would there be a sugar glut and if so how would it the British, and colonial economies? What policies the British government take to resolve it and what groups would seek to exploit the situation to their gain? How would this effect the Caribbean colonies view on the American revolution?
What if the British took Guadeloupe and Martinique as well as Canada after the Seven Years War
- Thread starter VaultJumper
- Start date
How does Britain gain all of this land ITTL? Does France get beaten even worse?
Also, what does France get out of this? Don't forget that politics of this time was about horse trading. Even a defeated power (if it wasn't beaten too badly), would receive some compensation, to help preserve a balance of power.
Additionally, taking too much from France could drive them to war again later, which was part of the reason why it was given the choice - keep New France or keep the sugar islands.
At any rate, IIRC, the British planter aristocracy didn't want more sugar islands, as more sugar would deflate their prices.
Also, what does France get out of this? Don't forget that politics of this time was about horse trading. Even a defeated power (if it wasn't beaten too badly), would receive some compensation, to help preserve a balance of power.
Additionally, taking too much from France could drive them to war again later, which was part of the reason why it was given the choice - keep New France or keep the sugar islands.
At any rate, IIRC, the British planter aristocracy didn't want more sugar islands, as more sugar would deflate their prices.
unprincipled peter
Donor
I think Britain was in possession of all three when France sued for peace. Pitt, who was out of power temporarily at the time, wanted a harsh peace, while (drawing a blank...Bute?) granted a soft peace. France was desperate for peace, and probably would have agreed.
Lusitania
Donor
No she would not. The profit was in the sugar islands.
Plus the British did not want more sugar plantations competing at home. French sugar plantations supplyed France with sugar. She wOuld not buy it from English.
FYI During same war Spain offered to trade one or two Carribean islands for Gibraltar. The British considered the idea but due to opposition from Carribean sugar interests refused the offer.
So while it might seem that Britain had right to take all of France new world possessions if they told France you loose everything the French would balk and refuse so to safe face they allowed the French to keep the two island in the gulf of Saint Lawrence (st Pierre and Miquelon) to guaratee access to Grand Banks and Carribean islands. Both of which were very important and profitable as opposed to New France.
unprincipled peter
Donor
France was getting it's arse kicked every which way to sunday. it's ally, Spain, was getting it's arse kicked every which way to sunday. The situation only gets worse the longer the war continues. I agree that internal politics in Britain plays a role, but that wasn't the question. It doesn't really matter what France wants. If, for any reason, Britain decides it wants all three, Britain keeps all three.
Lusitania
Donor
Yes France was getting its arse kicked but why did the British not take everything? Because as stated before politics and diplomacy dictated that British interests were best served by offering better terms to both Spain and France than they expected to end costly war to Britain too plus internally there was no interest in increasing domestic sugar supplies.
France possessed Menorca. The islands were returned to France in exchange for getting it back.
Lusitania
Donor
No British possessed Menorca they had captured it in war of Spanish succession.
France had captured the island from Britain and it was returned to Britain at end of war. Spain only received it back in 1783.
Last edited:
I mean that France possessed it when the peace of 1763 was being negotiated, while the British possessed Martinique and Guadeloupe. The territories were exchanged. Britain did not simply return the islands to be nice ; it was getting Menorca back in exchange.
I think it would be interesting to think what would have happened if Britain kept the profitable carribean islands and gave New France back? Would this butterfly the ARW? With a french neighbour to the north? Also the income from the islands may mean taxes in the colonies might not need to be raised as much?
the stiff I have researched indicate that a change in government is the reason why the peace treaty but the diplomatic realm is also very good reason not to be so harsh (damn aggressive expansion and coalition wars!) but that also opens up the diplomatic consequence of Brittan being so harsh but I asked if they only took what they already occupied not all France's Caribbean holdings like some others have said.
Wouldn't it be better to take the islands, then buy up the land to not grow sugar on it.
That's another reason to take the islands, denying sugar to France.
Lusitania
Donor
Yes I understand but they were occupying New France and part of French Carribean. The new world colonies that were profitable and valuable to France were the Grand Banks and the sugar producing Carribean islands. They would not of traded those and kept the money loosing New France.
What we need is Britain to occupy the Carribean and fail to take New France. Now we can consider keep what you conquer and let France keep New France. Otherwise they would wAnt Carribean and Grand Banks.
unprincipled peter
Donor
It is indeed interesting. As I've made clear above, my stance is that such a scenario is possible. The French are not in a position to dictate terms of the peace. The question of the OP is not whether such a scenario is likely. It is what happens if such a scenario unfolds. There are factions in Britain which, OTL, wanted a harsher peace. The British sugar barons successfully pressured gov't to spit out the French sugar islands. It is not outlandish to envision the harsh peace faction to win out. So, instead of blindly going down the AH path of derailing a thread by arguing whether the scenario can happen, let's discuss what unfolds if it does happen.
