In a sense, the safety of New York is even more important than Washington. This city is the true essence of the American North. So when the British army, led by General Arthur Wellesley, surrounded New York, the United States was indeed feeling a lot of pressure. Even when the state soldiers in several southern states tried to relieve New York, but were beaten by the British, the revenge of some southern guys dropped a lot.

But with the entry of France into the war, and the results of the naval battle in the North Atlantic, the whole United States suddenly relaxed. President Jefferson had already sent a special envoy to find out what the British were talking about, and when he got the news, he immediately sent someone to call back the envoy who was about to leave.

At the same time, President Jefferson also prevented the U.S. military from breaking the siege. In the war room, President Jefferson pointed to the map and said to his generals, "The British have surrounded New York, and New York looks dangerous." However, because the enemy could not blockade the port of New York, the enemy army could not take New York in a short time. So, let's not rush to relieve New York, anyway, as long as the French attack, everything will be fine. ”

The French did not have a large army in Louisiana, only a security force of about 10,000 men. The force was so scattered in battalions across the sprawling Louisiana that it barely had a presence. (In fact, in the two gold mining areas, there is also a 20,000-strong gold force directly subordinate to the Ministry of Truth.) This force is more numerous, better equipped, and of course less presence. In the years that had gone before, there had been a lot of friction between the German-speaking French and the Americans and Canadians in Louisiana, but it was mostly the militias of the three parties involved, not the actual regular forces.

But it was quite simple for the French in Louisiana to expand their army. First of all, the French already had a lot of weapons in Louisiana. Moreover, the inhabitants of Louisiana also had a large number of weapons in their hands, many of which were far more advanced than the regular French army. For example, rifles or something, civilian rifles in the hands of ordinary people, from all angles, are better than military rifles in the hands of the French army. After all, for the common people who buy guns, they are going to use this thing against the deadly things from brown bears to Americans and Canadians, and they are responsible for their own lives, so their requirements for civilian rifles must be good. And what about military rifles, this thing is procured by the state. In national procurement, the most important thing is cost-effective, and even, to put it more clearly, price. Therefore, the performance of French civilian rifles is obviously better than that of military rifles.

As for the fighters, there is no shortage of them in Louisiana. Many French people who settled in Louisiana have a record of serving in the French army. Nowadays, it is no longer possible for the French army to divide the land among veterans at home, as it used to, after all, there is not enough land in France. But in Louisiana, there was still enough land to be given to the veterans, and some of the veterans chose to leave the army and go back to Louisiana. Especially the French in the Foreign Legion, who joined the army in order to be able to go to Louisiana in the future.

So now the French are conscripting troops in Louisiana, and there is no shortage of manpower. In addition, although the French regular army in Louisiana is small, the militia is very numerous. Most of these militia organizations are run by retired soldiers. Under French law, these militias are in the nature of reserves, and in the event of war, the French government can conscript them for a reasonable price.

In this way, given the time, the French could easily raise an army of tens of thousands, or even more than 100,000 men, in Louisiana.

So, the situation is really that as long as the French attack, everything will be fine for the United States.

But for the British, and especially for General Arthur Wellesley's legions, it was not even necessary for France to actually send troops, and the mere fact that France had entered the war immediately made him feel unstable.

A large part of Canada's colonies was snatched from the French during the Seven Years' War. The population composition of these regions is still dominated by French-speaking people. The level of loyalty of these people to the United Kingdom is quite questionable. In fact, after France returned to Louisiana, these people did not lack the French in Louisiana. One moment they are jumping for a high degree of autonomy, and the other time they are asking for the establishment of their own National Guard. (What the hell are you trying to do?) ）

After the war with the Americans, out of religious contradictions, they resolutely sided with the United Kingdom and fought the Americans with extra vigor. But once France joins, it's really hard to say which side these people will be on.

In particular, in the previous war, the two demands of a high degree of autonomy and the possession of its own National Guard, which had been rejected by the United Kingdom, were still legally untenable, but they already existed in practice. It is really difficult to say whether these "French-speaking Brits" will collude with those "German-speaking Frenchmen" and stab the "English-speaking British" in the back.

And fatally, General Arthur Wellesley's corps, their logistical supply lines, had to pass through the areas of those "French-speaking Britons". Now General Arthur Wellesley is faced with a dilemma.

First of all, he could continue to besiege New York, and use the method of encirclement to send reinforcements to continue to destroy the living forces of the Americans. At least, it seems safe to do so until the French actually integrate Louisiana's army.

But this "security" is based on the fact that the "French-speaking English" remain loyal to the United Kingdom. If the "French-speaking Englishmen" were not loyal to the United Kingdom, it would be troublesome, and at the most critical moment, they would suddenly stab them in the back - not even so much trouble, as soon as the supply of the regiment was suddenly cut off, then General Arthur Wellesley's regiment would be in disarray, and most of them would be annihilated.

Of course, he can also withdraw immediately. This is naturally relatively safe. But it is also a public statement to the "French-speaking English": "We can't trust you, we feel that you are enemies." Under this stimulus, their withdrawal would even be seen by the "French-speaking British" as a purge of their preparations, as they would have to pass near the area of the "French-speaking British."

However, General Arthur Wellesley did not hesitate, and he immediately made the decision: "Withdraw the troops." ”

Because in Canada, it is well known that the loyalty of the "French-speaking British" to the United Kingdom is inherently untrustworthy. As for whether this move will stimulate them to rebel directly. General Arthur Wellesley felt that if they did not intend to rebel, this move would not have stimulated them to rebel; If they rebelled, it must have been premeditated, and they would rebel with or without this stimulus. So how could he risk the fate of the army like this?