US and Spain go to war over Louisiana Territory: before 1840

Okay, so France doesn't give Louisiana back to Spain because handwave;
Spain wants to keep it because she's afraid of the precedent being set for the rest of the Spanish Empire if she starts letting pieces go.

At the same time American settlers keep piling up to the Mississippi and even crossing over without Spanish permission, stirring up the Indian tribes.

Obviously Spain should just sell it, but sometimes countries don't do the obvious- at least until they have to.

I'm assuming the upriver portion would be quickly overrun. How long could Spain hold New Orleans? How about the war at sea?

It depends on when exactly it happens. Spain was essentially fighting a civil war for most of the 1830s, so the US could have a reasonable shot of taking Louisiana and paying for it later. Any earlier than the 1830s, and the US would probably get crushed.

CthulhuFhtagn said:

It depends on when exactly it happens. Spain was essentially fighting a civil war for most of the 1830s, so the US could have a reasonable shot of taking Louisiana and paying for it later. Any earlier than the 1830s, and the US would probably get crushed.

Click to expand...

The US can probably take Louisiana easily after 1807.Spain was in complete disarray after Napoleon invaded and the colonies were basically looking after themselves.

The problem with this idea is that the two didn't go to war over Florida IOTL, and Louisiana really isn't any more valuable to Spain. At a time when Spain is fighting independence movements all over its empire, there seems to be no good reason for it to fight a separate war for Louisiana.

The friction comes in for Spain or France (whoever held the Louisiana territory) as American settlers move farther west. Once settlers start crossing the Mississippi in progressively larger numbers, then the struggle for control heats up. Think of the later situation in Texas; only farther removed from the coast and a much larger area to police.

Driftless said:

The friction comes in for Spain or France (whoever held the Louisiana territory) as American settlers move farther west. Once settlers start crossing the Mississippi in progressively larger numbers, then the struggle for control heats up. Think of the later situation in Texas; only farther removed from the coast and a much larger area to police.

Click to expand...

depnding on the POD spain will lose Louisiana to america. If before the Independence movements then no Spain wont lose, it but after Independence of colonies probably.

But if Spain keeps Louisiana then that means Napoleon never invades Spain which would have even bigger consequences.

With a Spanish dynasty on the throne that is not plunged into upheaval which lead to the junta systems being established in Spanish colonies that in turn formed the locus around successful Independence movements, Spain will not see rebellions break out in its territories.

The reason is simple, every rebellion before the juntas was isolated and put down quickly. With no development of junta system, Spanish elites in the colonies dont feel their rights are threathened by the absolutist monarch as otl when the king after regaining the throne repudiated the Constitution he signed while in exile promoting the rights of autonomy for his colonies.

With no colonial Independence you have Spain retaining its navy which numbered even as late as 1815 around 145 warships with many ships of the line. The USA regardless of westward settlement would not attack Spain because if it does then the Spanish navy will blockade the American east coast not to mention Spain will have all the resources of latin America to draw upon. Also Spain was an American ally during the revolutionary war and had good relations even in the early 1800s. Also Spain was no Mexico, it was a european great power.

Hell even in 1815 before losing its colonies Spain was the number 3 or number 4 power in Europe behind UK, France, and Russia.

Not to mention with no loss of colonies you butterfly away the carlists thereby butterflieng away instability in Spain.

Mexico faced issues of instability, upheaval, low pay for soldiers, and numerous other issues which was why they lost to the United states. Not to mention by 1840 they were exhausts after many decades of internal unrest and civil wars and were lead by one of the worst heads of state, santa anna.


Spain for all its faults would not be in such a situation. USA and Spain go to war in 1830s, then initially US achieves success in Louisiana but fail to take New Orleans due to Spanish sea power. The US navy of frigates is destroyed by Spanish ships of the line and Spain blockades the east coast. New England gets pissed off and the war becomes unpopular. Spain draws upon the resources of its colonies and with no wars against France or Britain is able to send more troops to fight Americans from Mexico and south America. and the war ends in status quo. Thats how it would turn out. The only wildcard is Britain.

