WI: British take all of Louisiana in French and Indian War?

What's the French and Indian War again ?

I have never heard of that name in my history courses.

Do you not have Google? :p

I thought I remembered reading that the British basically had a choice between Louisiana or some Caribbean island or another, and chose the island because Louisiana wasn't at profitable to them, whereas the sugar/slave trade was booming. How do we get around this?
 
Do you not have Google? :p

I thought I remembered reading that the British basically had a choice between Louisiana or some Caribbean island or another, and chose the island because Louisiana wasn't at profitable to them, whereas the sugar/slave trade was booming. How do we get around this?

Other way round- France exchanged the whole of Canada for the return of, IIRC, Martinique.
 
As the tin says, what if the British captured Louisiana and received all of if after the war?

How could they ?

OTL, although finally triumphant, the british and their settlers were far far far away from reaching the Mississippi. They could not even pierce the french fortifications on the upper Ohio.

So I can see no other way than the french very generously (i.e. incredibly stupidly) handing Louisiana over for free. Which OTL they refused to consider since they precisely have It to the spanish in order not to give It to the british.

And I can see no valuable possession that the british would be willing to trade in exchange for Louisiana with the french. Their lost positions in India ? No way ? Agreeing to Austria giving away the low countries to France against I don't know what (the rights to the future bavarian succession maybe) ? No way.
 
How could they ?
.

Well the British captured Havana in OTL which is how they managed to acquire Florida from Spain. Maybe the British capture New Orleans and another French island and the French give up NOLA to get the island back similar to Canada
 
Other way round- France exchanged the whole of Canada for the return of, IIRC, Martinique.

It was Guadeloupe. To get back the island of Minorca (captured by France), Britain apparently offered to return one of its conquests - either Guadeloupe or Canada, and France chose Guadeloupe.

Britain never invaded Louisiana during the war. France ceded it to Spain, apparently as compensation for Spain's losses.
 
Well the British captured Havana in OTL which is how they managed to acquire Florida from Spain. Maybe the British capture New Orleans and another French island and the French give up NOLA to get the island back similar to Canada

Habana is but a city. Louisiana was a gigantic territory which, as funnyhat and I mentioned, was never attacked by the british who did not even came close to It since they were not able to cross the Ohio river during the FYW.
 
Britain could have easily had Louisiana in the deal. They hadn't occupied any of it, but then again, the French barely had control of it either. the territory was deemed wilderness and not worth much. So Britain urged France to give it to Spain in order to get Spain to give up the war. Realistically, Britain gave it to Spain, although technically it was France that made the transfer. France either didn't want it, having lost all else in North America, or eagerly gave it away at British urging, desperately looking to get out of the war. At that point in time Britain could have had any North American French holdings it wanted, regardless of where their troops were positioned. But they were war weary, even though they were kicking butt on all fronts, so they sacrificed land while accepting a quite logical natural border of the Mississippi. They should have taken New Orleans in the deal, but maybe Spain wouldn't accept Louisiana without NO. A few more months, Britain probably could have taken Cuba in the deal, too, but as said Britain was war weary, France was beyond war weary, and Spain was belligerent, rapidly losing militarily and eagerly grasped at a face saving measure. But, if Britain had the fortitude to continue, it could have taken all of Louisiana without ever occupying an inch of it.

Per the OP, IF Britain took all of French North America, that puts her at odds with Spain and trying to figure out the Texas border. Odds are in Britain's favor for getting a good border. It also means Britain has to maintain a rebellious French population. Since Spain faced the same, and easily quashed it, figure Britain can easily do the same. Expect another 'colony', whether by that name or a territory, which will likely prosper a lot more under the energetic Brits than it did under the sluggish Spanish. Would they have any cause to join the rebel Patriots? I'm guessing not, and probably wouldn't have anything to offer the cause anyhow. But it could be an interesting wrinkle. Sans a Spain in New Orleans, Britain does not lose Florida, and Spain has no geographic reason or ability to aid the Patriots, which right there dooms, or puts a huge damper on, the Patriot cause. Patriots losing the revolution puts a whole new spin on the course of events.
 
another interesting POD is WI Spain took France's offer of all of Louisiana, including the Illinois territory, a year or two earlier when the war was still in limbo and Spain could have made a difference. OTL, Spain stupidly joined the war AFTER France had already lost.
 
