What if France reclaimed Louisiana from Spain in July 1795 Treaty of Basel instead of the Treaty of San Ildefonso of October 1800?

[raharris1973]

What if France reclaimed Louisiana from Spain in July 1795 Treaty of Basel instead of the Treaty of San Ildefonso of October 1800?

In OTL, France imposed the 1795 Treaty of Basel on Spain after winning the War of the Pyrenees against Spain and as part of it forced the Spanish to cede the eastern two-thirds of the island of Hispaniola, east of Haiti (then called Saint-Domingue), the hinterlands of Spain's old settlement of Santo Domingo and the city itself.

According to an article by Frederick Jackson Turner (page 19 of "The Policy of France toward the Mississippi Valley in the Period of Washington and Adams" at www.jstor.org/stable/1834721#metadata_info_tab_contents), the French at this time, also sought Louisiana, but the Spanish Minister Godoy refused.

What if Godoy had folded to French pressure, opting to cede Louisiana to France, instead of eastern Hispaniola (the Dominican Republic) or in addition to it, in 1795?

This would have resulted in a common Franco-US border on the Mississippi as early as 1795-96, during the second Washington Administration, and cut-off the progress of Pinckney's Treaty with Spain (aka, the Treaty of San Lorenzo), giving France leverage over the US in terms of granting or denying access to the mouth of the Mississippi.

It would have left the US and France with a common border by the time of the Quasi-War during the Adams administration, so it is hard to see how that could have avoided from escalating from an undeclared naval war, to a declared full-scale, land and sea war, with the US aiming to capture New Orleans and France aiming to hold New Orleans and subvert the American west and stir internal partisan controversy. That is if peace between France and the US even lasts as long as the XYZ affair. And if there is not a British expedition to capture New Orleans first. A British capture of New Orleans puts the United States in whole different pickle.

Your thoughts?

 

[ATP]

What if France reclaimed Louisiana from Spain in July 1795 Treaty of Basel instead of the Treaty of San Ildefonso of October 1800?

In OTL, France imposed the 1795 Treaty of Basel on Spain after winning the War of the Pyrenees against Spain and as part of it forced the Spanish to cede the eastern two-thirds of the island of Hispaniola, east of Haiti (then called Saint-Domingue), the hinterlands of Spain's old settlement of Santo Domingo and the city itself.

According to an article by Frederick Jackson Turner (page 19 of "The Policy of France toward the Mississippi Valley in the Period of Washington and Adams" at www.jstor.org/stable/1834721#metadata_info_tab_contents), the French at this time, also sought Louisiana, but the Spanish Minister Godoy refused.

What if Godoy had folded to French pressure, opting to cede Louisiana to France, instead of eastern Hispaniola (the Dominican Republic) or in addition to it, in 1795?

This would have resulted in a common Franco-US border on the Mississippi as early as 1795-96, during the second Washington Administration, and cut-off the progress of Pinckney's Treaty with Spain (aka, the Treaty of San Lorenzo), giving France leverage over the US in terms of granting or denying access to the mouth of the Mississippi.

It would have left the US and France with a common border by the time of the Quasi-War during the Adams administration, so it is hard to see how that could have avoided from escalating from an undeclared naval war, to a declared full-scale, land and sea war, with the US aiming to capture New Orleans and France aiming to hold New Orleans and subvert the American west and stir internal partisan controversy. That is if peace between France and the US even lasts as long as the XYZ affair. And if there is not a British expedition to capture New Orleans first. A British capture of New Orleans puts the United States in whole different pickle.

Your thoughts?

Interesting idea,it could change History if France keep it.Becouse british would take it after fall of Napoleon.
Smaller USA? or,maybe USA retaken by England?

 

[raharris1973]

Interesting idea,it could change History if France keep it.

Indeed it would!

Becouse british would take it after fall of Napoleon.

