What if Britain goes to war on Spain over the Nootka Sound Crisis-

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Crisis

What if Billie Pitt the Younger decided that the crisis with Spain in 1789 over the arrest of British in the Nootka Sound was an opportunity for Britain to avenge its honor at a profit.

Per wiki- "The role of France in the conflict was key. France and Spain were allies under the Family Compact between the ruling Bourbon houses. The combined French and Spanish fleets would be a serious threat to the Royal Navy of Britain. The French Revolution had broken out in July 1789 but had not reached truly serious levels by the summer of 1790. King Louis XVI was still the monarch and the French military was relatively intact. In response to the Nootka Crisis France mobilized its navy. But by the end of August the French government had decided it could not become involved. The National Assembly, growing in power, declared that France would not go to war. Spain's position was threatened and negotiations to avoid war began.[16]"

On hearing that France will not participate in the war, in August, 1790, Pitt decides that Britain has a prime opportunity to extend its overseas power while France is too weak to cause trouble on the continent or overseas, and delivers terms (probably over the Oregon country) so extreme that Spain feels it cannot honorably back down.

What are the potential theaters for British attacks on the Spanish and potential territorial objectives during a war breaking out in 1790?

a.British aim to claim the whole Oregon Country
b. Aim take over Spanish New Orleans and/or Florida
c. take over Spanish California
d. take over Cuba
e. take over Darien

f. take over La Plata
g. Philippines

What will be the knock-on effects of British-Spanish War over the next couple years for European politics? Does the situation delay either countries involvement in coalitions against the French Republic?

What is the outcome of fighting in the Western Hemisphere and Pacific?

If the British get either Florida or Louisiana or both, I suspect this will intensify and lengthen conflicts between the US and UK. However, if Britain hold any of these new territories, the entire trans-Mississippi could ultimately be part of "Canada" rather than the U.S.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
To orient readers to most of the area in question, see these maps of the situation in the Americas in 1790:

american5_3.jpg



map-south-america-1790.jpg
 
Well, the New Spanish population far outnumbers the BNA population, so seizing territory in mainland North America might not be so easy for Britain. The seas would be dominated by Britain though, probably resulting in capture of Spanish Carribean and maybe even Philippines. Patagonia might also easily get taken over by the British. I think it is 50/50 who ends up taking over Oregon.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Crisis

What if Billie Pitt the Younger decided that the crisis with Spain in 1789 over the arrest of British in the Nootka Sound was an opportunity for Britain to avenge its honor at a profit.

Per wiki- "The role of France in the conflict was key. France and Spain were allies under the Family Compact between the ruling Bourbon houses. The combined French and Spanish fleets would be a serious threat to the Royal Navy of Britain. The French Revolution had broken out in July 1789 but had not reached truly serious levels by the summer of 1790. King Louis XVI was still the monarch and the French military was relatively intact. In response to the Nootka Crisis France mobilized its navy. But by the end of August the French government had decided it could not become involved. The National Assembly, growing in power, declared that France would not go to war. Spain's position was threatened and negotiations to avoid war began.[16]"

On hearing that France will not participate in the war, in August, 1790, Pitt decides that Britain has a prime opportunity to extend its overseas power while France is too weak to cause trouble on the continent or overseas, and delivers terms (probably over the Oregon country) so extreme that Spain feels it cannot honorably back down.

What are the potential theaters for British attacks on the Spanish and potential territorial objectives during a war breaking out in 1790?

a.British aim to claim the whole Oregon Country
b. Aim take over Spanish New Orleans and/or Florida
c. take over Spanish California
d. take over Cuba
e. take over Darien
f. take over La Plata
g. Philippines

What will be the knock-on effects of British-Spanish War over the next couple years for European politics? Does the situation delay either countries involvement in coalitions against the French Republic?

What is the outcome of fighting in the Western Hemisphere and Pacific?

If the British get either Florida or Louisiana or both, I suspect this will intensify and lengthen conflicts between the US and UK. However, if Britain hold any of these new territories, the entire trans-Mississippi could ultimately be part of "Canada" rather than the U.S.

OTL Pitt managed a high-end diplomacy game by convincing both the French and the Spanish it was their best interest to settle peacefully. Floridablanca was afraid of the revolutionnary contagion of the French, while the Revolutionnaries were wary about the war being a way for the King to re-inforce his power, so they listened to Pitt's envoys. If Pitt went in full aggressive mode, a counter-reaction is possible. The French National Assembly had voted naval credits on august 25, proof that the Anglophile component of the Assembly was not (yet) the dominant party. A landgrab in America may lighten the fuse and allow the "merchants party" to push their colleagues into action.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Cornelis, you bring up a fascinating possibility that could make for major divergences in the French Revolution and French Revolutionary Wars.

I think the British will buy Luzon (with or without Manila) if they occupy the Philippines.

Kasumigenx, I think Luzon or more of the PI could indeed be a target, but why should/would Britain purchase what it wins by right of conquest. Was that a British habit at this time?
 
Last edited:
Cornelis, you bring up a fascinating possibility that could make for major divergences in the French Revolution and French Revolutionary Wars.



Kasumigenx, I think Luzon or more of the PI could indeed be a target, but what should Britain purchase what it wins by right of conquest. Was that a British habit at this time?
Yes, but since majority of Luzon was a drain to the spanish, the spanish tried to have the tabacco monopoly but it is still backwater, I think the Brits will get majority of Luzon and perhaps Palawan but the Spanish would retain the parts of the Philippines that the Spanish treat as as an asset and the Brits will be given more concessions.

If Brits gain Luzon, the British are in the position to open Japan.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If Brits gain Luzon, the British are in the position to open Japan.

