Britain gains Louisiana & Florida

[Magnum]

Suppose, with as late and as minor a POD as possible, Britain managed to acquire Louisiana & Florida from France/Spain just before the Americans did, and for one reason or another became politically invested in keeping them.

Can they keep them? How far would the Americans be willing to go? What long-term effects are we looking at?

 

[Matteo]

Of course they can keep it... as long as they don't go on a never-ending general war in Europe against France.

The americans would surely go to war as they did in 1812. But they won't win this war either. So this will butterfly away the US becoming a superpower : the US will be contained east of the Mississippi.

 

[Qhapaq Inka]

Suppose, with as late and as minor a POD as possible, Britain managed to acquire Louisiana & Florida from France/Spain just before the Americans did, and for one reason or another became politically invested in keeping them.

Can they keep them? How far would the Americans be willing to go? What long-term effects are we looking at?

Are we talking full Louisiana Purchase region like in the map? And would it be roughly the same time as the US acquired it in OTL, or much earlier?

 

[RodentRevolution]

America might be more contained but that does not rule out them becoming a superpower. America would perhaps be a more outward looking nation from much earlier as it would have to earn more of its wealth through foreign trade than relying on internal markets but there is still a lot of territory and resources to exploit even in the 'contained' scenario. It is really a case of America needing to do a lot more to play its cards right ITTL rather than simply waiting for them to fall in its favour and exploit the situation.

 

[Magnum]

Are we talking full Louisiana Purchase region like in the map?

yes

And would it be roughly the same time as the US acquired it in OTL

if possible, yes

 

[Georgie Porgie]

Tricky.
If Britain gained it before 1776 then it may well butterflied away one of the main reasons for the ARW i.e. Western Expansion was stopped by the British Government. I guess Britain could have got it at the same time as Canada if that bit of the Severn Year War had been more successful for the British.

If it gained the territory after 1783 questions have to asked as to how the Brit's got it and not France's allies the US. The only possibility I can see is that the French King sold the territory to the British (and why would they want it?) in an effort to stave off bankruptcy, possibly delaying or even butterflying away the French Revolution.

I think we can all agree that the only way the British could have gained the territory after 1801 was by war. Perhaps the Napoleonic army did reach New Orleans and moved up the Mississippi into Canada but a series of defeats by the British lead to a British army controlling the Mississippi. I suspect that the US would send (or at least attempt to send) troops to support their French allies, leading to the 1812 War some 9 years early.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Tricky.
If Britain gained it before 1776 then it may well butterflied away one of the main reasons for the ARW i.e. Western Expansion was stopped by the British Government. I guess Britain could have got it at the same time as Canada if that bit of the Severn Year War had been more successful for the British.

If it gained the territory after 1783 questions have to asked as to how the Brit's got it and not France's allies the US. The only possibility I can see is that the French King sold the territory to the British (and why would they want it?) in an effort to stave off bankruptcy, possibly delaying or even butterflying away the French Revolution.

I think we can all agree that the only way the British could have gained the territory after 1801 was by war. Perhaps the Napoleonic army did reach New Orleans and moved up the Mississippi into Canada but a series of defeats by the British lead to a British army controlling the Mississippi. I suspect that the US would send (or at least attempt to send) troops to support their French allies, leading to the 1812 War some 9 years early.

Maybe the governor of Louisiana is an ardent royalist, and when the revolutionaries cut off King Louis' head he decides that even a foreign monarch is better than a bunch of godless regicides and surrenders the colony to the British.

 

[RMcD94]

Tricky.
If Britain gained it before 1776 then it may well butterflied away one of the main reasons for the ARW i.e. Western Expansion was stopped by the British Government. I guess Britain could have got it at the same time as Canada if that bit of the Severn Year War had been more successful for the British.

If it gained the territory after 1783 questions have to asked as to how the Brit's got it and not France's allies the US. The only possibility I can see is that the French King sold the territory to the British (and why would they want it?) in an effort to stave off bankruptcy, possibly delaying or even butterflying away the French Revolution.

I think we can all agree that the only way the British could have gained the territory after 1801 was by war. Perhaps the Napoleonic army did reach New Orleans and moved up the Mississippi into Canada but a series of defeats by the British lead to a British army controlling the Mississippi. I suspect that the US would send (or at least attempt to send) troops to support their French allies, leading to the 1812 War some 9 years early.