Britain would probably not wait until 1815 if it is going to take it. It would move during Napoleon's time, or possibly even before he is Emperor or consul.

Of course the United States might also purchase it, or conquer it, at some point in the 20 years between 1795 and 1815.

Another option could be a reversion to Spanish rule in some treaty, or perhaps at the Congress of Vienna.

If Britain takes it:

Smaller USA?

Would be an interesting consequence, and US and British North America would be in even closer quarters. It could be very, very hard for the relationship.

or,maybe USA retaken by England?

This would not be physically impossible for Britain to achieve I suppose, at least after the defeat of Napoleon and quieting of Europe, but it would be extremely long, expensive, difficult, and controversial at home. I do not think it's very likely. And conquest or supremacy would not be guaranteed to 'stick' for more than a generation or two or three. In the meantime there would probably be some things in Europe or the world Britain would have to pass up on doing while holding North America down.

 

[Buba]

With traditional British strategy of nibbling at colonial posessions, Lousiana is flying the Union Flag by 1802 when the Treaty of Amiens rolls along?

 

[raharris1973]

With traditional British strategy of nibbling at colonial posessions, Lousiana is flying the Union Flag by 1802 when the Treaty of Amiens rolls along?

By Union, I presume you meant the British Union Jack not the American Union's Old Glory.

A British Louisiana makes for an 'interesting' next Anglo-American War of 1812, if there is one.

 

[Buba]

Yes, the British Union Flag - by 1802 in the current configuration, with St. Patrick's Cross included.
A jack is flown by ships only - I think ...

 

[stevep]

Indeed it would!



Britain would probably not wait until 1815 if it is going to take it. It would move during Napoleon's time, or possibly even before he is Emperor or consul.

Of course the United States might also purchase it, or conquer it, at some point in the 20 years between 1795 and 1815.

Another option could be a reversion to Spanish rule in some treaty, or perhaps at the Congress of Vienna.

If Britain takes it:



Would be an interesting consequence, and US and British North America would be in even closer quarters. It could be very, very hard for the relationship.



This would not be physically impossible for Britain to achieve I suppose, at least after the defeat of Napoleon and quieting of Europe, but it would be extremely long, expensive, difficult, and controversial at home. I do not think it's very likely. And conquest or supremacy would not be guaranteed to 'stick' for more than a generation or two or three. In the meantime there would probably be some things in Europe or the world Britain would have to pass up on doing while holding North America down.

Would agree. If Britain takes it before the US its going to be before Napoleon falls, or even comes to power and it would make tensions between the two nations tense to put it mildly. Probably if Napoleon emerges similarly to OTL the US will attack while Britain is occupied in Europe, very possibly prior to 1812 if the political leadership think there are good options or possibly some western sectional interests take matters into their own hands.

I can't see Britain conquering the US, or even intending to. The best might be, if the US misjudges when to go to war and gets hammered then a good chunk of the old NW region could end up as a British protectorate and possibly you get a secession in New England. However I can't see either the ability or desire to go any further for Britain unless they have really crap leadership at some time - which admitted is quite possible if you considered recent decades in Britain.

 

[ATP]

Would agree. If Britain takes it before the US its going to be before Napoleon falls, or even comes to power and it would make tensions between the two nations tense to put it mildly. Probably if Napoleon emerges similarly to OTL the US will attack while Britain is occupied in Europe, very possibly prior to 1812 if the political leadership think there are good options or possibly some western sectional interests take matters into their own hands.

I can't see Britain conquering the US, or even intending to. The best might be, if the US misjudges when to go to war and gets hammered then a good chunk of the old NW region could end up as a British protectorate and possibly you get a secession in New England. However I can't see either the ability or desire to go any further for Britain unless they have really crap leadership at some time - which admitted is quite possible if you considered recent decades in Britain.

British problems was that they always fought using other country armies.In North America it was not possible,becouse such armies there do not existed.
Unless....
1.Mexico was still part of Spain,Spain was England ally,so they could try mobilize mexicans to fight USA.Dunno how good it would worked,i knew nothing about Mexico military in 19th century.

