The Falklands War...in 1770

Not many details but Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Egmont here, for example) refers to an incident in 1770 where the Spanish evicted the British from Port Egmont, threatening war, and Britain considered sending a fleet under Admiral Keppel to retake the islands. However, a peaceful settlement was reached by the next year and the islands returned to Britain.

What if this had blown up into a war, so close to the culmination of the American troubles?

If the war lasts long enough Spain might lose New Orleans.

The capture of New Orleans might be delegated to colonial troops from the 13 colonies. It might even put off the American Revolution as "colonial and british troops fight together to drive the Spanish from the Americas." Or it could go the other way and the colonies revolt thinking the Brits distracted by War.

xchen08 said:

The capture of New Orleans might be delegated to colonial troops from the 13 colonies. It might even put off the American Revolution as "colonial and british troops fight together to drive the Spanish from the Americas." Or it could go the other way and the colonies revolt thinking the Brits distracted by War.

Click to expand...

Either of those are interesting.

In the first case, it could also create the impression with the colonials that there is still a real threat to them on the continent, only now it's Spain rather than France, which would reduce the desire for independence.

Equally, the British might be more amenable to acceeding to American requests for greater liberties if everyone's ears are ringing with news of colonial victories in Lousiana.

It would be interesting if Quebec chose this moment to revolt.

On the other hand, if the Americans do eventually revolt anyway, then the US will include Louisiana (or at least New Orleans).

Thande said:

On the other hand, if the Americans do eventually revolt anyway, then the US will include Louisiana (or at least New Orleans).

Click to expand...

Why?

It didn't include Florida and you are also assuming the colonials would successfully revolt.

xchen08 said:

Or it could go the other way and the colonies revolt thinking the Brits distracted by War.

Click to expand...

That would probably be a good thing for the British, the rebels would have less support (at least some legislatures would stay with the British), the rebel intimidation and intelligence network would be less developed, it would be far easier to paint the rebels as traitors (rather than poor oppressed people standing up for their rights as Englishmen) when they are rising up during war time and by their actions aiding the enemy which would hurt them both in the colonies among the moderates and in Britain amongst those who would have been sympathetic there.

Darkling said:

Why?

It didn't include Florida

Click to expand...

Fair point. New Orleans would probably be in a similar defensible strategic position as Quebec. (It would double the OTL irony of us ending up (mostly) only with what were French possessions before the Seven Years' War)

Darkling said:

That would probably be a good thing for the British, the rebels would have less support (at least some legislatures would stay with the British), the rebel intimidation and intelligence network would be less developed, it would be far easier to paint the rebels as traitors (rather than poor oppressed people standing up for their rights as Englishmen) when they are rising up during war time and by their actions aiding the enemy which would hurt them both in the colonies among the moderates and in Britain amongst those who would have been sympathetic there.

Click to expand...

Good point. Getting those strongly in favor of independence and against compromise with the British to rebel at a time they weren't ready and get them painted as traitors to the colonial population after their revolt is defeated might be the best way to get a permanent end to the independence movement. Also, colonial troops serving faithfully and bravely against enemies of Britain, or maybe even putting down the revolters might make the Brits more willing to give the colonists what they want.

xchen08 said:

Also, colonial troops serving faithfully and bravely against enemies of Britain, or maybe even putting down the revolters might make the Brits more willing to give the colonists what they want.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how far Britain could go in giving them what they wanted which was more or less independence, compromises like letting the colonial legislature raise money themselves (Britain hands them a bill for their defence etc and the legislatures raise it in whatever form they like, such a plan was considered but rejected because it wasn't known how to fairly apportion to the costs to each colony) or maybe give them a Privy councillor or two and a few Lords (so technically they are represented in Britain's legislature) but beyond that I can't see Britain compromising and even if they did they should probably just send the colonies on their way.

At the heart of the argument is a simple question , Should the colonies support the Empire they benefit from or free load off of it?