raharris1973
Well-known member
France 'secretly' ceded Louisiana to Spain in the Treaty of Fountainbleau of 1762, though it was sort of an 'open secret'. This was part of compensating Spain for its loss of Florida, and 'buying off' Spain to convince it to quit the war with Britain (and let France quit as well) while both Bourbon powers were behind and before they lost more. The wars with Britain ultimately ended in 1763, and the powers all understood Louisiana was to be transferred.
But the Spanish sure took their time about it. They seemed slow and unenthusiastic about taking up the administrative burden. They sent a Governor and advance party in 1763, but that was about it for the moment, and they continued to govern through the existing French Governor and troops.
The French colonists meanwhile knew they were slated to be handed over to Spain, and didn't like it a bit. In 1765 they sent a deputation to France to protest the transfer, but didn't get a royal audience. Meanwhile, Frenchmen continued to develop the colony, they founded St. Louis in 1764, and over the mid-1760s, refugee Acadians, usually after sojourns in France itself, set out to move to Louisiana. The first Spanish Governor died of illness before really asserting himself with the people, and Louisiana was back with a French Acting Governor.
The second Spanish Governor also tread cautiously, delaying the transfer ceremony and continuing to operate through the French Acting Governor, and writing unanswered letters to Havana demanded Spanish troops reinforcements and blocs of pesos to exchange for French currency, while occupying his time in science.
In OTL the Spanish did not really take notice until the Spanish Governor finally did a takeover ceremony that was insultingly low pomp in 1768, the French Creoles revolted, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Rebellion_of_1768 - Spain started to pay attention now that there was a rebellion to put down, the Spanish sent adequate troops and administration to crush the rebels, and started governing the place.
What if, through some slightly better communications, sensitivity, and forethought ahead of these events of 1768, and before the rebellion emerged to engage Spanish honor in the eyes of the world, Spain and France arranged for Spain to return Louisiana to France? "Take your colony, please"
Spain hadn't shown much enthusiasm to invest in the first place. Cuba didn't seem all that jazzed to have Luisiana as a Florida replacement or consolation prize. In Spain's larger North American strategy, Jose Galvez was focused on tidying up New Spain/Mexico, and and gearing up to repair the Baja California mission system and to have a real go at colonizing Alta California for real this time, to secure control of the Pacific coast and preempt the claims of other powers like the Russians or British or Dutch (imagined). Luisiana wasn't really in his optic.
Meanwhile, from an honor and prestige point of view, the ceding of territory, in the timeframe of 1766-67 could at least be balanced by the French cession of their settlement and fort at Port Egmont the Malouine/Malvinas islands off South America [this really happened], with the French just getting reimbursed for their costs. Likewise the Spanish could get reimbursed for their costs in Luisiana, which were pretty low, and Spain would be relieved of responsibility for an unappreciative populace, unruly plains Amerindians, and a land border with Great Britain's North American domain.
.......But what's in it for France? Many in court at France think of North American land as more of a liability than an asset. Administering Louisiana will cost some money, though luckily, the Spanish are not asking for any serious coin for reimbursement, because they haven't spent much, and they are not asking for any land that France was not planning to hand over any way. But why should Louis XIV and co. take on the hassle. Well, there's a few arguments. First, the Spanish Royals are actually asking France to do this as a favor, and why disappoint them. It also might be a little embarrassing if word got around the King and Ministers turned down the opportunity to redeem French ancestral land and people. Somebody makes the argument that Louisiana can be nice, reliable, sovereign grain, and possibly meat, supplier, for the Sainte-Domingue colony and other Caribbean sugar colonies, so it's complementary. Also, the British don't seem so bellicose at the moment as to be ready to just jump into a war over the Louisiana issue in isolation. They seem bit distracted in fact. They've just been having an interesting spat with their Colonial American subjects over the Stamp Tax, in which the latter started up a semi-seditious 'Congress' for awhile, and a couple years before that, the formerly nominally French wilderness (east Louisian) between the Mississippi, Ohio, and Great Lakes was aflame with Pontiac's revolt. Louisiana and its port of New Orleans actually seems like a nice, not excessively close, balcony view to any troubles the British may have ahead in North America. Finally, there are different crowds and interest groups in France and Louisiana who will applaud the government and the King and celebrate the imperial reunion of Louisiana and France, no matter what some bankers, bean-counters, and ministers say.