By the way a Spain which does not lose Louisiana means it was able to beat back France which in turn means it must have had skilled generals and/or monarchs and that in turn means no bottling up of the spanish fleet by the Brits and all that jazz... thats even more butterflies not to mention an even greater Spanish navy.

It is unlikely that the US would have been forced to go to war with Spain to acquire the Louisiana Territory if Spain had not signed the Treaty of San Ildefonso.

After 1807, Spain was going to need any money it could get its hands on to continue the war against Bonaparte and it would have happily agreed to sell off New Orleans and the Louisiana Territory. Once the various Wars of Independence started in South America around 1810, Spain would be desperate to reach an agreement to trade the land for money. That area was the poorest of its American territories so it wasn't giving up much to begin with. Better to sell off an indefensible territory for something than try to retain it and eventually lose it for nothing.

Remember, the US and Spain were able to reach an agreement in 1819 over Florida. So reaching a bargain, wasn't unreasonable.

Gunner's_Quadrant said:

It is unlikely that the US would have been forced to go to war with Spain to acquire the Louisiana Territory if Spain had not signed the Treaty of San Ildefonso.

After 1807, Spain was going to need any money it could get its hands on to continue the war against Bonaparte and it would have happily agreed to sell off New Orleans and the Louisiana Territory. Once the various Wars of Independence started in South America around 1810, Spain would be desperate to reach an agreement to trade the land for money. That area was the poorest of its American territories so it wasn't giving up much to begin with. Better to sell off an indefensible territory for something than try to retain it and eventually lose it for nothing.

Remember, the US and Spain were able to reach an agreement in 1819 over Florida. So reaching a bargain, wasn't unreasonable.

Click to expand...

the Independence movements of 1810 were not a success until the juntas threw their support behind revolution after charles repudiated the constitution he signed giving the colonies autonomy in 1815 after being restored to the spanish throne. There would be no colonial revolt and butterfles from 1800 with a stronger Spain could prevent the otl dynastic upheaveal ergo no juntas which means no revolts.
Also in otl even in 1796-97 Spain was loath to allowing Americans righs to just using Louisiana port why would they sell it if they wee in a much stronger position.

Fredrick II Barbarossa said:

With no colonial Independence you have Spain retaining its navy which numbered even as late as 1815 around 145 warships with many ships of the line. The USA regardless of westward settlement would not attack Spain because if it does then the Spanish navy will blockade the American east coast not to mention Spain will have all the resources of latin America to draw upon. Also Spain was an American ally during the revolutionary war and had good relations even in the early 1800s. Also Spain was no Mexico, it was a european great power.
(snip..)
Spain for all its faults would not be in such a situation. USA and Spain go to war in 1830s, then initially US achieves success in Louisiana but fail to take New Orleans due to Spanish sea power. The US navy of frigates is destroyed by Spanish ships of the line and Spain blockades the east coast. New England gets pissed off and the war becomes unpopular. Spain draws upon the resources of its colonies and with no wars against France or Britain is able to send more troops to fight Americans from Mexico and south America. and the war ends in status quo. Thats how it would turn out. The only wildcard is Britain.

By the way a Spain which does not lose Louisiana means it was able to beat back France which in turn means it must have had skilled generals and/or monarchs and that in turn means no bottling up of the spanish fleet by the Brits and all that jazz... thats even more butterflies not to mention an even greater Spanish navy.

Click to expand...

I won't venture a guess on the strength of the Spanish navy in that era - I have no clue of it's relative strengths or weaknesses.

I do think that by the 1820's, enough US settlers have crossed the Mississippi - regardless of government edict (from either government), "squatters" if you will, that there will be some friction between them and the local Spanish authorities. The area that Napolean sold in the Louisiana Purchase is an enormous peice of territory - larger than most countries today (828,000 sq miles/2.1 Million sq km - larger than metropolitan France). I live close to the east bank of the Mississippi, a thousand miles north of New Orleans, I can see the bluffs of neighboring Minnesota from my front door - that were part of the Louisiana Purchase. Just the Minnesota portion of the Purchase runs 400 miles further North of me.

Even with the best diplomatic intent on both governments parts, there will be a steady flow of people into less than thoroughly guarded land, which will lead to struggles for local control

1820's US population density (WITH Louisiana Purchase in place) http://users.humboldt.edu/ogayle/hist110/PopulationDensity1820.png

Is it possible that the British end up with Louisiana in this case? Or at least parts of it via the Great Lakes?

