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.
When western Louisiana was transferred to Spain, the British were no doubt happy of course. However, as a side note, the colonists in Louisiana were unhappy. Although sovereignty formally transferred to Spain in 1763, Spain did not bother to change the administration until sending a new Governor in 1768, and the francophone colonists revolted at that point.
So, it seems to me a continued French Louisiana is plausible after 1763.
The main thing is to change Franco-Spanish bargaining. Louis XIII needs to retain an interest in keeping Louisiana, which he apparently did not in OTL.
This shouldn’t be too hard. The same rationale that caused a later generation of French leaders, Talleyrand and Napoleon, to be interested in recovering Louisiana could apply here. Louisiana could be considered a necessary complement to the sugar colony of Saint-Domingue, needed to supply the latter with grain and possibly timber and cattle products.
How will everything else be effected from 1763-1764 onward with this PoD?
In particular, what effect, if any, will this have on British-American colonial relations?
On the one hand, there can still be a fear of the French, or French Indian proxies, causing colonials to be more clingy to Britain and accepting of her policies.
On the other hand, the colonists can still feel much more secure, because the French are out of the continent east of the Mississippi. With Canada and the Ohio country under English control the eastern seaboard colonies are obviously far more secure.
I think Britain will pursue similar policy paths to OTL. It will need revenue and have the self-confidence to think it can make its dictates stick. They would probably still prefer to enforce the proclamation line after Pontiac’s rebellion, to keep peace, reduce military outlays and keep the fur trade going. But maybe I’m wrong. Speak up if you disagree.
So, I am uncertain of how much the colonial-British tensions from 1763 through 1774 over the Stamp Act, Declaratory Act and Townshend Acts will be affected.
I suspect the alteration in this TL would probably change the Canadian situation more than the 13 colonies’s situation. The British will probably be more fearful of the French population (although there will still be too large a population to simply deport). The French population may not feel quite as abandoned.
How is the French American empire and the kingdom of France effected in the years between 1763 and 1776?
On the one hand the scenario presumes a greater French interest in Louisiana compared to OTL, which implies a higher degree of metropolitan support and colonization. Also, the voluntary migration of French Canadiens to Louisiana may be larger than OTL. On the other hand, I believe that in OTL after crushing the revolt of 1768, Spain began to develop Louisiana more under its Governors than France had ever done, and they too encouraged at least some settlement from among French Canadiens and Acadiens.
The French colonial empire (Louisiana & Caribbean) may have a higher degree of integration and specialization, and may even a net profit, but it’s not likely to be any kind of fiscal el dorado for the French treasury.
If it does come to an American revolutionary war in the mid-1770s or so, the French presence in Louisiana monkeys with the situation a bit. The French have another base in North America. There is also however, more room to have conflicting interests in terms of a final settlement regarding territory on the east bank of the Mississippi.
Poll also attached
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.
When western Louisiana was transferred to Spain, the British were no doubt happy of course. However, as a side note, the colonists in Louisiana were unhappy. Although sovereignty formally transferred to Spain in 1763, Spain did not bother to change the administration until sending a new Governor in 1768, and the francophone colonists revolted at that point.
So, it seems to me a continued French Louisiana is plausible after 1763.
The main thing is to change Franco-Spanish bargaining. Louis XIII needs to retain an interest in keeping Louisiana, which he apparently did not in OTL.
This shouldn’t be too hard. The same rationale that caused a later generation of French leaders, Talleyrand and Napoleon, to be interested in recovering Louisiana could apply here. Louisiana could be considered a necessary complement to the sugar colony of Saint-Domingue, needed to supply the latter with grain and possibly timber and cattle products.
How will everything else be effected from 1763-1764 onward with this PoD?
In particular, what effect, if any, will this have on British-American colonial relations?
On the one hand, there can still be a fear of the French, or French Indian proxies, causing colonials to be more clingy to Britain and accepting of her policies.
On the other hand, the colonists can still feel much more secure, because the French are out of the continent east of the Mississippi. With Canada and the Ohio country under English control the eastern seaboard colonies are obviously far more secure.
I think Britain will pursue similar policy paths to OTL. It will need revenue and have the self-confidence to think it can make its dictates stick. They would probably still prefer to enforce the proclamation line after Pontiac’s rebellion, to keep peace, reduce military outlays and keep the fur trade going. But maybe I’m wrong. Speak up if you disagree.
So, I am uncertain of how much the colonial-British tensions from 1763 through 1774 over the Stamp Act, Declaratory Act and Townshend Acts will be affected.
I suspect the alteration in this TL would probably change the Canadian situation more than the 13 colonies’s situation. The British will probably be more fearful of the French population (although there will still be too large a population to simply deport). The French population may not feel quite as abandoned.
How is the French American empire and the kingdom of France effected in the years between 1763 and 1776?
On the one hand the scenario presumes a greater French interest in Louisiana compared to OTL, which implies a higher degree of metropolitan support and colonization. Also, the voluntary migration of French Canadiens to Louisiana may be larger than OTL. On the other hand, I believe that in OTL after crushing the revolt of 1768, Spain began to develop Louisiana more under its Governors than France had ever done, and they too encouraged at least some settlement from among French Canadiens and Acadiens.
The French colonial empire (Louisiana & Caribbean) may have a higher degree of integration and specialization, and may even a net profit, but it’s not likely to be any kind of fiscal el dorado for the French treasury.
If it does come to an American revolutionary war in the mid-1770s or so, the French presence in Louisiana monkeys with the situation a bit. The French have another base in North America. There is also however, more room to have conflicting interests in terms of a final settlement regarding territory on the east bank of the Mississippi.
Poll also attached