Also as an American who has a master's in history, I can tell you that you are not correct
Masters in history does not equal most people
Also as an American who has a master's in history, I can tell you that you are not 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.
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"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.
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.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.
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 BritishThey 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.
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.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.
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.
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.