The Spanish navy was in a shambles by 1820

Three decades of war and occupation of the Spanish mainland had that sort of effect... The Spanish navy had all of six ships of line built in the 1700s (some as far back as the 1760s) and another eight built or captured that dated from post-1800; most of those didn't last past the end of the 1820s

By 1820, the USN had four modern ships of the lines in commission (independence commissioned in 1814 and was in the Med by 1815); eight more were on the ways. The frigate force was being rebuilt as well ... And the U.S. was already building steam warships.

Considering Louisiana was purchased by the U.S. from the French in 1803 and the U.S. occupied Florida in 1819 against minimal Spanish resistance (and rapidly acknowledged the transfer of power diplomatically) unless one disposes of the Napoleonic wars somehow, good luck...

Best,

---A continued Spanish Louisiana after 1803 leads to interesting questions in its own right. When would the Spanish American war for recovery of New Orleans begin?

And, if American in 1815-1820, the 1820s or 1830s goes to war with Spain (or Mexico?) to seize back New Orleans, how far would they go, might they say "what the hell?" and try to seize New Orleans, Florida, Texas, New Mexico and California all the same war. Or is that just too much much to bite off in a single war.

I'm a bit confused by the OP question.
France doesn't louisiana back to Spain.

when did France ever give Louisiana back to Spain? they gave it to begin with in 1762 and then took it back late 1790's in a swap for Parma. Spain never got it back again, and were later compensated for Parma after the Nap wars.

Perhaps you mean Spain never gave it back to France?

If so, an important question is whether Spain was messing with closing New Orleans under orders from France. In 1795, after US started cozying up to Britain with the Jay Treaty, Spain backed off it's bellicose attitude to the US. it gave up claims south and west of the Tennessee River and allowed freedom of navigation on the Mississippi. Then, after the swap of Louisiana for Parma, but before actual changing of hands, they started monkeying with closing New Orleans. That's when tensions started heating up.


So, scenario one: France was behind the closures. this goes away with the handwave. Spain continues to place nice (smiling through gritted teeth). At the same time, they were trying to tighten up the immigration while still building up a population (they had thrown the doors open wide for Louisiana, and were realizing it was getting out of control). IF everything else still goes OTL, Spain loses any edge it might have with the advent of the Iberian Peninsula War. After that, the chaos and colonial wars are too much to overcome. In this scenario, there's no real threat of war with US prior to 1807.

Scenario two: Spain was behind the closures. this means US is going to be bellicose with threatening a real war with Spain. History says Spain backs off and grants full freedom of shipping. the US cannot force a sale of NO. at that time NO was a money maker (not a huge money maker, but one nonetheless). Spain might back down on border/navigation issues, but it's too much of a loss of face to be forced to give up territory to an inferior power. This is when any war is going to happen (if everything else happens OTL in Nap wars). And make no mistake, the US is going to lose if Britain doesn't back them up. US can take the northern zone at will, but the distance to NO means they're not fighting on home turf. New Spain troops along with Spanish troops sent over are going to hold NO. Spanish navy is going to menace every bit of the eastern seaboard. With Spanish involvement in america, they might not be willing to turn on Nap - they were showing signs of switching sides again in 1805, which made up Nap's mind to invade them. So if an american war keeps Spain busy elsewhere, Nap might not invade. Alter that whole scenario, with no destruction of Spain, Spain easily retains a power capacity, and it's colonial empire. Spain then retains the ability to beat the US through the mid 19th century. The bugaboo in the plan is that Britain will absolutely back the US. Spain is an enemy at that time.

unprincipled peter said:

Alter that whole scenario, with no destruction of Spain, Spain easily retains a power capacity, and it's colonial empire. Spain then retains the ability to beat the US through the mid 19th century. The bugaboo in the plan is that Britain will absolutely back the US. Spain is an enemy at that time.

Click to expand...

I think people are really, really, really overestimating Spain's power projection capabilities. Even before Napoleon's invasion, the Spanish could not mobilize or send forces across the Atlantic Ocean that easily.