Britain could have easily had Louisiana in the deal. They hadn't occupied any of it, but then again, the French barely had control of it either. the territory was deemed wilderness and not worth much. So Britain urged France to give it to Spain in order to get Spain to give up the war. Realistically, Britain gave it to Spain, although technically it was France that made the transfer. France either didn't want it, having lost all else in North America, or eagerly gave it away at British urging, desperately looking to get out of the war. At that point in time Britain could have had any North American French holdings it wanted, regardless of where their troops were positioned. But they were war weary, even though they were kicking butt on all fronts, so they sacrificed land while accepting a quite logical natural border of the Mississippi. They should have taken New Orleans in the deal, but maybe Spain wouldn't accept Louisiana without NO. A few more months, Britain probably could have taken Cuba in the deal, too, but as said Britain was war weary, France was beyond war weary, and Spain was belligerent, rapidly losing militarily and eagerly grasped at a face saving measure. But, if Britain had the fortitude to continue, it could have taken all of Louisiana without ever occupying an inch of it.

Per the OP, IF Britain took all of French North America, that puts her at odds with Spain and trying to figure out the Texas border. Odds are in Britain's favor for getting a good border. It also means Britain has to maintain a rebellious French population. Since Spain faced the same, and easily quashed it, figure Britain can easily do the same. Expect another 'colony', whether by that name or a territory, which will likely prosper a lot more under the energetic Brits than it did under the sluggish Spanish. Would they have any cause to join the rebel Patriots? I'm guessing not, and probably wouldn't have anything to offer the cause anyhow. But it could be an interesting wrinkle. Sans a Spain in New Orleans, Britain does not lose Florida, and Spain has no geographic reason or ability to aid the Patriots, which right there dooms, or puts a huge damper on, the Patriot cause. Patriots losing the revolution puts a whole new spin on the course of events.

How do you think the terrirotories would have developed? With England owning the entirety of Louisiana, I doubt the Proclamation of 1763 would occur because the English would want to settle English people in OTL Louisiana due to the French settlements there. Maybe we see earlier settlement of OTL Mississippi and Alabama as a result?
 
The problem with these "England could have got anything it wanted" thoughts regarding Louisiana is the problem that today we think of peace treaties after wars to be like WWI or WWII where Victor's dictate terms. That's actually very rare. And the French and Indian Wars (there is an S in that name for a reason) in North America are actually four distinct wars in Europe with peace treaties between them. And England could not get whatever it wanted, and probably never could have got Louisiana. Louisiana was given to the Spanish specifically to keep it from the British negotiating table in case they did ask for it. Secondly, there are allies in Europe, those are nations that could continue to fight or may join the next war against you, if you ask for too much or succeed in grabbing too much. There's a reason that the alliances kept shifting in each of the component wars we call the French and Indian Wars.
 
Britain could have easily had Louisiana in the deal. They hadn't occupied any of it, but then again, the French barely had control of it either. the territory was deemed wilderness and not worth much. So Britain urged France to give it to Spain in order to get Spain to give up the war. Realistically, Britain gave it to Spain, although technically it was France that made the transfer. France either didn't want it, having lost all else in North America, or eagerly gave it away at British urging, desperately looking to get out of the war.

Not sure about this; from what I've read, the Treaty of Fontainebleau of 1762 was a private agreement between France and Spain, unbeknownst to other nations. In fact, the Treaty of Paris signed a few months later stated that France would control Louisiana west of the Mississippi, with no mention of Spanish control at all. I'm not sure why it would state this if Britain was informed of the negotiations at Fontainebleau.

My understanding is that Britain did not know of the Louisiana transfer until some time after the peace was signed. (The Wikipedia article suggests that it was not made public until 1764.)
 
Last edited:
Not sure about this; from what I've read, the Treaty of Fontainebleau of 1762 was a private agreement between France and Spain, unbeknownst to other nations. In fact, the Treaty of Paris signed a few months later stated that France would control Louisiana west of the Mississippi, with no mention of Spanish control at all. I'm not sure why it would state this if Britain was informed of the negotiations at Fontainebleau.

