Siege (4)

The safety of New York was, in some ways, even more important than that of Washington. This city was the true heart of the American North. So when the British Army, led by General Arthur Wellesley, besieged New York, the United States did feel immense pressure. Even after the state troops of several Southern states tried to relieve the siege of New York but were thoroughly defeated by the Britain, the vengeful rhetoric of some Southerners diminished considerably.

However, with France's entry into the war and the news of the outcome of the Battle of the North Atlantic, the entire United States suddenly felt relieved. President Jefferson had already sent a special envoy to sound out the Britain, but upon receiving this news, he immediately sent someone to recall the envoy who was about to depart.

Meanwhile, President Jefferson also prevented the American relief operation. In the war room, pointing to the map, President Jefferson told his generals, "The Britain have besieged New York, and New York looks very dangerous. However, because the enemy cannot blockade the port of New York, they will not be able to take New York in a short time. Therefore, we should not rush to relieve New York. Everything will be fine as soon as the France launch their attack."

France did not have a large military presence in Louisiana, only a security force of about 10,000 men. This force was dispersed across the vast Louisiana in battalion-sized units, making it virtually invisible. (In fact, in the two gold mining areas, there was also a 20,000- Gold Troops directly under the Ministry of Truth. This force was larger, better equipped, and, of course, even less visible.) In previous years, there had been numerous clashes between German-speaking France, United States, and Canada in Louisiana, but these clashes were primarily involving the militias of the three sides, rather than regular troops.

However, it was actually quite simple for the France in Louisiana to expand their army. First, the France already had a considerable stockpile of weapons in Louisiana. Furthermore, the residents of Louisiana also possessed a large number of weapons, many of which were far more advanced than those of the regular French Army. For example, civilian rifles were superior to the military rifles held by the French Army in every respect. After all, for the civilians buying guns, they were using them to deal with deadly weapons from brown bears to United States and Canada; they were responsible for their own lives, so their requirement for civilian rifles was that they must be high-performing. Military rifles, on the other hand, were procured by the state. State procurement prioritizes cost-effectiveness, or more bluntly, price. Therefore, France civilian rifles were clearly superior in performance to military rifles.

As for combat personnel, Louisiana has no shortage of them either. Many France people who have settled in Louisiana have a history of serving in the France army. Nowadays, the France army can no longer allocate land to veterans in France as it used to, since there is not enough land in France to go around. However, there is still enough land for veterans in Louisiana, so some veterans choose to come to Louisiana after their service. In particular, there are France reserves in the Foreign Legion who joined the army with the intention of becoming landlords in Louisiana in the future.

Therefore, the France have no shortage of manpower to recruit troops in Louisiana. In addition, although the regular France army in Louisiana is small, there are countless militia organizations. Most of these militia organizations are composed of retired soldiers. According to France law, these militia organizations have a reserve nature, and in the event of war, the France government can conscript them into the army at a reasonable cost.

In this way, given enough time, the France could easily muster an army of tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, in Louisiana.

Therefore, the current situation is indeed such that as long as the France launch an attack, Ça Ira for the United States.

However, for the Britain, especially for General Arthur Wellesley's army, the mere fact that France had entered France war, without even needing to send troops, immediately made them feel insecure about their rear.

A large portion of the Canada colonies were seized from the France during the Seven Years' War. The population of these areas remains predominantly French-speaking, and their loyalty to the United Kingdom is highly questionable. In fact, after France's return to Louisiana, these people have been constantly flirting with the France in Louisiana, sometimes demanding greater autonomy, sometimes requesting the establishment of their own National Guard. (What exactly are they trying to do?)

After the war with the United States, due to religious conflicts, they firmly sided with the United Kingdom and fought the United States with extraordinary fervor. However, once France joined the war, it would be difficult to say which side these people would ultimately stand on.

Especially considering the demands for high autonomy and the possession of their own National Guard, which were previously rejected by the United Kingdom during the war, while still legally invalid, they are now practically a reality. It's truly difficult to say whether these "French-speaking Britain" will now collude with "German-speaking France" to stab the "English-speaking Britain" in the back.

The crucial point was that General Arthur Wellesley's army's supply lines had to pass through the areas inhabited by "French-speaking Britain." Now, General Arthur Wellesley faced a dilemma.

First, he could continue the siege of New York and use the tactic of besieging a point to lure out reinforcements, thus continuing to annihilate United States forces. At least until the France had truly integrated the Louisiana army, this seemed a fairly safe course of action.

However, this "safety" was based on the premise that the "French-speaking Britain" remained loyal to the United Kingdom. If the "French-speaking Britain" were not loyal to the United Kingdom, then trouble would ensue. At the most critical moment, they could suddenly stab him in the back—or even not, simply cutting off the legion's supplies would leave General Arthur Wellesley's legion in disarray, likely leading to its complete annihilation.

Of course, he could also retreat immediately. That would be relatively safe. But that would be an open declaration to the French-speaking Britain: "We don't trust you, we consider you enemies." Under such provocation, their retreat might even be seen by these French-speaking Britain as preparation for a purge—because their withdrawal would pass near the areas inhabited by the French-speaking Britain.

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

In Canada, everyone knew that the loyalty of the "French-speaking Britain" to the United Kingdom was inherently untrustworthy. As for whether this move would provoke an immediate rebellion, General Arthur Wellesley believed that if they didn't intend to rebel, this action wouldn't incite them; and if they did rebel, it would have been premeditated, regardless of the provocation. So how could he risk the fate of his army in such a way?