Alternatively they could win the war quickly and Louisiana be part of a peace deal.

Or the Spainish sell it to the British because they predict Napoleon will nick it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Treaty_of_San_Ildefonso

 

[Viriato]

Alternatively they could win the war quickly and Louisiana be part of a peace deal.

Or the Spainish sell it to the British because they predict Napoleon will nick it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Treaty_of_San_Ildefonso

The issue with this is that in the Treaty of Fontainebleau by which the territory of Louisiana was ceded to Spain, Spain was not allowed to dispossess of the territory without the permission of France. Also, France could demand the territory back at any time, and Napoleon did exactly that.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Florida the US can live without. Some protest over fugitive slaves hiding out there, demands to keep the Seminole and others under control, but other than that, the US won't risk much over it.

Louisiana is something entirely different. New Orleans is absolutely critical to the economy of the western states. If something can't be worked out, and the US remains weak, then Kentucky and Tennessee at least will have a strong lobby advocating joining British North America. They had voices there calling for joining Spain, so I'm just assuming that the power controlling New Orleans being Britain, these voices will be even stronger. This could happen in the War of 1812.

If none of the trans-Appalachian states leave the union, and Britain is unable to settle the vast land, then my guess is they'll sell it in pieces to the US at a much higher price then the US paid France OTL.

 

[Matteo]

Florida the US can live without. Some protest over fugitive slaves hiding out there, demands to keep the Seminole and others under control, but other than that, the US won't risk much over it.

Louisiana is something entirely different. New Orleans is absolutely critical to the economy of the western states. If something can't be worked out, and the US remains weak, then Kentucky and Tennessee at least will have a strong lobby advocating joining British North America. They had voices there calling for joining Spain, so I'm just assuming that the power controlling New Orleans being Britain, these voices will be even stronger. This could happen in the War of 1812.

If none of the trans-Appalachian states leave the union, and Britain is unable to settle the vast land, then my guess is they'll sell it in pieces to the US at a much higher price then the US paid France OTL.

Before 1803, the US had been living very well without New Orleans.

I can't see why Britain would not be able to settle territories west of the Mississippi. Britain did it in Canada, in Australia and elsewhere because it enjoyed a very high demographic growth rate.

The point is that the US are going to be forced to accept that they will never go farther than the Mississippi left bank. They will realize that the destiny is not so manifest or that they have incurred the wrath of God who turned his back to its new chosen People.

No need for Kentucky or Tennessee to secede. Many countries have learned to live with a river as common border. They make a deal over how they both use the river and everything is fine as long as they don't decide to go to war against one another.

 

[Viriato]

Britain would probably agree to free navigation of the Mississippi, and this would be beneficial to the Americans. Also, Americans were at times during Canada's history the largest source of immigrants, and there was never any significant irredentist movement. Many who settled into Southern Ontario in the early 19th century were not even loyalists, simply people who wanted land. The same was true when the prairies were opened up to settlement in the early 20th century.

American Immigration to British North America
1781-1790 50,000 (Loyalists)
1791-1800 50,000
1801-1810 50,000
1811-1820 5,000 (2,500 black)
1821-1830 2,000
1831-1840 8,000 (5,000 black)
1841-1850 30,000 (5,000 black)
1851-1860 60,000 (20,000 black)
1861-1870 10,000
1871-1880 30,000
1881-1890 30,000
1891-1900 70,000
1901-1910 458,000
1911-1920 625,000
1921-1930 198,000

By 1914 the majority of the inhabitants in Alberta were American-born or had an American parent. In Saskatchewan they were a plurality and in British Columbia and Manitoba they were a large minority and there never was much of a push for incorporation to the United States.

As long as the British establish rule of law, protect property rights and are generous with doling out land grants, and establishing self-government, they do have a chance of keeping the territory. What might become a problem for the British, is if slavery spreads into Southern Louisiana, and it most likely will due to the cotton boom. If the British government attempts to force abolition, this might make many white settlers press for joining the union. That was the major sticking point with American settlers in Texas who began to resent the Mexican government's attempts at limiting the institution.

