WI: Great Britain gets Louisiana instead of Spain

More tensions between the British government and the colonists? This is even more room to expand in, which I doubt the British would want them to expand in.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Here's what I would argue the default path is-

British ruled Louisiana does attract some english-speaking merchants in addition to military and civilian officials, but the British government's focus is mainly on pacification, so there is an equivalent to the Quebec Act, and British interest in controlling settlement expansion is only strengthened and the colonists of the seaboard have one more irritant.

The 13 colonies break away as in OTL, and New Orleans is as likely to stay British as Quebec. This makes for an eventual USA/BNA border in between the Alleghenies and the Mississippi, blocking US expansion in the short term and guaranteeing more bitter and determined Anglo-American-Native conflict over the long-term.

The only potential wildcard is perhaps a French reclamation of Louisiana, as a consequence of New Orleans being more accessible to Franco-Spanish forces based in the Caribbean or New Spain, making an operation by the Bourbon powers more feasible than up the St. Lawrence.
 
Here's what I would argue the default path is-

British ruled Louisiana does attract some english-speaking merchants in addition to military and civilian officials, but the British government's focus is mainly on pacification, so there is an equivalent to the Quebec Act, and British interest in controlling settlement expansion is only strengthened and the colonists of the seaboard have one more irritant.

The 13 colonies break away as in OTL, and New Orleans is as likely to stay British as Quebec. This makes for an eventual USA/BNA border in between the Alleghenies and the Mississippi, blocking US expansion in the short term and guaranteeing more bitter and determined Anglo-American-Native conflict over the long-term.

The only potential wildcard is perhaps a French reclamation of Louisiana, as a consequence of New Orleans being more accessible to Franco-Spanish forces based in the Caribbean or New Spain, making an operation by the Bourbon powers more feasible than up the St. Lawrence.

You are aware that Montreal had about three times the population of New Orleans around the time of the Revolution, right? And that apart from that and St. Louis, there were basically no (European) settlements worth mentioning in Louisiana? It's silly to assume that because they kept Canada the British would somehow be able to forcibly keep Louisiana, too, since Louisiana was even more sparsely populated than Canada at that time. Besides, even if that somehow happened, the 13 colonies had nowhere else to expand, so they'd expend as much effort as would be necessary in order to push their way into the territory. In the long run, London just can't stop them.
 
The only potential wildcard is perhaps a French reclamation of Louisiana, as a consequence of New Orleans being more accessible to Franco-Spanish forces based in the Caribbean or New Spain, making an operation by the Bourbon powers more feasible than up the St. Lawrence.


Why not? They did reclaim Florida...
 
You are aware that Montreal had about three times the population of New Orleans around the time of the Revolution, right? And that apart from that and St. Louis, there were basically no (European) settlements worth mentioning in Louisiana? It's silly to assume that because they kept Canada the British would somehow be able to forcibly keep Louisiana, too, since Louisiana was even more sparsely populated than Canada at that time. Besides, even if that somehow happened, the 13 colonies had nowhere else to expand, so they'd expend as much effort as would be necessary in order to push their way into the territory. In the long run, London just can't stop them.


I agree that American would eventually overrun Louisiana no matter who owned it, be it Britain, France or Spain. Demographics always win in the end.

In 1760's, near the end of the 7 Years war, North American Commanding General Amherst was offered his choice of targets in the new world, Cuba, Florida, Louisiana. He could have made his choice. I doubt that Spain would have diverted overly many resources to Florida nor France to Louisiana. Both might have fallen relatively easily and been kept in the peace.

I don't see Britain moving swiftly into Louisiana, at least prior to the ARW. They might have proven yet another complaint by the colonists.
 
Didn't Britain keep Canada because Canada wanted to be kept? Why is it automatic that Britain has to expend all that much energy keeping Louisiana? Maybe Louisiana wouldn't really be all that interested in joining the revolution, just as the Canadians weren't? Don't forget that the southern states weren't exactly gung-ho to join in.

And, without Spanish Louisiana to act as a conduit for vital supplies to the Patriots, the Patriots have a tougher go of it. and with a greater British presence in the Caribbean, maybe Spain isn't so eager to engage in war against Britain, which has serious consequences for the Patriots.

New Orleans is all Britain has to control. Under belated Spanish efforts, the city was a boomtown at the end of the 1700's. Under British command, who's to say it doesn't boom earlier? Or that the US conducts it's foreign affairs regarding Mississippi commerce differently with a powerhouse country having forces north, west and south (don't forget, Britain would still control the floridas) of them.

some people have a tendency toward Turtledovism - that events that took place OTL automatically have to happen TTL. With Britain in charge of the Mississippi, the US is not going to automatically take Louisiana at their leisure. IMO, the US OTL is one perfect storm of a wank success. As of 1763, they are NOT predestined to rule the continent.
 
New Orleans is all Britain has to control. Under belated Spanish efforts, the city was a boomtown at the end of the 1700's. Under British command, who's to say it doesn't boom earlier?

Well, part of the boom IOTL was due to the displaced Acadians making their way over to Louisiana (some didn't arrive until the 1780s). ITTL, having been expelled by the British from Acadia (Nova Scotia), they are not likely to make the long journey to another British-controlled area.

Maybe some other key source of immigration would arrive in British Louisiana ITTL but I'd be inclined to doubt it, given that there wasn't much British settlement of either Québec or Florida in the decades following 1763. I would imagine that most British people looking to settle in North America would prefer to settle in one of the established anglophone colonies.
 
Top