The Nootka Sound Dispute explodes into conflict

Thande

Donor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Convention

The Nootka Conventions were a series of three agreements between Spain and Great Britain in 1790 which averted a war between the two countries over overlapping claims to portions of the northwestern coast of North America. The claims of Spain dated back nearly three hundred years to the papal bull of 1493 which had divided the world, and had granted to Spain the exclusive rights to settle the Pacific Coast of North America. This papal bull was not recognized by Great Britain (which was governed by Protestants) or by Russia (which was governed by Orthodox Christians).

The dispute began when Spain, in defense of its claim, seized property settled by British subject John Meares on Nootka Island, leading to a confrontation between Spain and Britain known as the Nootka Crisis which threatened to trigger a major imperial war for control of the Pacific, and, in practice, for western North America. Russia was also a party of interest, as their prior trading presence and separate claim extended much farther south of Nootka to California, and was in fact the reason Spain was attempting to solidify its claims through exploration and settlement.

The Nootka Conventions of the 1790s, negotiated by George Vancouver and his Spanish counterpart Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra prevented the dispute from escalating to war. The Spanish concessions did not give up claims, only allowed other parties to trade at Nootka Sound, where a Spanish fort had been in operation. As of the Conventions the Spanish fort at Nootka Sound was available for occupation by any power, be it Russia, Britain or should Spain desire to return.

The fledgling United States had no claim in this area at the time. Spanish rights in the area were later acquired by the United States in the Adams-Onís Treaty signed in 1819. The United States argued that it acquired from Spanish rights to exclusive ownership; this position led to a dispute with Britain known as the Oregon boundary dispute. This dispute was not in fact resolved between the United States and Great Britain until the signing of the Oregon Treaty in 1846, dividing the disputed territory, and establishing what later became the current international boundary between Canada and the United States.

Although the Nootka Conventions theoretically opened the Pacific Northwest coast from Oregon to Alaska to British colonization, the advent of the Napoleonic Wars distracted any efforts towards this (as recommended by Vancouver at the time) and the proposed settlement colony in the region was to be abandoned. The Hudson's Bay Company, the remaining British presence in the region, was averse to settlement and any other economic activity than its own, such that settlement and resource development did not take place to any degree until the Fraser Canyon Gold Rush of 1858, which formalized British claims on the mainland still residual from the Nootka Conventions into the Colony of British Columbia.
In his biography of Pitt the Younger, William Hague muses on the fact that a long-range colonial war of this type, coming on the heels of the French Revolution, could have interesting consequences - in particular, how Pitt's government handles it.
 
Both Spain and Russia had been French allies before the fall of Bastille. Had the revolutionaries completely abandoned France's former foreign policy by 1790?
 
The Yankee Factor could get interesting. Then again, President Wasahington committed the nation to neutrality. But that was in his last formal statement as President IMO. In 1790, he's in his first term.
 
How much power can each side really project to that end of the world?
And on the flipside, what form will the conflict take in Europe?
Or is it reasonable to presume that they would conduct a purely colonial war?

Interesting butterflies from a British victory (let's be honest, assuming they were smart enough not to invade Spain en masse and the Spanish didn't find any major allies it's most likely) could we see an earlier and greater colonisation of the West Coast of the Americas...or are the physical obstacles too great?

*has a vision* - a penal colony in *British Columbia and *Washington State!
Hehehe.
 
How much power can each side really project to that end of the world?
And on the flipside, what form will the conflict take in Europe?
Or is it reasonable to presume that they would conduct a purely colonial war?

Interesting butterflies from a British victory (let's be honest, assuming they were smart enough not to invade Spain en masse and the Spanish didn't find any major allies it's most likely) could we see an earlier and greater colonisation of the West Coast of the Americas...or are the physical obstacles too great?

*has a vision* - a penal colony in *British Columbia and *Washington State!
Hehehe.

Vancouver wanted to establish a colony on the island so yes it would probably get kickstarted if Spain had been beat but was still a presence and Russia looming. To establish a stronger more formal British presence.
 
Well, at one point in the Napoleonic Wars, Spain and France were allies, if I recall; ISTR they were together at the time of Trafalgar. So, this could wind up getting France involved in it, too, if a war is delayed a few years. let's say the agreements aren't as sound and break down by around the late 1790s.

Britain and Spain would likely fight it out only over the colonies, but France would then try to get involved by harassing the British, leding to a very interesting analogue to Trafalgar in this TL. French action may force the British away from that area to defend closer to the ome islands, leading to an earlier version of Trafalgar, say in 1802 or so.

Or, antoher possibility is that war breaks out during the peace of 1802-3, which brings the question, how important was that small window of peace to allowing the British to retool and rest for the wars which would follow?

Of course, the British could argue for war in the early 1790s, as first posited, becuase on the heels of losing the American Revolution, they could use a victory. they might figure (likely correctly, as noted) that Spain could be it. But, projecting power halfway around the world would take a lot of time and energy, meaning would they be as able to take on Napoleon early? Would the war just be winding down, causing Spain to throw their lot in with N. in the late 1790s when he takes power? When did Spain become an ally of his?

SO many ways to go here. It is quite interesting.
 

Thande

Donor
Well, at one point in the Napoleonic Wars, Spain and France were allies, if I recall; ISTR they were together at the time of Trafalgar. So, this could wind up getting France involved in it, too, if a war is delayed a few years. let's say the agreements aren't as sound and break down by around the late 1790s.

That wasn't until much later. Spain declared war on Revolutionary France in 1793 and then made peace at Basel in 1795 before finally aligning with France in 1796.
 
Kingdom of France was in alliance with Spain before the Revolution, wasn't it?
And I even remember that it was the National Assembly that defeated King Louis XVI's plans to help his Spanish cousin (something about "unnecessary and burdensome for the Nation monarch's great adventures").
So, butterfly the Revolution, and French involvement in the Nutka Dispute would become real. With such support the Spaniards could be more audacious and trigger the war with Britain (after all, previous war of the Spanish-French coalition against the British was quite successfull, while very expensive).
 
Kingdom of France was in alliance with Spain before the Revolution, wasn't it?
And I even remember that it was the National Assembly that defeated King Louis XVI's plans to help his Spanish cousin (something about "unnecessary and burdensome for the Nation monarch's great adventures").
So, butterfly the Revolution, and French involvement in the Nutka Dispute would become real. With such support the Spaniards could be more audacious and trigger the war with Britain (after all, previous war of the Spanish-French coalition against the British was quite successfull, while very expensive).
Not to mention that the 1780s were one of the brief periods in history where the French threatened the British in terms of naval superiority. So with French support of Spain, I think the latter has a good chance of winning the war or at least fighting to a tie. But 1789 is too late to stop the French Revolution. To do that one would have to select a more distant POD.
 
So, butterfly the Revolution, and French involvement in the Nutka Dispute would become real. With such support the Spaniards could be more audacious and trigger the war with Britain (after all, previous war of the Spanish-French coalition against the British was quite successfull, while very expensive).

The previous one was somewhat successful because Britain had got itself isolated diplomatically and was fighting a bitter civil war in N America. Prior to this Franco-Spanish alliances against Britain had not been that successful. Also by this time France is facing serious economic and internal problems. Hence I would tend to put my money on Britain in this case. Especially since defeat in the ARW prompted reforms.

If France could get an army ashore in Britain it could well get very dicey. However doubt this would occur and also it would get a lot of the continent very twitchy. [We know France was on the verge of collapse but to many of the time it would be seen as another revival of the Bourbon threat].

The interesting butterflies might be if the war triggers revolution in France as given the different circumstances it may not lead to an aggressive France or as hostile a set of neighbouring powers.

Presuming Britain wins then you might well see it established in the Oregon region earlier and more securely. Possibly, if markedly successful against Spain, say because France doesn't support it or drops early, you might see British gains elsewhere. Unlikely but if Britain would also gain the only recently settled Californian province of New Spain that could set up an interesting 19thC in N American. Presuming the US still gains Louisanna somehow the barrier to them reaching the Pacific wouldn't be a number of isolated Indian nations and a divided Mexico but what would probably still become the world's greatest power. Given the region would still be distant and possibly relatively unimportant to Britain the US might gain a Pacific coastline one way or another but could be interesting.

Steve

Steve
 
The previous one was somewhat successful because Britain had got itself isolated diplomatically and was fighting a bitter civil war in N America

I don't want to nit-pick too hard, but like the American 'Civil War', Civil War isn't really the right term for the American Revolution. A civil war is when two or more factions are fighting for control of the same government, ie. in the English Civil War the Parliamentarians and the Royalists were fighting for control of the government of England in London. However, in the American Revolution the rebels weren't fighting to control the government in London, they were fighting for control of their own governments. It was a War of Secession. The American colonies tried to secede and the British central government tried to stop them.
 
And American Tories played what part in all this...

I'm sorry but the ARW was a Civil war within the American colonies largely between American Tories and "Patriotes" who could not agree on a common approach towards the British government that became a war of succession only when patriote forces gained the upper hand in the colonies and took the drastic step of declaring unilateral succession that further alienated the Tories within the colonies. Caught in the middle was the larger part of the population who really did not identify completely one way or another with either camp. So both of you are correct as the ARW embodies elements of both a Civil War and a war of Succession depending on the time frame you are looking at.
 
And American Tories played what part in all this...

I'm sorry but the ARW was a Civil war within the American colonies largely between American Tories and "Patriotes" who could not agree on a common approach towards the British government that became a war of succession only when patriote forces gained the upper hand in the colonies and took the drastic step of declaring unilateral succession that further alienated the Tories within the colonies. Caught in the middle was the larger part of the population who really did not identify completely one way or another with either camp. So both of you are correct as the ARW embodies elements of both a Civil War and a war of Succession depending on the time frame you are looking at.

What battles were fought between patriot and loyalist militia before Lexington and Concorde? Before the Declaration of Independence? You might say several of the colonies-cum-states experienced patriot coups, but none saw outright civil warfare.
 
That wasn't until much later. Spain declared war on Revolutionary France in 1793 and then made peace at Basel in 1795 before finally aligning with France in 1796.

Okay, thanks.Hmmm, British California, as mentioned by another, is interesting, too, though considering how sparsely populated it was, I agree with Stevep there might still be a chance for Britain to negotiate with the U.S. for a port. However, it might well be someplace like San Diego - closer to the more heavily populted regions of Mexico, and giving Britain everything down to the large San Francisco Bay Area.
 
Last edited:
Top