 

[unprincipled peter]

Fabius,
at the time that Louis is getting his head chopped off, the Govnur is Spanish. In fact, at the time Nap sold the territory, the govnur is Spanish. The French never actually had control (boots on the ground) of LA after 1763. The Spanish didn't much want it, and were in no position to argue (they did protest the sale, but at that point, anything the Spanish wanted, or didn't want, was irrelevant. France was calling the shots overall for Spain).

Now, if Britain did somehow gain control, what are they going to do? I think they're still a couple of decades away from having a full fledged emigration diaspora, so it's not going to be a settler colony. they can keep control of New Orleans, but toward what ends? they're just as likely to use it as a chit to keep, or make, peace with the US.

This is simply one of those unfathomable, can't possibly be wanked, but is OTL that the US is almost completely destined to take control of the territory. The only country that had a shot of taking it (really, keeping it) is Spain, and they were such dunderheads in that period that it isn't likely.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Now, if Britain did somehow gain control, what are they going to do? I think they're still a couple of decades away from having a full fledged emigration diaspora, so it's not going to be a settler colony. they can keep control of New Orleans, but toward what ends? they're just as likely to use it as a chit to keep, or make, peace with the US.

Britain had settled eastern North America fine, so why should Louisiana be any different?

This is simply one of those unfathomable, can't possibly be wanked, but is OTL that the US is almost completely destined to take control of the territory. The only country that had a shot of taking it (really, keeping it) is Spain, and they were such dunderheads in that period that it isn't likely.

Bearing in mind that the one time IOTL the USA tried to conquer British territory they got expelled in short order and had their capital burnt down to boot, I don't think their taking over British Louisiana is quite as inevitable as you seem to think.

 

[unprincipled peter]

eastern North America was settled fairly slowly. In the case of LA, you need to get a population in and get it in quickly before the Americans started moving in. Britain could easily hold New Orleans, but I don't know that they could really do much with the interior which was not populated to any extent. That would put the Americans in a jam, but ultimately, Britain would just be holding on to a port while the hinterlands would be populated by Americans.

I don't think taking New Orleans would be as easy as many say, regardless of whether it's the French, the Spanish, or the British, but ultimately the Americans can easily turn the hinterland into their domain. they have far more numbers to move in. Britain could block the river, but ultimately, the whole thing is going to be a headache that can easily be avoided.OTL, once the war of 1812 was over, Britain realized they didn't need to control North America to have fantastic trade relations (which is really all they wanted at that point, or really at any point, since North America was not an extraction economy ala Spanish America). The age of colonization was pretty much over at that point. there was a burst of scrambling for Africa several decades later, but that was more a game of keep away from the other powers than any desire to settle the land. The best thing that ever happened to Britain regarding the USA was losing ownership of it, and they realized this after the Nap war era.

Nothing is inevitable, but the US controlling most of the LA territory comes really close circa 1800.

 

[funnyhat]

Fabius,
at the time that Louis is getting his head chopped off, the Govnur is Spanish. In fact, at the time Nap sold the territory, the govnur is Spanish. The French never actually had control (boots on the ground) of LA after 1763.

It's nitpicking, but technically France did take possession of Louisiana on November 30, 1803, in anticipation of the transfer to the United States (on December 20).

 

[Viriato]

eastern North America was settled fairly slowly. In the case of LA, you need to get a population in and get it in quickly before the Americans started moving in. Britain could easily hold New Orleans, but I don't know that they could really do much with the interior which was not populated to any extent. That would put the Americans in a jam, but ultimately, Britain would just be holding on to a port while the hinterlands would be populated by Americans.

The question would by why they wouldn't simply become British subjects much as Americans in large numbers continued to do throughout the 19th century when they moved into British North America? If the British Crown is offering the free land, and promising to offer protection along with self-government most would immigrants probably be perfectly content.

Assuming that the government is not repressive, and Britain seemed to have learned its lesson in granting self-government to its white Anglo-Saxon colonies, granting autonomy after 1791, so what would be the point of wanting to rebel. The same could be said of the large number of Canadians who crossed the border and quickly adapted.

Also, Britain would not necessarily need to populate its land with more settlers, as by 1830 the U.S. population was more than 10 times as much as Canada's.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Before 1803, the US had been living very well without New Orleans.

