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

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.

Do you have a source for this? This runs counter to what I've read on the topic.

If it's the case that Britain encouraged the Treaty of Fontainebleau, I don't understand why the subsequent Treaty of Paris didn't reflect it (Spain's possession of Louisiana).
 
At this point, I hope we can move on to the actual point of my OP and discuss the ramifications of British Louisiana more. It's been covered a little bit but then we got dragged back to other stuff.
 
I have never heard of any of the earlier wars referred to as French and Indian Wars. It's true they are glossed over in the US. They all are considered separate wars, each with their own nickname.

War of Jenkins ear was Britain vs Spain (absolutely no French involvement. In fact Spain was mighty disappointed that France didn't get involved).

the war from 1754-1763 in North America was called French and Indian because it was the only one of the wars to widely involve Indians. The rest were mostly smaller scale battles over upper Maine/Acadia. I'm sure there were Indian allies, but overall it was Brit vs French. F and I had a huge component of I.

Nap wars also have a series of names, usually involving the number of the coalition. People lump them together because they were a continuous series separated by months and were basically one long conflict. the Brit vs France in North America were separated by decades.
 
Maybe the British push the Royal Proclamation line a bit to the west and compensate the Natives with lands in Louisiana.

Policing such a massive territory is going to require a lot of money and manpower and so there could be an earlier confrontation over taxes between Parliament and the Colonial legislatures.
 
kinda got lost in the shuffle, but from my post # 10:
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.

I'm guessing the line of royal proclamation stays intact, but the states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri get opened up for easterners looking for land. The Indians of east of Mississippi are too powerful, which is why the line was made to begin with, and Britain is looking to placate them.
 
I have never heard of any of the earlier wars referred to as French and Indian Wars. It's true they are glossed over in the US. They all are considered separate wars, each with their own nickname.

War of Jenkins ear was Britain vs Spain (absolutely no French involvement. In fact Spain was mighty disappointed that France didn't get involved).

the war from 1754-1763 in North America was called French and Indian because it was the only one of the wars to widely involve Indians. The rest were mostly smaller scale battles over upper Maine/Acadia. I'm sure there were Indian allies, but overall it was Brit vs French. F and I had a huge component of I.

Nap wars also have a series of names, usually involving the number of the coalition. People lump them together because they were a continuous series separated by months and were basically one long conflict. the Brit vs France in North America were separated by decades.
Look up in Wikipedia- French and Indian Wars with the s on the end. Really I shouldn't have to argue when there are resources like Wikipedia and Google that you can use yourself instead of you basing "what you've heard" in life as "facts"
 
At this point, I hope we can move on to the actual point of my OP and discuss the ramifications of British Louisiana more. It's been covered a little bit but then we got dragged back to other stuff.
The thing is, and what got us off track, is the fact you haven't come up with a POD that explains why they want it, how they got it, why they want to keep it. You CANT just say "this is the world" now what happens. It all depends on WHY things are different.
 
The thing is, and what got us off track, is the fact you haven't come up with a POD that explains why they want it, how they got it, why they want to keep it. You CANT just say "this is the world" now what happens. It all depends on WHY things are different.

They decide to capture NOLA which once captured effectively gives them control of Southern Louisiana. It's not the most outlandish thing when they're trying to secure Florida and France has outposts at Mobile and NOLA.
 
They decide to capture NOLA which once captured effectively gives them control of Southern Louisiana. It's not the most outlandish thing when they're trying to secure Florida and France has outposts at Mobile and NOLA.
Ok, here's what happens- at the Peace treaty Britain trades it for something else from France. Britain seriously doesn't need or have a reason to keep it. The 13 colonies will NOT want a British
 
google french and indian wars. you come up with two entries of plural: a wiki site that includes war of jenkins ear as one of them, and a site that then goes on to specifically lists F and I as being the american part of the 7 years war. Sorry if I don't trust a site (or a history major) that lists a British-Spanish war as part of a french war.

I'll stick with what I've heard.
 
Britain really should have taken New Orleans. Kind of crazy they didn't, as it's the gateway to the central states. They may have left it for Spain as a way to sweeten the pot to get Spain to quit the war. they correctly estimated that they could force Spain to keep the river open. Leave it in French hands, and it becomes another Louisbourg, which they had been trying to take in every other war. they did actually take it, repeatedly, but kept giving it back when France had more bargaining power. In 1762/ 1763, France had no bargaining power whatsoever. Gaining control of NO/LA was not a problem for Britain. Leaving control of the river in French hands was probably not on the table.

the transfer to Spain was probably kept publicly 'secret' because Spain wasn't ready to take possession, and wouldn't be for several more years and didn't want the French in LA knowing before they were.

