Falklands War breaks out in 1770

In 1770, a diplomatic crisis broke out between Spain and the UK over the Falklands when in June 1770, the Spanish governor of Buenos Aires, Francisco de Paula Bucareli y Ursua, sent five frigates under General Juan Ignacio de Madariaga to Port Egmont. On 4 June, a Spanish frigate anchored in the harbour; she was presently followed by four others, containing some 1400 marines. The small British force was under the command of Commander George Farmer. When the Spaniards landed, after firing his guns, Farmer capitulated on terms, an inventory of the stores being taken, and the British were permitted to return to their country in the Favourite.

Members of British Parliament were outraged over this perceived insult to national honour and demanded action from the government. The Foreign Ministry began to prepare for war.

The Spanish looked to their ally, France, for assistance, triggering the Pacte de familie between their two Bourbon monarchs. Louis XV, however, refused to support Spain against Britain, in defiance of his own Minister of War, Duc de Choiseul.

Eventually, Spain and Britain struck an uneasy compromise, in which neither side conceded the Falklands, but maintained their settlements on the islands.

But what if Louis XV did choose to support Spain against Britain and the Falklands War broke out in 1770 rather than 1982?
 
Then it likely wouldn't be the "Falklands War", much like how World War I isn't called the "Austro-Serbian War". :winkytongue:
Nevertheless, this could have interesting political repercussions. Would the increasingly restless Thirteen Colonies tolerate seeing their men and workforce being conscripted to fight Spain and France, just as they're recovering from another large-scale war from seven years earlier?
If the American continental leadership ends up deciding that rebelling from the crown at this point is not advantageous, then it's likely that they'll find more difficulties in getting foreign support for a later rebellion, as France will be bankrupt earlier.
 
I think the Royal Navy is strong enough to keep the Spanish and French at bay and hold Gibraltar. Maybe even try and capture Cuba and Louisiana.

However, this could also lead to an earlier revolt in the British colonies since the British might try and pay for the war with a new round of taxes in the colonies and by even more heavy handed enforcement of the Navigation Acts.
 
Random Fact: the Falklands were first claimed for Britain by "Foul-weather Jack" Byron, the poet's grandfather, in 1765. The French had established a settlement on East Falklands in 1764, but soon gave it up to the Spanish.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Will a French declaration of war have any impact on the laxity of of British rule over Quebec?

The 13 Colonies are by this point very sensitive to any perceived infringements from London. Demands upon them or a military presence they can interpret as aimed against them and not sincerely aimed against French, Spanish or Amerindian enemies will spur resentment and rebellion earlier.

Can playing up a French threat, and offering venturesome colonials a prospect of looting St. Pierre and Miquelon, New Orleans, and French and Spanish Caribbean islands distract Americans from grievances and unite them in common cause with London. Perhaps, but only if London plays its hand deftly. Spain may have a different attitude with relation to Florida, but I think by this point France is on the lookout for opportunities to drive a wedge between colonials and Britain, and so will not seek to pose a direct threat to the colonies.
 
Top