British Possesion of New Orleans Before 1812

Did not find much of use on this one. If anyone knows of a thread on the subject please link it.

My questions are:

1. What are the circumstances & odds of the Brits accquiring New Orleans, and by extention Louisiana, before 1812.

2. What are the consequences?

Obviously both questions are dependant on exactly when the accquizition occurs.

At the core of this I am curious if there was any attempt or thought about taking control of the Lower Mississippi during the Seven Years War, or even earlier?
 
Great Britain Regaisn West Florida

Here is a POD that might work for your scenario.
Great Britain regains control over West Florida at the Treaty of Paris, 1783. They had controlled West Florida prior to the Revolution but the Spanish invaded the colony and obtained control of both East and West Florida as a result of the Treaty of Paris. Having Great Britain regain control of West Florida placed them on the doorstep of New Orleans. Great Britain could invade New Orleans around 1798 when the Spanish start restricting access to the Mississippi in violation of the Treaty of Paris, or another option is for Great Britain to find out about the Treaty of San Ildefenso in 1803 and invade Louisiana Territory since it is now French and would represent an easy blow at Napoleon.
 
Thanks. Nice to have something from actual knowledge of the politics. Anything after 1783 can lead to either constricting US expansion, and very likely new conflict with Britain.
 
Last edited:
Great Britain could invade New Orleans around 1798 when the Spanish start restricting access to the Mississippi in violation of the Treaty of Paris, or another option is for Great Britain to find out about the Treaty of San Ildefenso in 1803 and invade Louisiana Territory since it is now French and would represent an easy blow at Napoleon.

Either looks good.

OR, Napoleon could have done better with Haiti (like not causing it to revolt!), and use the army that perished there from fever in Louisiana. GB is NOT going let that happen, and so they invade during the time that France still thinks they can hold it. Note that OTL that army was supposed to subdue Haiti and THEN garrison Louisiana, and when it was gutted (mostly by fever), THEN Napoleon started talks with the US about selling New Orleans/Louisiana. If that army is still (reasonably) intact, they won't sell to the States, and Britain will invade.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Kind of tough to do better with Haiti given that the whole

Either looks good.

OR, Napoleon could have done better with Haiti (like not causing it to revolt!), and use the army that perished there from fever in Louisiana. GB is NOT going let that happen, and so they invade during the time that France still thinks they can hold it. Note that OTL that army was supposed to subdue Haiti and THEN garrison Louisiana, and when it was gutted (mostly by fever), THEN Napoleon started talks with the US about selling New Orleans/Louisiana. If that army is still (reasonably) intact, they won't sell to the States, and Britain will invade.

Kind of tough to do better with Haiti given that the whole point of the expedition was to reimpose slavery on men who had both freed themselves, were free under French law dating to the Revolution, and had fought for France...

Best,
 
I'm not seeing anything about British intent towards the Mississippi region before the Napoleonic era. Was there any interest before the 1790s?
 
I've read Britain planned a campaign to New Orleans before the Peace of 1763 kicked in to continue their roll. I'll have to find it, tho'.
 
Kind of tough to do better with Haiti given that the whole point of the expedition was to reimpose slavery on men who had both freed themselves, were free under French law dating to the Revolution, and had fought for France...

Best,

The revolt is obviously going to happen regardless, but it is not inevitable that Leclerc's forces will be defeated. The yellow fever epidemic devastated them.
 
Thanks. Nice to have something from actual knowledge of the politics. Anything after 1783 can lead to either constricting US expansion, and very likely new conflict with Britain.

US would definitely go to war over it. The US would have gone to war with France over it eventually if they hadn't sold it.
 
Might be part of the revolt. Depends on how the emigration pattern falls out and the economics. Which of course depend on when the Brits take control.

Even if comparatively well settled by British immigrants 'Louisiana' will have a large wilderness between it and the other colonies. That makes attending the Continemtal Congress tough, & military cooperation tougher. Like Georgia & the Carolinas I'd think the crowns soldiers would occupy the cities and the revolt be sustained in the rural frontier region.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Yes, but the odds are very high against an

The revolt is obviously going to happen regardless, but it is not inevitable that Leclerc's forces will be defeated. The yellow fever epidemic devastated them.

Yes, but the odds are very high against an European force that was exposed to the tropical disease pool, period. I have a source that documents the death rate for various European expeditionary forces (French, British, etc) that tried to operate in Haiti in the 1790s-1800s and it is really astonishing how the effectives literally melted away. Even setting aside the efforts of the Haitians and their leaders (l'Overture, Dessalines, etc), it is doubtful any of the European powers could have done much there; there is a reason Haiti was the second american republic to win and maintain its independence...

Best,
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
Might be part of the revolt. Depends on how the emigration pattern falls out and the economics. Which of course depend on when the Brits take control.

Even if comparatively well settled by British immigrants 'Louisiana' will have a large wolderness between it and the other colonies. That makes attending the Continemtal Congress tough, & military cooperation tougher. Like Georgia & the Carolinas I'd think the crowns soldiers would occupy the cities and the revolt be sustained in the rural frontier region.
Unlike the rest of BNA, though, it would be right next to a hostile power or potentially hostile power, without hundreds of miles of uncolonized territory. So it might be less likely to object to the presence of soldiers and all that.
 
Unlike the rest of BNA, though, it would be right next to a hostile power or potentially hostile power, without hundreds of miles of uncolonized territory. So it might be less likely to object to the presence of soldiers and all that.

Which would that be? Was the Tejas region militarily occupied then? Or does this refer to Florida? The Atlantic colonies thought they were under threat from the native americas and disputed how the government went about protecting them. Perhaps Louisiana settlers would see it the same way?
 
Top