Resolved: Napoleon Bonaparte would win in a War Against George Washington.

Anglo-American relationsUS preparations for war with Britain were clearly addressed, both in the hypothetical and in the analysis I posted. The casus belli for war and the others were mentioned. Regarding impressment, the French committed it, if not moreso[1]. In fact, the US was similarly divided on war with the French[1]. The division that would occur over war with france instead of Britain in hypotheticals is the same as the division that occurred with war with Britain instead of France, between the Federalists and Republican-Democrats. The claim of the British being against the Americans is clearly rebuffed due to the election of the pro-American tory PM. The source my opponent gives for evidence of the British being against America is firstly American, not British, and secondly a Democrat-Republicanwho was horribly bias against britain anyway[2]! My opponent is clearly ignoring the evidence on this issue.To make this clear, my opponent's argument against Britain siding with America is thus: The American population was against alliance with the British The Americans were impressed by the British, which is why the Americans would not side with them. To rebut these points, I pointed out that the American population was just as against the French as they were the British politically, and that the French impressed American soldiers - meaning that both arguments my opponent uses against me, actually are also against him. However, historically we notice that America only waged war with one country, not two, out of pragmatism. So the additional war with England is explicitly going against history as well. Further, he has no response to the change in PM making an impact. The pro-US tory PM is another reason that America would not wage war on Britain as well. Further, the buildup of support for the Federalists was because of the trade barriers which resulted from the rules of British law, which my opponent does not respond to and essentially drops. With this removed, the casus belli for war from the Americans would be, in short, that Jefferson did not renew a treaty. Hardly a serious infringement caused by Britain at this time. Napoleon's naval strengthMy point still stands: France's navy wouldn't get out of the docks. France's army was the best of the world, but it's navy was a laughing stock. Note my opponent has not provided reason to believe France has the naval strength to cross the pacific, yet alone break the blockades of the British fleet which was, again, larger than all other nations combined. Further, Napoleon's naval strength is either completely inexistent, for never leading a naval battle, or is a severe liability, for he constantly seemed to lose battles at sea, as previously stated and is uncontested. Also, notice how my opponent fails again to give a precise number of the French fleet. This is because it was constantly and consistently destroyed and reduced to nothing, due to the British fleet crushing it repeatedly, and doing so as recently as 1810. The navy would have to break British blockade, then manage to transport masses of soldiers as well. The french navy could never group together due to all of Britain's successful blockading. There is simply no chance of it ever being successful.Canadian influenceThis point is quite short. My opponent has interpreted an unreadable book (saying "it's in this book" which is rare and unaccessible anywhere) to state New Orleans as a nation committed to a rescue effort with amazing loyalty, and all of Canada rallied around Napoleon like flies to a light. In reality, Canada had no greivances at Britain: "On the whole, however, the country was prosperous and the people were generally contented with British rule...the great majority of the eighty thousand inhabitatnts...were Loyalists or descendents of Loyalists". And even then, let's suppose that the British nation of Canada's eighty thousand civilians where "the total militia did not exceed four thousand men, the majority of whom had little or no knowledge of military discipline". How are they going to reinforce the French? Especially when major places like Quebec and "Halifax were in a dilapidated condition"[4]. And this supposes that rural farmers speak for the majority of the Canadians.New OrleansNew Orleans, a city with a population at the time 17,000[5] - and when sold off only a population of 5000[5] - would support Napoleon is only founded on the idea, according to my opponent, that New Orleans sent a grandiose attempt to rescue Napoleon. In reality, the pirate Lafitte from New Orleans went to Elba, successfully rescued Napoleon and they lived out their days in Louisiana together[6]. If one thinks this is convincing enough to show New Orleans supported Napoleon, go ahead, I really can't begin to convince you. However, I think it's clear that New Orleans didn't send a fleet to Elba. Further, the region, now majority American, would have severe problems internally of declaring support to Napoleon anyway.Supply LinesLet me make this clear: with the British blockades, the supply lines would be non-existent and cannot help at all. With supply lines, they shall be stretched over ten to fourteen weeks[7], so long that any soldiers would starve. The trips alone for immigrations used to starve, but the military ships would be weighed down massively with soldiers, weaponry, cannons, etc. and thus the food supply would be even worse. Not only would most suppplies take so long to arrive the soldiers would starve, but much of the supplies wouldn't even get there. This ignores the British destroying any supplies that would be sent off[7]. Supply lines with Canada would firstly be massively stretched due to the region's size, and New Orleans still wouldn't support the Grandé Armée, which needed all of continental Europe to support it. Does britain siding with the US matter?Let's assume that Britain does not side with the US for a moment, defying all logic. Let's assume, for example, that the US declare war on Britain. Let's call that war the war of 1812. Do British blockades disappear? No! What my opponent has to do is show how better relationships with britain would somehow mean that britain does worse on the naval front in their blockades. As already stated, the french navy could not amass. They could not even create a substantial fleet. Yet my opponent is suggesting they can and will, given the British navy being larger and less spread out. There is some serious lack of communication going on here...Washington's WarsNapoleon won no wars outnumbered: he won battles outnumbered. This is completely different. In war, washington essentially survives, and that's all he has to do. Napoleon's army suffers the attrition of being so far away from its supply lines and communication lines that all nations did, are, and shall. ConclusionThe only way for France to win is the following:1) France create a massive navy, the likes of which the world never known, because Britain is in the same situation it was last month.2) France somehow, lacking naval officers, defeats the best naval minds in battle, even though they are well known for using out of date, horrid tactics[8] at sea.3) France then manage to stock masses of soldiers and supplies and cannons to travel over the Pacific, with a navy consisting of thousands of ships of the line, requiring more than a century to build, which outnumbers the current british navy.Thank you.1 - http://histclo.com...2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...;3 - http://tinyurl.com... 110 4 - Ibid, page 1125 - http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu...;6 - The Pirates Laffite; http://www.wtblock.com...;; Wikipedia, etc., combined with no other mention of New Orleans mounting an expedition in any other form.7 - http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...;, Glorious First of June, etc.8 - http://www.thedearsurprise.com...;, previously stated.