WI Guadeloupe went to a third country in Treaty of Paris (1763)?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Britain retroceded occupied Guadalupe back to France in OTL's Treaty of Paris, in conformity with British 18th-19th century custom of "splitting the difference" and "taking some, leaving some" when it quite frequently occupied other countries' colonies for wartime reasons.

What if Britain was determined that whatever else happened, Guadalupe and its revenues should *not* go back to France at the end of the war.

Now Britain still has a problem keeping it though, the powerful sugar growers lobby representing the planters of Britain's existing West Indies possessions didn't want to add another competitor to Imperial sphere.

What if Britain splits the difference by granting the island to Prussia? Mainly to keep it out of France and Britain's hands but also to help replenish Prussia's strength in Europe and revenue, including the ability of Prussia to repay wartime loans to Britain (if any)?

Would this hurt any economic interest in Britain, more than giving it back to France did?

Would Prussia accept the gift (or indeed payment for wartime services rendered)?

I could see Prussia on the one hand hesitating because it would be expensive to defend and could motivate a French war on Prussia later. Or I could see the Prussians taking it just for the purposes of immediately reselling it back to someone else (probably France). Or I could see the Prussians keeping it.

In that last case, Prussia keeping the territory, how does this affect the development of Prussia, and later Anglo-Prussian relations? Does Prussia feel less screwed by Britain than in OTL. In OTL, they were embittered by British treatment and acted as "malevolently neutral" towards Britain during the American revolutionary war. However, they were able to get over it enough to join a Triple Alliance with the UK and Netherlands by 1788.

Thoughts on this?

...and here is a second alternative for Guadalupe:

Britain deeds to island to the Electorate of Hanover, the King's other property.
If Hanover was administered as an economic unit in total free trade with Britain (and I do *not* know if that was the case in the 18th century) then it runs into the same problems as Britain keeping Guadalupe.

But could this solution work, with the odd result of Hanover having at least one colony it can call its own?

If it does not directly harm the British West Indian sugar lobby, I don't see why parliament would object. On the other hand, parliament might object to the principle of the thing, feeling that allowing this solution would let the monarch get into a bad habit of helping out Hanover with the United Kingdom's resources.

Thoughts?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
It's an interesting idea. Would Britain have to compensate France in some way?

Nope. Sure France would be more upset, but France was upset anyway. Britain controlled the territory in question. Prolonging the war would only increase Bourbon losses to the British.

If the French ask to be compensated, the British can retort "you get to keep Saint-Domingue and Guiana", and "if you keep refusing to settle you won't get St. Pierre, Miquelon or Pondicherry back, or be allowed to fish around Newfoundland"

The easiest compensation for Britain to give back would be to remove the clauses in the treaty about France razing the fortifications of Dunkirk, and, if France is more sulky about the treaty, that is the easiest clause of the treaty for France to disregard.
 
Britain retroceded occupied Guadalupe back to France in OTL's Treaty of Paris, in conformity with British 18th-19th century custom of "splitting the difference" and "taking some, leaving some" when it quite frequently occupied other countries' colonies for wartime reasons.

Actually, it was returned in exchange for Minorca.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
France made Spain give up an originally Spanish island so that France could get an island back?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I stand corrected, on looking it up, I have seen a few places that Guadalupe was traded for Minorca. One of these also says that Martinique was traded back to buy peace for Britain's Portuguese allies. Looking up the history of Minorca, although most often Spanish, it had been British since Utrecht, but French occupied in the 7YW, then British, and finally Spanish after Treaty of Paris in 1783.

I suppose a way we could eliminate the Minorca problem is by having the French not capture it during the war, or the British attempt to retake it by force not be defeated. That gives Britain more leverage to dispose of Guadalupe how it wishes, whether it is to keep it, or if the sugar lobby objects, to pass it on to an ally.
 
Top