2.Comanches were still independent,pay them for raiding USA.

3.Many americans still longed for England - made uprising there and then send troops.

Problem is - those loyalist would not like papists and comanches helping them....

 

[WolfBear]

What if France reclaimed Louisiana from Spain in July 1795 Treaty of Basel instead of the Treaty of San Ildefonso of October 1800?

In OTL, France imposed the 1795 Treaty of Basel on Spain after winning the War of the Pyrenees against Spain and as part of it forced the Spanish to cede the eastern two-thirds of the island of Hispaniola, east of Haiti (then called Saint-Domingue), the hinterlands of Spain's old settlement of Santo Domingo and the city itself.

According to an article by Frederick Jackson Turner (page 19 of "The Policy of France toward the Mississippi Valley in the Period of Washington and Adams" at www.jstor.org/stable/1834721#metadata_info_tab_contents), the French at this time, also sought Louisiana, but the Spanish Minister Godoy refused.

What if Godoy had folded to French pressure, opting to cede Louisiana to France, instead of eastern Hispaniola (the Dominican Republic) or in addition to it, in 1795?

This would have resulted in a common Franco-US border on the Mississippi as early as 1795-96, during the second Washington Administration, and cut-off the progress of Pinckney's Treaty with Spain (aka, the Treaty of San Lorenzo), giving France leverage over the US in terms of granting or denying access to the mouth of the Mississippi.

It would have left the US and France with a common border by the time of the Quasi-War during the Adams administration, so it is hard to see how that could have avoided from escalating from an undeclared naval war, to a declared full-scale, land and sea war, with the US aiming to capture New Orleans and France aiming to hold New Orleans and subvert the American west and stir internal partisan controversy. That is if peace between France and the US even lasts as long as the XYZ affair. And if there is not a British expedition to capture New Orleans first. A British capture of New Orleans puts the United States in whole different pickle.

Your thoughts?

If the US gets New Orleans, then France would be compelled to sell the rest of Louisiana to the US as well due to France becoming isolated from the rest of Louisiana, right?

 

[stevep]

If the US gets New Orleans, then France would be compelled to sell the rest of Louisiana to the US as well due to France becoming isolated from the rest of Louisiana, right?

that was pretty much what happened. Louisiana is pretty much valueless to France in its post 1763 borders without an ability to reach it and the only access France had was via New Orleans and the delta region.

 

[WolfBear]

that was pretty much what happened. Louisiana is pretty much valueless to France in its post 1763 borders without an ability to reach it and the only access France had was via New Orleans and the delta region.

Yep, which is why I found it interesting that in real life the US initially only offered to buy New Orleans and the surrounding territories from France. What did the US think that France was going to do with the rest of Louisiana? Sell it back to Spain? Sell it to Britain?

 

[raharris1973]

Yep, which is why I found it interesting that in real life the US initially only offered to buy New Orleans and the surrounding territories from France. What did the US think that France was going to do with the rest of Louisiana? Sell it back to Spain? Sell it to Britain?

That wasn't the problem the US cared about. Maybe Daniel Boone cared about it since he had already started homesteading under a Spanish grant in Missouri by then. But the US was hyper focused on the New Orleans artery and Florida, and at that moment didn't care as much what "savages" or empire controlled the remaining hinterland.

 

[WolfBear]

That wasn't the problem the US cared about. Maybe Daniel Boone cared about it since he had already started homesteading under a Spanish grant in Missouri by then. But the US was hyper focused on the New Orleans artery and Florida, and at that moment didn't care as much what "savages" or empire controlled the remaining hinterland.

Well, I'm just saying that it's always useful to think long-term, you know? The US's population center of gravity was already moving west by 1800, though I don't know just how clear this actually was to contemporaries who lacked modern methods of statistical analysis: