What could the British opt to keep in the Treaty of Paris?

We are talking of the treaty itself so

Spain giving up Minorca is out of the question
Spain giving up West Florida is unlikely but possible.
Britain retaining East Florida is not in Britain's favor because of its position
And Spain gave up the Bahamas for East Florida

So the Spanish terms were actually good for Britain. And the Spanish would give up East Florida for something else, but the British would still lose something

Britain could easily have kept much of the Great Lakes region
But further south they could have kept it, but wouldn't have wanted to

Britain could have regained a bunch of stuff from the French but they would still be forced to give stuff. We could see Britain take from French in India and all of the Dutch in India, but that would require major concessions in the Caribbean. Really what they gave up was tiny.

Britain could have demanded way more from the Netherlands but again they'd have to make concessions elsewhere.


So in truth the British only gave favorable terms to the Americans and that was because they didn't think they could hold the region past the Appalachians. So within the treaty with everything else the same Britain could have retained the Great Lakes region.
 
The British Empire (at that time) was about two things:
1) Trade
2) Making sure the French didn't get an empire

(OK these are gross simplications)

Sugar was king so getting the Caribean sorted would have been number 1 priority.

The American colonies where just a drain on resources (hence all the attempts to tax them).

Given this why would Britain actually want more unless it secured Canada or offered support for Caribean islands.

I can sort of see Florida being a possibility, but peace with Spain would have been important and probably more important than a mainland port.

If they secured a border slightly further south, Canada would be larger and have more warm territory. And this would have been desirable because the fur trade was still quite lucrative.

I don't think the US would have accepted a border entirely south of the Great Lakes though.

I know, hang on, I'm going to research what the British most wanted around the time the treaty was signed. Research is fun.
 
Depending on how things go, it may be possible for the British to use the Appalachians as the new border. This is particularly possible if the British could get at least one of the states to defect back to the British.

Britain wouldn't be able to enforce an Appalachian border. Everything west of the Appalachians outside of the Northwest is completely unviable for them. Remember that Spain holds the gulf coast and New Orleans.

What HunterX said. No way could the Brits enforce that, and it would severely damage trade with the US to even try.

Defect back to the British?:confused: Who? How? Why?

Vermont. OTL, New York and New Hampshire refused to accept the existence of Vermont, so the Green Mountain boys started talking to Britain. How seriously? I don't think anyone knows. Whether any deal, if one could be achieved, would involve Vermont returning to the British Crown, or whether it might be an independent protectorate, is also unknown, AFAIK.


Also
It should be theoretically possible for Britain to insist on a line west from the end of Lake Erie, say, basically keeping Michigan, Wisconson, Minnesota and west.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What did France occupy in the West Indies or elsewhere that they handed back in the Treaty? Did the Dutch occupy anything British? Did the Spanish occupy anything they traded back besides the Bahamas
 
What did France occupy in the West Indies or elsewhere that they handed back in the Treaty? Did the Dutch occupy anything British? Did the Spanish occupy anything they traded back besides the Bahamas
Several miscellaneous Caribbean islands changed hands (both ways). For instance, Dominica, St. Vincent and Grenada were all occupied by the French, while St. Lucia was occupied by the British.

The Spanish occupied several places that they had to give up to the Americans, but that's somewhat different. On the other hand, they weren't about to give up any of their other gains for anything short of Gibraltar, and had the ability to defend everything they took, so it's not like it could be pried out of them. And of course, the Dutch basically suffered unending disasters and were lucky to escape as lightly as they did.
 
Could the British push harder for the area between the St. Croix and Penobscot Rivers and end up with the New Ireland colony they were hoping for?
 
Several miscellaneous Caribbean islands changed hands (both ways). For instance, Dominica, St. Vincent and Grenada were all occupied by the French, while St. Lucia was occupied by the British.

The Spanish occupied several places that they had to give up to the Americans, but that's somewhat different. On the other hand, they weren't about to give up any of their other gains for anything short of Gibraltar, and had the ability to defend everything they took, so it's not like it could be pried out of them. And of course, the Dutch basically suffered unending disasters and were lucky to escape as lightly as they did.

The onyl reason the Dutch got off so good, was because the French and Spanish didn't want the British to get to much in the treaty. Its oen of the reasons the French were forced to give up so much
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
IIRC the Dutch did not want war with Britain, they just went too close to the edge with all their trading with the enemy, and obstructionism, that Britain declared war on them and were basically able to throw them up against the wall.

The French and Spanish did better than the Dutch because they were bigger, stronger and had been deliberately thinking about the war option in advance, unlike the Dutch.


Although I don't know alot of the specifics about Dutch disasters. Were these a mix of naval defeats and territorial losses?
 
Top