This is why the Spanish were terrified of the Americans, who were viewed as Goths or Vandals descending upon their empire.

Now, I guess we could argue that the Spanish who were on the spot were wrong with hindsight? But that seems less likely than a very valid fear of weakness.

Faellin,
There's certainly a lot of truth to that, but I also think that Spain wasn't all that terrified of US until after events make it likely Britain sides with US. Plus, troubles elsewhere mean Spain is putting it's priority elsewhere.

I still think that Spain wins a straight up war with the US prior to 1807, and for several decades after that IF they can avoid the chaos/aftermath of the P War. But they'd have to be pushed hard for that war to occur. (edit- for the reasons you stated)

raharris1973 said:

---A continued Spanish Louisiana after 1803 leads to interesting questions in its own right. When would the Spanish American war for recovery of New Orleans begin?

And, if American in 1815-1820, the 1820s or 1830s goes to war with Spain (or Mexico?) to seize back New Orleans, how far would they go, might they say "what the hell?" and try to seize New Orleans, Florida, Texas, New Mexico and California all the same war. Or is that just too much much to bite off in a single war.

Click to expand...

Too much for one war. The Louisiana territory alone doubled the size of the United States.

unprincipled peter said:

Faellin,
There's certainly a lot of truth to that, but I also think that Spain wasn't all that terrified of US until after events make it likely Britain sides with US. Plus, troubles elsewhere mean Spain is putting it's priority elsewhere.

Click to expand...

[

The Spanish couldn't even handle the comanches in the late 18th, early 19th century. It gives one pause.

Faeelin said:

[

The Spanish couldn't even handle the comanches in the late 18th, early 19th century. It gives one pause.

Click to expand...

The US couldn't handle the comanches till the 1880s with machine guns and mass wipeout of the native group by dieases. that gives one an even biggr pause. Till the 1870s-80s the Comanche were kicking US ass. its only when disease wiped out most of their population that they surrendered. They fought like the plains Indians on steroids. Some of the best warriors in the Americas course Spain with muskets couldn't scratch them.

When is the POD?

galanx said:

Okay, so France doesn't give Louisiana back to Spain because handwave;
Spain wants to keep it because she's afraid of the precedent being set for the rest of the Spanish Empire if she starts letting pieces go.

At the same time American settlers keep piling up to the Mississippi and even crossing over without Spanish permission, stirring up the Indian tribes.

Obviously Spain should just sell it, but sometimes countries don't do the obvious- at least until they have to.

I'm assuming the upriver portion would be quickly overrun. How long could Spain hold New Orleans? How about the war at sea?

Click to expand...

Louisiana was Spanish territory (officially) from 1763 to 1800, at which point it became French territory; what, exactly, are you suggesting gets changed?

Without a clearer point of departure, it is pretty difficult to make any informed ideas...

Best,

Fredrick II Barbarossa said:

The US couldn't handle the comanches till the 1880s with machine guns and mass wipeout of the native group by dieases. that gives one an even biggr pause. Till the 1870s-80s the Comanche were kicking US ass. its only when disease wiped out most of their population that they surrendered. They fought like the plains Indians on steroids. Some of the best warriors in the Americas course Spain with muskets couldn't scratch them.

Click to expand...

The Texans defeated the Comanches decisively at the Battle of Plum Creek in 1840 after a massive Comanche raid that reached the Gulf at Matagorda Bay. There was never a major raid into settled Texas after that, although frequent minor raids continued and during the Civil War worsened a bit. Ranald Mackanzie and the US 4th Cavalry regiment went into the Blanco Canyon and permanently shattered the Comanche in 1871, wiping out their horseherd and in the follow up forced them to make peace. In 1874 at Adobe Walls less than 30 buffalo hunters held off easily a large force of Comanche.

They were completely in reservations by 1875, except for a minor (less than 200 people) break out in 1877 that was hunted down

the Comanches were pretty impressive, but they only were a serious threat to the Texas Frontier fromm 1835- 1875.

The Spanish had problems though, losing an entire mission (San San Saba) to them and having difficulties with them in New Mexico as early as 1706

The Spanish problem is lack of numbers and also not having the colt revolver