Agreed - also they may have recruited some Filipino "Sepoy" troops by that time. Think the British would regard some groups in Luzon as "martial races" and others as not?

Yes, but since majority of Luzon was a drain to the spanish, the spanish tried to have the tabacco monopoly but it is still backwater, I think the Brits will get majority of Luzon and perhaps Palawan but the Spanish would retain the parts of the Philippines that the Spanish treat as as an asset and the Brits will be given more concessions.

I'm not doubting Britain's ability to gain Luzon, or the possibility that Spain could accept the loss more easily than certain other parts of the PI, what I was questioning was why Britain would pay Spain for what it takes. It didn't pay France and Spain for the territories it took in the 7 Years War for instance.

The only country I know of winning a war, conquering a territory, and then paying money to the loser is the US with the money it paid to Mexico for the Mexican Cession and the US with the money it paid to Spain for the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico. I didn't know of any other power doing that, although there could be examples.

The seas would be dominated by Britain though, probably resulting in capture of Spanish Carribean and maybe even Philippines.

In the Spanish Caribbean, while I would not rule out conquest of Cuba, it was a rather large and populous territory, certainly larger than the population of northern New Spain, so Cuba could be a bit hard to digest. Puerto Rico is both smaller and with a smaller population, and therefore quite a bit easier to conquer. Santo Domingo is seems closer to Cuba in terms of difficulty.

If Britain seizes Cuba and Puerto Rico, hopefully British West Indies emancipation is not butterflied away and we have emancipation on both islands 55 years before OTL.

I suppose if as Cornelis suggests France feels backed into joining the war the British can seize and keep Guadalupe and Martinique (and hopefully bring about emancipation there 15 years early). I suppose a British conquest of Haiti could happen but would face challenges similar to taking Cuba.
 
Agreed - also they may have recruited some Filipino "Sepoy" troops by that time. Think the British would regard some groups in Luzon as "martial races" and others as not?



I'm not doubting Britain's ability to gain Luzon, or the possibility that Spain could accept the loss more easily than certain other parts of the PI, what I was questioning was why Britain would pay Spain for what it takes. It didn't pay France and Spain for the territories it took in the 7 Years War for instance.
I think Spain would be happy if they are compensated by the brits for the arrangement regarding Luzon and Spain would be stopping their efforts to the Tabacco Monopoly which is a a win-win for both parties.
 
I suppose if as Cornelis suggests France feels backed into joining the war the British can seize and keep Guadalupe and Martinique (and hopefully bring about emancipation there 15 years early). I suppose a British conquest of Haiti could happen but would face challenges similar to taking Cuba.

Only if Britain wins the war... About emancipation, Guadalupe knew it in 1794. Martinique did not, due to British occupation, so I do not see being annexed by the British being a shortway for emancipation. Successful French Revolution could.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
About emancipation, Guadalupe knew it in 1794. Martinique did not, due to British occupation, so I do not see being annexed by the British being a shortway for emancipation. Successful French Revolution could.

But I thought France still had slavery in some West Indies colonies as late as 1848. Even even there were emancipations in the 1790s, I think at least in some possessions they were reversed. Even if Britain was the preserver of slavery in Martinique, ultimately, Britain emancipated Jamaica before the the second republic emancipated Martinique.
 
But I thought France still had slavery in some West Indies colonies as late as 1848. Even even there were emancipations in the 1790s, I think at least in some possessions they were reversed. Even if Britain was the preserver of slavery in Martinique, ultimately, Britain emancipated Jamaica before the the second republic emancipated Martinique.

That's true, but the 1830s are well into the future and permanent British possession of Martinique/Guadeloupe will cause some butterflies that may change the abolition timeline in the UK.

I don't think they would keep them permanently, in any event. They are too valuable to France that their loss would damage future relations, and British planters didn't want additional competition.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
That's true, but the 1830s are well into the future and permanent British possession of Martinique/Guadeloupe will cause some butterflies that may change the abolition timeline in the UK.

I don't think they would keep them permanently, in any event. They are too valuable to France that their loss would damage future relations, and British planters didn't want additional competition.


Fair enough, there's ample time for knock-ons and butterflies.
 
But I thought France still had slavery in some West Indies colonies as late as 1848. Even even there were emancipations in the 1790s, I think at least in some possessions they were reversed. Even if Britain was the preserver of slavery in Martinique, ultimately, Britain emancipated Jamaica before the the second republic emancipated Martinique.

The Revolutionnaries abolished slavery in 1794, but half the French colonies leaders preferred to surrender to the British rather than to emancipate the slaves. Bonaparte reinstated slavery in 1802 while negociating the return of these islands. At first slavery was not to be reinstated in the non-British controlled islands (Guadeloupe and Saint-Domingue), but Bonaparte, in his usual heavy-handed way, gave instructions to abolish the emancipation in the context of his struggle with Louverture and the Haitian Revolution.

For the PoD, I have sincerely no opinion on how the war can go. The French Navy was still pretty much in good shape in 1790. The reforms of the officer corps of 1786 allowed for the integration of good junior officers with middle class background, something the Ancien Régime navy badly needed. The trainings issues stayed, but with a little help and an efficient leadership, the French navy could delay its defeat or even know its own revolution.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
For the PoD, I have sincerely no opinion on how the war can go. The French Navy was still pretty much in good shape in 1790. The reforms of the officer corps of 1786 allowed for the integration of good junior officers with middle class background, something the Ancien Régime navy badly needed. The trainings issues stayed, but with a little help and an efficient leadership, the French navy could delay its defeat or even know its own revolution.

Excellent point that we should not assume Britain must win.
 
Top