allied to anyone in Europe - I think a bogus Dakota alliance may be the best solution. Denying that the US and France fought naval battles in the 1790's isn't moving this discussion along.

 

[unmerged(2254)]

I had +150 nations fight me due to belonging to another alliance or due to an event, and I cooperated in sieges with -200 enemies, so what's the point?
I don't think this is worth bothering, if you like relations to be different, change them in your scenario file.

Cadorna

 

[unmerged(6159)]

The ultimate issue isn't the relations, although those are definitely wrong. The problem, as Kevin McCarthy says is the USA getting into a French alliance in 1795. If there is a solid game play reason why this should be happening that's one thing, otherwise there is no justification for this happening.

 

[Ichabod]

What Cadorna is saying is you can change the Franco-American relations is your game to -200 if that is what floats your boat (although, according to you, the French would sink it ) so that the Americans and French would not ally. For that matter, put the Americans in an alliance with Dakota.