And so it is arranged and done, and completed in early 1767. The restoration of French sovereignty is celebrated with fireworks in Louisiana and France that year. There is no Louisiana rebellion in 1768. That year, Louisiana is pretty much forgotten in France, and the foreign policy issue du jour is Corsica.
What is the impact of restored French Louisiana by the 1772-1773-1774 timeframe?
The most paranoidly Francophobic among Americans may dread the return of the French to the continent, have defense and security concerns, and seek above all to tighten ties with Great Britain to enjoy the bosom of her protection, greeting our "tommies and lobsterbacks" in Boston in 1770 with flowers, hugs, and kisses instead of tomatoes, eggs, and stones of the type that led to OTL's 'Boston Massacre'. But from a New England perspective, New Orleans and the Mississippi isn't Louisbourg, or Acadia, or Canada....it might as well be the west coast....or China, it is highly uncertain if a French presence, on the Gulf Coast, and deep in the interior, is really a cause of panic in Massachusetts Bay or the rest of the northern colonies.
Virginia, with its ambitions in Kentucky and Ohio, Georgia and Carolinas - perhaps a bit more alarm. It is still a pretty good distance though, and the Colonists need to get past their *own* King's proclamation line against western settlement before worrying about the French King's plots with Amerindians.
But opening door #1. if the French presence calms American revolutionary hotheads and makes British parliament more careful towards the colonists (and less generous/merciful toward Quebec from 1774 perhaps), what would be the natural consequences of that.
Or, opening door # 2, if the French presence is still distance enough it does nothing to slow the Anglo-Colonial conflict spiral and the war breaks out at Lexington and Concord, what happens from there. Is France likely to be drawn in sooner, sending supplies upriver. But perhaps Spain not getting involved at all? With what effect?
Or perhaps Spain does get involved and operates against Florida via Cuba or French territory.
If we settle the revolutionary war like OTL, what is the postwar Franco-American relationship like? France will anticipate profiting over time from American western commerce and development, whatever actually happens. If France is lucky, it can mass colonize landless peasants and urban poor to interior and northern Louisiana for settlement and cultivation and maybe reduce famine stresses and proto-revolutionary stresses. It seems doubtful it would render France-revolution-safe, but maybe?
But there is time for a couple more decades here of state supported emigration from France, or sideways migration of Canadiens here even if French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars eventually make French retention of Louisiana untenable.
Your thoughts?
But the Spanish sure took their time about it. They seemed slow and unenthusiastic about taking up the administrative burden. They sent a Governor and advance party in 1763, but that was about it for the moment, and they continued to govern through the existing French Governor and troops.
The French colonists meanwhile knew they were slated to be handed over to Spain, and didn't like it a bit. In 1765 they sent a deputation to France to protest the transfer, but didn't get a royal audience. Meanwhile, Frenchmen continued to develop the colony, they founded St. Louis in 1764, and over the mid-1760s, refugee Acadians, usually after sojourns in France itself, set out to move to Louisiana. The first Spanish Governor died of illness before really asserting himself with the people, and Louisiana was back with a French Acting Governor.
The second Spanish Governor also tread cautiously, delaying the transfer ceremony and continuing to operate through the French Acting Governor, and writing unanswered letters to Havana demanded Spanish troops reinforcements and blocs of pesos to exchange for French currency, while occupying his time in science.
In OTL the Spanish did not really take notice until the Spanish Governor finally did a takeover ceremony that was insultingly low pomp in 1768, the French Creoles revolted, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Rebellion_of_1768 - Spain started to pay attention now that there was a rebellion to put down, the Spanish sent adequate troops and administration to crush the rebels, and started governing the place.
What if, through some slightly better communications, sensitivity, and forethought ahead of these events of 1768, and before the rebellion emerged to engage Spanish honor in the eyes of the world, Spain and France arranged for Spain to return Louisiana to France? "Take your colony, please"
Spain hadn't shown much enthusiasm to invest in the first place. Cuba didn't seem all that jazzed to have Luisiana as a Florida replacement or consolation prize. In Spain's larger North American strategy, Jose Galvez was focused on tidying up New Spain/Mexico, and and gearing up to repair the Baja California mission system and to have a real go at colonizing Alta California for real this time, to secure control of the Pacific coast and preempt the claims of other powers like the Russians or British or Dutch (imagined). Luisiana wasn't really in his optic.
