WI: No Treaty of Fontainebleau 1762?

I would think it would not affect the outcome on the eastern seaboard, but it very well could effect exactly where the US western boundary is fixed. UK power projection into Mississippi, Illinois, western tennessee, western Kentucky and Wisconsin May be stronger than US.
This was the sort of the issue behind my question. In the short term the presence of a British garrison in New Orleans might affect the balance of forces available. In the longer term the possibility of a Britain holding the Mississippi basin, including the Ohio and Missouri etc has the potential for significant impact. These rivers provide a way to spread colonisation efforts into the interior much faster than they ever could in Australia.

If a British Louisiana Territory (BLT - sorry, I couldn't resist it!) survives, it would significantly affect the development of the West Coast and of Canada. If in this ATL Britain still loses the 13 colonies, but holds on to BLT there would be no Compromise of 1850, no Annexation of California, major changes to Texas and the SW, no Alaska purchase. Development of the railways would almost certainly take a different pattern, with the transcontinental links taking much longer to appear.

Politically it would be interesting too. Britain would probably still have Canada plus effectively the Mississippi Basin. On the East Coast would be a truncated USA. It's the West Coast that gets most complicated. Russia is still active in Alaska and spreading down the Pacific Coast from the North. I don't know if there were any issues between Britain and Russia over this in OTL, but I suspect in this one, there would be. British influence on the West Coast would almost certainly spread much further south into Washington State and Oregon, while Spanish/Mexican control would be spreading North. Where a Britain/Canada heading south meets Spain/Mexico heading north is something to think about, and the impact of that contact on relationships back in Europe.

There is also the possibility of an attempt by France to make a comeback somehow.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
This was the sort of the issue behind my question. In the short term the presence of a British garrison in New Orleans might affect the balance of forces available. In the longer term the possibility of a Britain holding the Mississippi basin, including the Ohio and Missouri etc has the potential for significant impact. These rivers provide a way to spread colonisation efforts into the interior much faster than they ever could in Australia.

If a British Louisiana Territory (BLT - sorry, I couldn't resist it!) survives, it would significantly affect the development of the West Coast and of Canada. If in this ATL Britain still loses the 13 colonies, but holds on to BLT there would be no Compromise of 1850, no Annexation of California, major changes to Texas and the SW, no Alaska purchase. Development of the railways would almost certainly take a different pattern, with the transcontinental links taking much longer to appear.

Politically it would be interesting too. Britain would probably still have Canada plus effectively the Mississippi Basin. On the East Coast would be a truncated USA. It's the West Coast that gets most complicated. Russia is still active in Alaska and spreading down the Pacific Coast from the North. I don't know if there were any issues between Britain and Russia over this in OTL, but I suspect in this one, there would be. British influence on the West Coast would almost certainly spread much further south into Washington State and Oregon, while Spanish/Mexican control would be spreading North. Where a Britain/Canada heading south meets Spain/Mexico heading north is something to think about, and the impact of that contact on relationships back in Europe.

There is also the possibility of an attempt by France to make a comeback somehow.

True. Very interesting. The US could be hemmed into the Appalachians, Alleghenies, or some halfway point between the mountains and the Mississippi, leaving the western limits of the US some lump consisting of Ohio, two-thirds of Kentucky and Tennessee, and maybe half each of Indiana and Alabama.

Regardless, the history of interior and western North America is totally changed. The US is truncated to the eastern US, however "thick" or "thin".

If the US is angry about this, it may remain a consistent French ally with an anti-British foreign policy for a longer period of time. I would think that industrial development and urbanization in the alt-US would creep southward from the New England and Mid-Atlantic states and encroach on the agricultural and slave based economies of the southeast. The Chesapeake would urbanize and industrialize next, possibly with slave labor. On the other hand, the US might hope to encourage the migration of it non-white Amerindian and free black populations out of national limits into British North America as the industrial model attracts immigrant labor and outcompetes the plantation model in the more limited lands of the truncated southeast.
 
A British Louisiana is no refuge for the Arcadians displaced from Canada, so the Cajun Culture of Louisiana never develops, and lower Louisiana has an even smaller population. Without New Orleans as a base Spain can't attack Pensacola over land in 1781, and regain Florida in 1783. On the other hand the Spanish may attack New Orleans by sea, and take it during the ARW. The British were stretched thin in Florida, and the Gulf Coast after 1778. A lot of things could happen. The area was a low British priority during the ARW.

It's been debated in other threads, but the British would have a very tough time attracting White farming settlers to New Orleans. It's not like Canada. It's a swampy subtropical region, subject to tropical diseases, which is why it developed into a Slave driven plantation economy somewhat like the Sugar Islands. The population would be made up mostly of traders, dealing with the trappers, and farmers from up river. If the British are holding New Orleans, and Florida they'd be fought over in the War of 1812. The British decided that without the 13 Colonies Florida was a strategic liability, rather then a plus, and were willing to seed it back to Spain. New Orleans would be another major commitment. The British would have to decide if the profits from their part of the fur trade passing through New Orleans was worth the cost of protecting it, if their interests could be secured by negotiations.
Much of my ancestry comes from the northshore of Louisiana, in fact some of my African ancestry derives from the Fountainbleu Plantation founded by Bernard de Marigny but also all the below mentioned groups.

The Northshore and the Florida Parishes by the late 1700s was settled by some:

  1. Spaniard brothers who received land grants
  2. pirates who fought for Andrew Jackson at the battle of NOLA
  3. a British aligned Choctaw population of Sixtown traditionalists who separated from the mixed euro-indian elite led faction that signed the treaty of Dancing Rabbit in Mississippi
  4. First Catholic Anglos + loyalists from Georgia Kentucky, Tennesee & South Carolina
  5. Later waves of Anglo-American families that ultimately pushed out the Spanish and created the West Florida nation (4 and 5 being the majority of the population by about the 1770s/1780s)
  6. Mixed race families of farmers and/or small slave owners who were often (but not always) supported and protected by their Anglo, Hispano and Franco white families up until the early 1900s
  7. Enslaved and free black families
  8. Maroons and afro-indigenous camps in Bayou Lacombe, Baou Tfefuncte, West Pearl River
Primarily silvo-pasture/agro-forestry herders, hunters, fishers; they eventually became part of a “Ozone” tourist industry that provided safe lodging for well to do Orleanians during the yellow fever and malaria seasons that plague NOLA.

Eventually these groups were largely screwed over by American industrialist lumber barons who completely denuded the forests that were made prestine first by Choctaw fire management.

There's many opportunities for the Florida Parishes and the parishes east both north and south of them. Point Coupee, St Laundry, Iberville, etc... Were also important parishes that had Creole white, mixed race and black families who'd still persist and exist without Acadians.

What would be interesting with a British Louisiana POD would above all else be the immigration of Creek Confederacy, Cherokee Nation, Choctaw and Chickasaw nationals to the region.

Many of their mixed race elite and white adopted leaders were British men, these were instrumental in the War of 1812 attack against the United States and would likely flee to British Louisiana if Georgia and Alabama north of Mobile were taken by incoming American settlers.
 
Last edited:
Top