My understanding is that Britain did not know of the Louisiana transfer until some time after the peace was signed. (The Wikipedia article suggests that it was not made public until 1764.)
You are correct.
 
the 'secret treaty' wasn't so secret. It was the Brits who 'suggested' (ie made it happen) (edit: I think it's commonly credited to Lord Bute for making the suggestion) that France turn over Louisiana to Spain. France, at that point, had absolutely no bargaining power. They knew the gig was up in North America, and didn't particularly care whether Britain took Louisiana or Spain took it. Britain used the territory as a bargaining chip to get Spain to agree the war was over. War weariness was a prime factor, but IF Britain had wanted the territory, there was absolutely no one on the planet who was going to stop them from getting it. France was kablooey, Spain was rapidly getting there. Russia, Prussia and Austria didn't give a rats behind about the French Americas and couldn't do a darn thing even if they did. the only reason Britain didn't take it was because they didn't want it, combined with giving it to Spain drops Spain out of the war a few months earlier and saves Britain the war costs of continuing to kick the crap out of Spain. Britain was the ultimate victor in this war. the only opponent they had at the end was economics. economics was the only thing keeping Britain from taking any colony from either Spain or France.

And since when is the French and Indian War pluralized? there is no plural. it's singular, and it's the American phase of the seven years war. if anything, the seven year war should be pluralized, because there were multiple wars within that war. F and I was one war, and thus not pluralized.
 
the 'secret treaty' wasn't so secret. It was the Brits who 'suggested' (ie made it happen) (edit: I think it's commonly credited to Lord Bute for making the suggestion) that France turn over Louisiana to Spain. France, at that point, had absolutely no bargaining power. They knew the gig was up in North America, and didn't particularly care whether Britain took Louisiana or Spain took it. Britain used the territory as a bargaining chip to get Spain to agree the war was over. War weariness was a prime factor, but IF Britain had wanted the territory, there was absolutely no one on the planet who was going to stop them from getting it. France was kablooey, Spain was rapidly getting there. Russia, Prussia and Austria didn't give a rats behind about the French Americas and couldn't do a darn thing even if they did. the only reason Britain didn't take it was because they didn't want it, combined with giving it to Spain drops Spain out of the war a few months earlier and saves Britain the war costs of continuing to kick the crap out of Spain. Britain was the ultimate victor in this war. the only opponent they had at the end was economics. economics was the only thing keeping Britain from taking any colony from either Spain or France.

And since when is the French and Indian War pluralized? there is no plural. it's singular, and it's the American phase of the seven years war. if anything, the seven year war should be pluralized, because there were multiple wars within that war. F and I was one war, and thus not pluralized.
The French and Indian WarS include more than the Seven Year War, which was the last of the four wars. In Quebec all four wars are also combined in one name- the Intercolonial Wars. War of Austrian Succession is the third war, Spanish Succession is the second, and Augsburg (or 9 year war) was the first. Those wars in America are also known as William, Anne, and George, with George also known as Jenkins Ear.

The fourth war is the one you are thinking of, and you are correct in that it is French and Indian War in the singular, but this is NOT what is generally what is spoken of in the USA when talking about the colonial wars between France and Britain. Generally all four conflicts are talked about together as a continuum and you don't just start with the last one. This is the equivalent of separating the Napoleonic Wars by the various treaties and just calling the Napoleonic War without an S as being after 1808 for example.
 
The French and Indian WarS include more than the Seven Year War, which was the last of the four wars. In Quebec all four wars are also combined in one name- the Intercolonial Wars. War of Austrian Succession is the third war, Spanish Succession is the second, and Augsburg (or 9 year war) was the first. Those wars in America are also known as William, Anne, and George, with George also known as Jenkins Ear.

The fourth war is the one you are thinking of, and you are correct in that it is French and Indian War in the singular, but this is NOT what is generally what is spoken of in the USA when talking about the colonial wars between France and Britain. Generally all four conflicts are talked about together as a continuum and you don't just start with the last one. This is the equivalent of separating the Napoleonic Wars by the various treaties and just calling the Napoleonic War without an S as being after 1808 for example.

As an American I can assure you that when bringing up the French and Indian War/s in the USA, most people will just go to the fourth one. Very little is ever mentioned about the others other than when talking about how the Cajuns ended up in Louisiana.
 
As an American I can assure you that when bringing up the French and Indian War/s in the USA, most people will just go to the fourth one. Very little is ever mentioned about the others other than when talking about how the Cajuns ended up in Louisiana.
Also as an American who has a master's in history, I can tell you that you are not correct
 
Top