Meanwhile, from an honor and prestige point of view, the ceding of territory, in the timeframe of 1766-67 could at least be balanced by the French cession of their settlement and fort at Port Egmont the Malouine/Malvinas islands off South America [this really happened], with the French just getting reimbursed for their costs. Likewise the Spanish could get reimbursed for their costs in Luisiana, which were pretty low, and Spain would be relieved of responsibility for an unappreciative populace, unruly plains Amerindians, and a land border with Great Britain's North American domain.
.......But what's in it for France? Many in court at France think of North American land as more of a liability than an asset. Administering Louisiana will cost some money, though luckily, the Spanish are not asking for any serious coin for reimbursement, because they haven't spent much, and they are not asking for any land that France was not planning to hand over any way. But why should Louis XIV and co. take on the hassle. Well, there's a few arguments. First, the Spanish Royals are actually asking France to do this as a favor, and why disappoint them. It also might be a little embarrassing if word got around the King and Ministers turned down the opportunity to redeem French ancestral land and people. Somebody makes the argument that Louisiana can be nice, reliable, sovereign grain, and possibly meat, supplier, for the Sainte-Domingue colony and other Caribbean sugar colonies, so it's complementary. Also, the British don't seem so bellicose at the moment as to be ready to just jump into a war over the Louisiana issue in isolation. They seem bit distracted in fact. They've just been having an interesting spat with their Colonial American subjects over the Stamp Tax, in which the latter started up a semi-seditious 'Congress' for awhile, and a couple years before that, the formerly nominally French wilderness (east Louisian) between the Mississippi, Ohio, and Great Lakes was aflame with Pontiac's revolt. Louisiana and its port of New Orleans actually seems like a nice, not excessively close, balcony view to any troubles the British may have ahead in North America. Finally, there are different crowds and interest groups in France and Louisiana who will applaud the government and the King and celebrate the imperial reunion of Louisiana and France, no matter what some bankers, bean-counters, and ministers say.
And so it is arranged and done, and completed in early 1767. The restoration of French sovereignty is celebrated with fireworks in Louisiana and France that year. There is no Louisiana rebellion in 1768. That year, Louisiana is pretty much forgotten in France, and the foreign policy issue du jour is Corsica.
What is the impact of restored French Louisiana by the 1772-1773-1774 timeframe?
The most paranoidly Francophobic among Americans may dread the return of the French to the continent, have defense and security concerns, and seek above all to tighten ties with Great Britain to enjoy the bosom of her protection, greeting our "tommies and lobsterbacks" in Boston in 1770 with flowers, hugs, and kisses instead of tomatoes, eggs, and stones of the type that led to OTL's 'Boston Massacre'. But from a New England perspective, New Orleans and the Mississippi isn't Louisbourg, or Acadia, or Canada....it might as well be the west coast....or China, it is highly uncertain if a French presence, on the Gulf Coast, and deep in the interior, is really a cause of panic in Massachusetts Bay or the rest of the northern colonies.
Virginia, with its ambitions in Kentucky and Ohio, Georgia and Carolinas - perhaps a bit more alarm. It is still a pretty good distance though, and the Colonists need to get past their *own* King's proclamation line against western settlement before worrying about the French King's plots with Amerindians.
But opening door #1. if the French presence calms American revolutionary hotheads and makes British parliament more careful towards the colonists (and less generous/merciful toward Quebec from 1774 perhaps), what would be the natural consequences of that.
Or, opening door # 2, if the French presence is still distance enough it does nothing to slow the Anglo-Colonial conflict spiral and the war breaks out at Lexington and Concord, what happens from there. Is France likely to be drawn in sooner, sending supplies upriver. But perhaps Spain not getting involved at all? With what effect?
Or perhaps Spain does get involved and operates against Florida via Cuba or French territory.
If we settle the revolutionary war like OTL, what is the postwar Franco-American relationship like? France will anticipate profiting over time from American western commerce and development, whatever actually happens. If France is lucky, it can mass colonize landless peasants and urban poor to interior and northern Louisiana for settlement and cultivation and maybe reduce famine stresses and proto-revolutionary stresses. It seems doubtful it would render France-revolution-safe, but maybe?
But there is time for a couple more decades here of state supported emigration from France, or sideways migration of Canadiens here even if French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars eventually make French retention of Louisiana untenable.
Your thoughts?