British Louisiana

What if, after the seven years war the british decided to take control of louisiana as well as New France.

how would this effect the American revolution?
 
I assume you mean ALL of Louisiana. They did get the land east of the Mississippi after all, and then we got it. I'd assume the British would loose control of it, but it would make for some interesting changes in the U.S.-Canada border west of the Great Lakes.
 
I don't think it would be difficult for the British to control Louisiana. I'm sure many of you remember that map of French Louisiana in high school textbooks. It looks huge, but the French never actually had all that territory under their control. Most of it was simply a French claim rather than any real settlements. The British would simply have to control the Mississippi Valley in order to bring this region into their sphere of influence. Not a difficult task once New Orleans is captured as the Mississippi is a navigable river and the British have the world's most powerful navy. Therefore, they could maintain a line of river forts running from New Orleans to St. Louis, possibly beyond.
The problem is that the British showed little interest in the Louisiana Territory at the time of the Seven Years War. They were more concerned with their existing colonies and the immensly valuable Caribbean islands. Perhaps, they might have suceeded in an invasion in 1802 if they hadn't failed to capture Hispaniola. They tried again during the War of 1812 but the American forts put up fierce resistance and the war ended before reinforcements could arive in the region.
Anyway, I think the British would probably be more interested in New Orleans and Mobile and not the whole territory. This way, they could control access to the Mississippi Valley and levy taxes on trade without the expense of administering and defending the entire Louisiana Territory.
 
The problem is that the British showed little interest in the Louisiana Territory at the time of the Seven Years War.
Not So, The British planned to raise a colonial force of 4,000 Militia to take New Orleans, however, they were unable to get the full 4,000, and what they did get, [1762] went to Help take Havana.
 
Not So, The British planned to raise a colonial force of 4,000 Militia to take New Orleans, however, they were unable to get the full 4,000, and what they did get, [1762] went to Help take Havana.

What plan was this? I always thought that Havana was a high priority for the British. After all, Cuba was far more valuable than Lousiana from a purely commercial point-of-view.
Also, if they really planned to capture New Orleans, they should have promised land in the Lousiana Territory to soldiers and officers who enlisted. This would solve both the manpower shortage and also de-frenchinizate Louisiana.
 
What plan was this? I always thought that Havana was a high priority for the British. After all, Cuba was far more valuable than Lousiana from a purely commercial point-of-view.
Also, if they really planned to capture New Orleans, they should have promised land in the Lousiana Territory to soldiers and officers who enlisted. This would solve both the manpower shortage and also de-frenchinizate Louisiana.

Is 4,000 troops + family enough to colonise Lousiana?
 
British ownership of New Orleans will put the UK on a collision course with the USA, who didn't really want the whole LA territory, but really wanted NO, so as to have control to the outlet of the Mississippi. The UK will likely be bothered with several offers to buy the town; if all are rejected, it's very likely that this will lead to war sooner or later. Considering the relative strength of the two sides, it will likely be to the detriment of the US. It's not too farfetched to say that the USA not acquiring LA/NO will stymie her expansion, and relegate her to a moderate sized power by the 20th century...

...of course, this all assumes that the UK can actually do anything with the place. NO and the immediate area were valuable, but most of the territory was regarded as a near desert of little value. If the UK can't convince anyone to settle there, then they might just up and sell the whole thing to the US anyway...
 
Anyway, I think the British would probably be more interested in New Orleans and Mobile and not the whole territory. This way, they could control access to the Mississippi Valley and levy taxes on trade without the expense of administering and defending the entire Louisiana Territory.

I'd assume they at least take over the official claims France had, even if they never do much with it.
 
British ownership of New Orleans will put the UK on a collision course with the USA, who didn't really want the whole LA territory, but really wanted NO, so as to have control to the outlet of the Mississippi. The UK will likely be bothered with several offers to buy the town; if all are rejected, it's very likely that this will lead to war sooner or later. Considering the relative strength of the two sides, it will likely be to the detriment of the US. It's not too farfetched to say that the USA not acquiring LA/NO will stymie her expansion, and relegate her to a moderate sized power by the 20th century...

...of course, this all assumes that the UK can actually do anything with the place. NO and the immediate area were valuable, but most of the territory was regarded as a near desert of little value. If the UK can't convince anyone to settle there, then they might just up and sell the whole thing to the US anyway...

Well lets see yes the Br. could take it and probably hold it..the point is what to do with it..

As a matter of security they would as with Upper Canada. encourage settlement in the aftermath of 1814. I could see more settlement directed to the lands immediately west of the Mississippi.

the relationship between the US and Britain may not be as cordial thus many settlers that went to the US in the 1820's, '30's ( the UK is the primary source of US immigration in this period) could be directed into settling here under even more generous incentives than OTL, there being so much land to secure by occupation. this necessarily would mean a consequent reduction in settlement from the UK in the USA ( less population pressure and a an incentive to push west...though the Economic incentive would still be there).

the UK could easily muster 150k, emmigration( with the right incentives) during the 20/30's to just this area in addition to that which went to BNA.

concentration would be in Orleans of course, the West bank of the Mississippi and the lower reaches of the Arkansas and Missouri.
 
The immigrants need not be British. They could be Americans, rewarded with land in Louisiana for their service to the Crown during the Seven Years War.
This would certainly make the War of Independence more interesting, if it even occurs. It would be difficult to predict the loyalty of British Louisiana Territory. It would probably depend on the commercial relationship to Britain and also the territory's political status. It might have a very different relationship to Britain than that of the 'Atlantic colonies'. Perhaps the British would administer the region through the 'British Mississippi Trading Co.' rather than invest large amounts of tax revenue in direct administration.
 
Top