Post-7YW, British Louisiana and Spanish Floridas?

What if following the 7 Years War Britain had gotten Louisiana and Spain retained the Floridas?

I'm thinking the northern boundary of Florida is set at the 32nd Parallel, but Britain gets the OTL Florida parishes between the Pearl and Mississippi Rivers South of the 31st Parallel.

upload_2019-1-5_16-36-3.png
 
This doesn't make sense for either side. The British wanted a buffer to stop Spanish incursions into Georgia. The Spanish would rather have contiguous territory to Texas.
 
This doesn't make sense for either side. The British wanted a buffer to stop Spanish incursions into Georgia. The Spanish would rather have contiguous territory to Texas.

For Spain there's a strategic advantage to controlling Florida in the Gulf.

Britain having more lands to exploit and control of the continental interior is a big plus. And Georgia itself was a buffer colony for South Carolina.
 
For Spain there's a strategic advantage to controlling Florida in the Gulf.

Britain having more lands to exploit and control of the continental interior is a big plus. And Georgia itself was a buffer colony for South Carolina.

Georgia WAS a buffer colony, but by the 7YW it needed it's own buffer. Florida doesn't give Spain any more control of the Gulf than they have with Cuba and New Orleans.

I agree the interior of Louisiana is beneficial for the British, but if they were strong/aggressive enough to get that, a deal would be done to split off the Gulf coast of the territory back to Spain and have Florida instead.
 
New Orleans is a huge prize however, the possession of which could secure the British position in North America for a long, long time. Spain would realize this too and probably wouldn't be very willing to give it up at anything short of an extremely high price, like a combination of territories, colonies, and money. But this is all if Britain is being generous. If they had really wanted to turn the screws with a harsher Treaty of Paris, they could have simply demanded control of this final stretch of the Mississippi, and the Spanish, on the losing side of the war in the first place, might not have been able to do much about it. The drawback would have been an even more bitter France and Spain eager to back anyone who opposes the British, and the Prussians possibly now fearing an even stronger Great Britain with almost unshakeable control in North America and re-evaluating it's own alliances. Same goes for Austria and Russia, and the Dutch Republic would also remain opposed to the British.

British New Orleans would allow Great Britain to better integrate all of her North American colonies together, reinforcing their trade networks, and of course, virtually full control of the Mississippi River and half of it's drainage basin, including the Ohio River. There would be very little Spain could do to stop British expansion across the Mississippi, and with the increased revenues of controlling all trade and access through New Orleans, Great Britian might not end up facing the financial crunch that led her into conflict with the 13 Colonies. We might even see the British themselves attempt to create their own, earlier version of the Erie Canal to provide full lake and riverine access between the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It's almost a nightmare scenario for any country that still maintains colonial ambitions in the Americas.

It's nearly a non-starter, but not impossible. The British either have to be far more aggressive and punitive in regards to the spoils of the Treaty of Paris, which likely leads to another pan-European war aimed against Great Britain, or would have to give up a lot of possessions to Spain and other parties in order to acquire New Orleans.
 

Gian

Banned
If Britain has Louisiana, would this impact the proclamation line in 1763?

I don't know, but a more interesting take will be what happens to the Acadian exiles in Louisiana. Does Britain still try to expel them (maybe this time, including the Canadiens as well) with them forced into Spanish Texas as a result?
 
If Britain has Louisiana, would this impact the proclamation line in 1763?

No. The purpose of the proclamation line was to (a) encourage British settlement along the coast to prevent other European powers getting a foothold and (b) to protect the profitable fur trade from Quebec, which might be damaged by species loss from rapid Western settlement. Neither of these things change with control of Louisiana.
 
New Orleans is a huge prize however, the possession of which could secure the British position in North America for a long, long time. Spain would realize this too and probably wouldn't be very willing to give it up at anything short of an extremely high price, like a combination of territories, colonies, and money. But this is all if Britain is being generous. If they had really wanted to turn the screws with a harsher Treaty of Paris, they could have simply demanded control of this final stretch of the Mississippi, and the Spanish, on the losing side of the war in the first place, might not have been able to do much about it. The drawback would have been an even more bitter France and Spain eager to back anyone who opposes the British, and the Prussians possibly now fearing an even stronger Great Britain with almost unshakeable control in North America and re-evaluating it's own alliances. Same goes for Austria and Russia, and the Dutch Republic would also remain opposed to the British.

The British actually didn’t know in 1763 that France had ceded Louisiana to Spain. The treaty specifies the Mississippi River as the border between the French and British territories. The actual transfer to Spain happened the next year.

In any event New Orleans at this point is still pretty small and not yet the strategic trading hub it is going to later become. The British never tried to capture it during the war and even after, didn’t have plans to settle the lands in between the Appalachians and Mississippi, evidenced by the Proclamation line.
 
No. The purpose of the proclamation line was to (a) encourage British settlement along the coast to prevent other European powers getting a foothold and (b) to protect the profitable fur trade from Quebec, which might be damaged by species loss from rapid Western settlement. Neither of these things change with control of Louisiana.

And (c) to appease the Native tribes in the region, who had mainly sided with France in the previous war.
 
Top