It's going to affect the sugar economy, but it needn't all be bad. the conventional wisdom is that the British sugar industry goes into a slump. But, world goods have a tendency to find their way into a void, and just as there'll be excess sugar in Britain, there'll be a void in French markets. Plus, just because Britain would look to punish/depress the French by keeping the islands, it doesn't mean that the new possessions are left on an even footing with existing British industry. The pain of the new situation may be shouldered primarily by the French (now British) sugar industry. My hunch is that the situation, while creating a disturbance, will not be dire or permanent. As stated, exploitation of these new possessions may alleviate the financial pressure on existing British colonies. My belief there is that those colonies, by that point, are already well on their way to looking for an excuse to go independent, and will likely revolt, regardless. Nothing is inevitable, though, so it is possible that the loyalists carry the day (although, as the saying goes, tomorrow is another day, and a future generation of rebels will likely look to gain the upper hand).
On the French side, a loss of revenue follows the loss of the islands. this impacts their ability to rebuild their military/navy as they look to prosecute a war of revenge. this may mean that they're a little more hesitant to jump in on the side of the NA patriots, and a failure to jump, IMO, means a failed American revolution.
You also have a lot of pissed off Frenchmen. their supply of sugar is interrupted. Eventually, the French/British sugar makes its way to them, but I'm guessing a layer or two of taxes has been added to it, so the cost is higher.
Long run, the disruptions for both British and French spheres can be weathered. the question becomes whether the ripples of these disruptions cause massive unforeseen butterfly effects.
Then what's the point of having them in the first place? The whole point of a sugar island is to make money from sugar production.
There would need to be some other use for them.
*checks*
Ok, so both Guadeloupe and Martinique grow tropical fruit - bananas for the former, and pineapples for the latter. Maybe there could be a market for those, but there is the issue of haulage time.
Hmm, tobacco is grown on Barbados, and cotton is/was grown both there and on Trinidad - maybe these could be suitable alternative crops?
France would still have Haiti, though.
Lusitania
Donor
The issue is that the British had no need for the French sugar growing plantation and their interests were elsewhere. They valued New France more since it removed an adversary from attacking from the north.
They also wanted Menorca back to secure they control over the Mediterranean.
So please don’t say the French were on the ropes snd would of had to accept anything the British gave them because when national pride at stake then people will continue.
So for your premise the British were already producing sufficient sugar in British Carribean colonies they would not wAnt the French. The inclusion of the French colonies would of required more troop costs for occupying and protection plus would of increased British supply of sugar thus reducing price and profit of all.
Therefore the British were not interested.
if there had not been a change in government there probably would have been harsher peace treaty, maybe one only one the islands and then maybe trade the other one for Menorca. I also see really harsh peace treaty possibly but not very likely depending say if does better in the North American theater but not to much better that the 7 years war ends too early maybe if the first Louisburg Expedition actually succeeds and maybe Braddock doesn't get himself killed, the British could have the diplomatic currency to be rougher.
Lusitania
Donor
The British were about establishing dominance in a particular theatre but never conquering everything as well as operate as cheaply as possible to keep costs down.
Your premise is for them to also demand the captured Carribean islands. The issue is that the British were also tired of the war. They wanted peace because war costs money and impedes trade. They had achieved the primary war goals but had also lost Menorca. So they were anxious for peace. To achieve peace they needed to entice the French to the bargaining table.
So as was normal in peace negotiations, there was always some horse trading done. The British wanted Menorca back that was most important. The captured Carribean island were not important due to costs in occupying them and protecting them and that Britain had sufficient access to sugar and capturing them would result in decrease in price due to oversupply. Therefore they gladly accepted returning French Carribean and allowing French access to Grand Banks in return for Menorca and peace.
So I see no reason for them to change their bargaining stance. A change in government would not of changed the facts of the war and need for peace on both sides.
a change in government means different goals and fears so its very important just look at the change between LBJ and Nixon. Pitt's ambition was to take all of France colonial empire, I personally don't think that would be wise but defiantly possible if the dominoes fall right, although I struggle to think how they could hold on to it even with heavy handed tactics in the Caribbean because of the economic, and military realities of conquering that land especially Haiti, because they almost did in OTL look at France's colonial empire before and after the Seven Years War. I do think if Pitt stayed in power it would have affect the peace deal if the events off the Seven Years War stayed the same and doubly so if Great Britain didn't loose Menorca which is possible if orders hadn't gotten confused. Also would the diplomatic consequences be that much then OTL because Great Britain was hated by Europe even with the softer peace deal.