What if France kept Louisiana west of the Miss. in 1763 (not Canada or Ohio)

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Does Louisiana attract significant numbers of Canadien settlers between 1763 and 1783?

-ie, some thousands of French speakers from the St. Lawrence valley, who would rather move than stomach living under British rule.​

Does France successfully promote settlement from the metropole between 1763 and 1783?

-France seems to have promoted colonial settlement more aggressively *after* the losses of 1763 than before. Problem was, they funneled alot of people to French Guiana to die. If Louisiana is available, colonist mortality should be less, especially for those up country in places like St. Louis.​

Does France advance claims east of the Mississippi at the end of winning the ARW, if the American rebellion still happens despite changes?

Does French Louisiana stay loyal to revolutionary regimes in Paris, or not?

How does Lower Louisiana respond to potential anti-slavery directives from Paris or initiated by Jacobin governors?


On initial plausibility, it should not be a problem, and no need to assume the territory could only have become Spanish or British as of 1763:

The French handover of Louisiana (New Orleans and the west of the Mississippi) to Spain in 1763 is widely assumed to be part of the settlement of the Seven Years War, part of a process of yielding North America to Britain and compensating Spain for the loss of Florida.
But on closer inspection it appears that the transfer of Louisiana to Spain was a separate, bilateral transaction between France and Spain. In fact it was kept secret from the British at the time it made peace with France and determine what territories France would cede and which they would recover from Britain.

So it appears that the Bute Ministry and George III in 1763 were prepared to tolerate the continuation of French rule in at least the relatively distant parts of North America west of the Mississippi and at New Orleans.
 
The 'secret' treaty between France and Spain, wasn't so secret. I've read that it was Bute's idea at a time that France was desperate to get out of a losing war before they lost any more. Spain, who stupidly entered the war after it was basically over, wanted to stupidly continue the war even though Spain and France were getting their asses kicked. It was suggested to France that surrendering Louisiana might get Spain to give up. Britain also supposedly left Canada on the table for being returned to France. They're not going to do that if they thought France was left surrounding them on the continent. At the very least, it was not very secret. No more secret than the 'secret' return of LA to France in 1801, yet Jefferson knew exactly where to send delegates to negotiate a sale.

St Louis was basically built from French leaving the Illinois/Indiana country. I could easily see greater movement from the rest of Canada.

France would likely put resources into the region, seeing it as a base from which to strike at the British, a major goal after the humiliating defeat. This would, in turn affect British actions east of the mississippi. Do the Brits still enforce a native territory as a buffer? Or do they mix it with white settlement to have a military presence? It's going to be a tricky situation for them with French undoubtedly backing various tribes enough to cause trouble.

Spain, OTL claimed a lot of southern territory (everything south and west of the tennessee river), but were unable to successfully press claims as they didn't put much resources into LA. a stronger French presence, with a stronger mother country may be more successful.

France's approach to the american revolution may be different. They may look at it as an opportunity to revanche territory while only backing the rebels just enough to cause trouble. Independence may not be a goal.

Spain, OTL, stopped developing Texas, as it was no longer the border with French Louisiana (there was a border dispute). Here, it remains the border, the French are putting more resources into region, and hence the Spanish will continue developing Texas.
 
Top