As for a POD, simply have Carlos III not be so stupid as to jump into the war AFTER it was obvious France had lost and British troops previously engaged were now available to engage the Spanish. No Spain means Britain likely just takes all of LA, rather than the eastern half. IF that's the case, Spain retains FL, and still has several thousand residents and the emerging Spanish naval stores industry developing there, and the Jacksonville region, which was haven for escaped slaves and other free blacks, continues to grow in that vein. the OTL British development of FL instead would get concentrated in Mobile, Natchez, the southern Red River and eventually up the Mississippi Valley. Spain not getting its butt kicked might make them less eager for revenge, and they may not jump massively into the American Revolution, and Patriots have a much tougher time. the southern colonies, and the TTL colony of NO/LA (which likely to be a slave colony) who were on the fence about joining the revolution, might stick with the Brits, fearing a semi-potent free black/Spanish threat on the border. there was a lot of animosity about the Georgia border, which only ended with the Spanish loss in F and I war. Georgia had been invaded in War of Jenkins Ear, and there was a simultaneous fear of massive slave rebellion all up the coast. Fears of a repeat were a lot more realistic than the typical 'if Canada were still French, the colonies would stick with Britain' notion.
 
another easy POD is have Pitt remain in power another year or two. He was all about getting as much as possible, and railed against what he thought was a soft peace. He wanted all of North America. If he had his way, Spain would have been pummeled before it even entered the war.

there are What ifs that require a big stretch to get there. this isn't one of them.
 
google french and indian wars. you come up with two entries of plural: a wiki site that includes war of jenkins ear as one of them, and a site that then goes on to specifically lists F and I as being the american part of the 7 years war. Sorry if I don't trust a site (or a history major) that lists a British-Spanish war as part of a french war.

I'll stick with what I've heard.
A master's in history, not a "History major" my undergrad major was poli sci. Get it right, because your failure to know the distinction between a major and when someone mentions a graduate degree makes people think you're a high school student.

Anyways- do you know anything about the French and Indian Wars because you seem ignorant on thinking the War of Jenkins Ear was a stand alone war between Great Britain and Spain... in Europe it was the War of Austrian Succession, which did pit the British versus France... so, I dont get your distinction of saying "French and Indian" had to mean it was against France. As if Americans were literal and rational in naming wars... and stop being a dick.
 
I'll stand by my version. If you think you're right, and I'm an idiot, no skin off my nose. I work with plenty of masters/PhD folk in my job of research scientist. I respect some. I laugh at others. your degree means nothing about whether you are right or wrong.

But, this site frowns upon personal animosity, and I have no desire to be banned, so let's just leave it at agree to disagree, and we both walk away thinking the other is the idiot dick.

Peace
 
Necroing my own thread since it's my own thread and I wanted to build off of my original premise.

Assuming that the British took Louisiana in the French and Indian War, could that potentially delay a War of Independence among the Colonials? I'd imagine, as others have pointed out, that this would lead to a subsequent belligerence toward Spain with regard to the border between New Spain and British Louisiana. So, we see British American colonists filibustering Spanish territory leading to tensions between Britain and Spain.

Another potential thought is the French settlers in Louisiana being forcibly relocated by the British to Spanish controlled Texas since these are the same descendants of the Acadians that were forced to Louisiana from the Maritimes and they probably are not loving being under British control again.
 
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

There were plans to march an army from Georgia to New Orleans but they got delayed, diverted to the Carribbean theatre and slaughtered by tropical disease.
 
There were plans to march an army from Georgia to New Orleans but they got delayed, diverted to the Carribbean theatre and slaughtered by tropical disease.

Marching from Georgia to New Orleans sounds like a good way to get slaughtered by tropical disease as well.
 
Necroing my own thread since it's my own thread and I wanted to build off of my original premise.

Assuming that the British took Louisiana in the French and Indian War, could that potentially delay a War of Independence among the Colonials? I'd imagine, as others have pointed out, that this would lead to a subsequent belligerence toward Spain with regard to the border between New Spain and British Louisiana. So, we see British American colonists filibustering Spanish territory leading to tensions between Britain and Spain.

Another potential thought is the French settlers in Louisiana being forcibly relocated by the British to Spanish controlled Texas since these are the same descendants of the Acadians that were forced to Louisiana from the Maritimes and they probably are not loving being under British control again.

I would actually argue the opposite. The trouble makers in Boston and Virginia would feel the Spanish threat is even further away and thus it is safer to rebel.
 
I would actually argue the opposite. The trouble makers in Boston and Virginia would feel the Spanish threat is even further away and thus it is safer to rebel.

But that could potentially but them at odds with the Southern colonists (South of Virginia), no? Since the rest of the Southern colonists would be eyeing Texas and potentially even Cuba as potential areas for expansion.
 
Top