I can't see why Britain would not be able to settle territories west of the Mississippi. Britain did it in Canada, in Australia and elsewhere because it enjoyed a very high demographic growth rate.

The point is that the US are going to be forced to accept that they will never go farther than the Mississippi left bank. They will realize that the destiny is not so manifest or that they have incurred the wrath of God who turned his back to its new chosen People.

No need for Kentucky or Tennessee to secede. Many countries have learned to live with a river as common border. They make a deal over how they both use the river and everything is fine as long as they don't decide to go to war against one another.

All of those at once? New Orleans not being US-ruled had people in Kentucky/Tennessee wanting to join Spain, of all places. Britain would be even more likely to join for the Trans-Appalachian states. To me, economic logic is that the US gains New Orleans, or else the Trans-Appalachian lands join Britain. You're basically making the 1815 Battle of New Orleans be a much harder fought battle, if it ever occurs (butterflies ensure it won't, in the way we know). Likely a lot more fighting in Tennessee in particular, wrapped up with the Creek War/Red Sticks faction of the Creeks and probably the Chickasaw too. Andrew Jackson could well be defeated before he ever gains any real note in Tennessee, much less beyond, but new generals might take his place.

It could be a civil war in Tennessee, as far as I know. It's well known that early 19th century, Western Americans wanted New Orleans because of how important to their economic activities it was. If it took rejoining Britain to get it, there would be a faction advocating it as long as the US was impotent to act. Tennessee had plenty, and I can name quite a few early political figures there who might join Britain in that case. I suspect Kentucky had tons too, as well as the founders of what became Alabama/Mississippi.

The Trans-Appalachian people could be Britain's main settlers in that region (Britain would forgive them for Kings Mountain, no doubt). Plus Britain will need to be able to lure Germans, Irish, etc. to the Americas in the long term to settle the place and make into a loyal and solid part of British North America.

Britain would probably agree to free navigation of the Mississippi, and this would be beneficial to the Americans. Also, Americans were at times during Canada's history the largest source of immigrants, and there was never any significant irredentist movement. Many who settled into Southern Ontario in the early 19th century were not even loyalists, simply people who wanted land. The same was true when the prairies were opened up to settlement in the early 20th century.

How does this prevent a secessionist movement in Tennessee or Kentucky? It shouldn't be a surprise that the Confederacy much later was linked to Britain more than the US, so at this date, with those territories linked to New Orleans as they were OTL. That seems like a recipe for a secessionist lobby to exist there.

Also, Britain would not necessarily need to populate its land with more settlers, as by 1830 the U.S. population was more than 10 times as much as Canada's.

That still is inviting Americans to settle to place. And let's not reduce Louisiana to New Orleans and the modern US state, but also consider Illinois country and such.

 

[Matteo]

Of course americans wanted all they could grab. I never denied this.

What I am saying is that if the americans can't grab it because the power that holds Louisiana is too strong and is able to settle Lousiana, then the americans just won't grab it.

And Britain was the power that could quite easily contain the US east of the Mississippi if It had gained control of Louisiana.

This being said, there may be a secession or a civil war in Tennessee-Kentucky or in all the US, this won't make the US succeed in snatching Louisiana away from Britain if Britain holds Louisiana and is decided to keep it.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Of course americans wanted all they could grab. I never denied this.

What I am saying is that if the americans can't grab it because the power that holds Louisiana is too strong and is able to settle Lousiana, then the americans just won't grab it.

And Britain was the power that could quite easily contain the US east of the Mississippi if It had gained control of Louisiana.

This being said, there may be a secession or a civil war in Tennessee-Kentucky or in all the US, this won't make the US succeed in snatching Louisiana away from Britain if Britain holds Louisiana and is decided to keep it.

Yes, Americans can't, but nominal Americans (those in Kentucky and Tennessee and elsewhere in the trans-Appalachia region) might grab it, as much as I hate to use the word "nominal" to describe these people. It's well within whatever "national character" these people had established, since they also cared little for the Proclamation of 1763. If Kentucky and Tennessee (the first western states OTL) can't convince the US to seek control or otherwise gain enough power over New Orleans, then I can see them leaving the US and joining British North America. A lot depends on the War of 1812, so the Southern front won't be just Andrew Jackson versus some British-supported natives (the Creek) plus an utter massacre like the OTL Battle of New Orleans was.