France would beat the United States (1812)

My ArgumentsNavyWe should first compare the two navies of both countries that are going to war. The Americans had five frigates, three sloops, seven brigs, and sixty-two coastal gunboats. These were crewed by some 4,000 men , many of whom were inexperienced teenagers. Around this time, the Madison administration requested a dozen new seventy-four-gun ships, but instead Congress could only authorize the repair of five laid-up frigates because they did not have the resources to build a navy against the great European empire that we know as France. [1]Opposing the United States' "navy" was hundreds of privateers that were working for Napoleon as well as his own French fleet. He had 18 ships of the line in his fleet as of the Battle of Trafalgar (remember that France and the US are not fighting any other wars to make it fair, so Napoleon's fleet is not touched). In addition, he had eight frigates at the battle. This navy is far superior to the US navy. [3]The US navy would be no doubt defeated at sea. In fact, despite the famous victories by "Old Iron Sides" and similar ship, the US navy was bottled up in American ports for most of the War of 1812 with the British. While in this scenario, the War of 1812 does not occur, the French navy is another navy of a European superpower taking on a small fleet of ships. The US navy would no doubt be forced to stay in ports. [2]This gives economic and military hardships to the Americans while the French can land wherever they want. ArmiesNow we must look at the two armies. Before 1812, the Americans had a force of only about 4,000 men in its army. Congress tried to increase the number of troops several times, but June 1812, the US army had 6,744 officers and men and another 5,000 volunteers. This is a strong army, that is if you are still fighting in the Seven Years War or the American Revolution. In fact, the only branch of the US military that can clame to be "professional" would be the 1,800 Marine Corps. [1]Then we should look at the generals of the US army. There is only one that really comes to mind and that is Andrew Jackson. However, looking at Jackson's personality, this furious and war-hungry man is in over his head against the most professional army in the world. His lack of competence (except at the Battle of New Orleans) does not help either. What about the other American generals? None them are famous for one reason: they sucked. Most of them tried to invade Canada (where British garrisons were outnumbered), but failed. [1]Opposing the American "army" is 600,000 troops in Napoleon's Grand Army. Well, I guess I could stop here because a war between 600,000 men vs. 11,000 men should have an obvious end, but for those who know nothing about history, I will continue. These 600,000 men come from France, Switzerland, Poland, Italy, Austria, the German states, and other places of Napoleon's empire. Not to mention, there were 400,000 French-Canadians living in Canada at the time who may join the emperor. Napoleon's troops are all well-trained many and are ready for battle. [1,3,4]What about Napoleon's generalship. He didn't conquer Europe by being stupid. He was a master strategist and there was no way to stop him. While the Americans would be stuck with tactics from the American Revolution, the French created a corps system that allowed their armies to move much faster. In addition to Napoleon, he had 24 marshals under his command who were also famous. These included Lannes and Ney, but he also had a fierce cavalry commander by the name of Joachim Murat. [3,4]The French have a far better army than the Americans do. This should be an easy victory. EconomicsThis always becomes a factor in war and its sad to say that the Americans will probably be in a depression when at war with Napoleon. Just years before, President Thomas Jefferson had created the Embargo Act which runied the US economy. However, it was worse when the British blockaded all American ports in the War of 1812. How can the American people live without ports to trade from? All the valuable cotton in the south as an example would have to be stockpiled. The Americans cannot launch a schorched earth policy because they need their resources to survive. Russia in 1812 could do this against Napoleon because they have so many resources. [1] The Americans could lose the war because of economics, not just in battles. Sources1. Walter Borneman, 1812: The War that Forged a Nation2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...3. . http://www.debate.org...4. Jeremy Black, The Battle of Waterloo