SinghSong
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 44 
Likes: 51
|
Post by SinghSong on Jun 12, 2021 23:37:26 GMT
IOTL, at the end of the Seven Years War, Britain regained control over Minorca, and took control over Florida, with both handed over to them as Spanish concessions in the Treaty of Paris in 1763; acquired in exchange for returning Cuba, which the British had captured from Spain after the Siege of Havana (which had been the third largest city in the Americas at this time), and Manila (along with Luzon and the rest of the Philippines by extension, which had also been conquered by the British in the Seven Years' War), back to the Spanish. Spain evacuated Florida immediately after the exchange, leaving the province virtually empty. And the Spanish concession of Florida, in exchange for regaining Havana, had been negotiated IOTL on France's advice that declining the offer could well result in Spain being forced to concede Cuba, the Philippines, or at least one of the other Captaincies of the Spanish Empire, to the British instead. So, then, let's say that ITTL, the British decide that Florida isn't really valuable or lucrative enough to merit handing either Havana or Manila back over to the Spanish in exchange for, and demand somewhere else instead. Which other colonial territory might have taken Florida's place ITTL's Treaty of Paris? Could the British have held on to either Havana or Manila ? Or could it have demanded (and received, with the Spanish and French conceding to said demand) one of the other Capitanías/Real Audiencias of the Spanish Empire ITTL?  So then, excluding the more implausible options from the reckoning, with the British deciding not to bother with trying to acquire Florida, what colonial possession would they be most likely to demand (and receive) from the Spanish instead ITTL? And what might be the long term consequences of them picking that option instead of Florida? Which do you feel would make for the most interesting option to become British in 1763, instead of Florida, in an Alternate TimeLine? - Royal Audience of Buenos Aires (excluding most of Southern Argentina, which was dubbed as Pueblos Originarios/the 'Indigenous Territories' and largely controlled by the hostile Mapuche)
- Captaincy General of Venezuela (not yet created, having been recently transferred from the Royal Audience of Santo Domingo to that of New Grenada; included Trinidad)
- Royal Audience of Quito (as above)
- Captaincy General of Guatemala (as above)
- Royal Audience of Chile (including claims to most of Southern Argentina- former Captaincy General long since dissolved at this point in time, and yet to be reestablished)
- Captaincy General of Yucatan (including all Spanish claims to sovereignty over Belize/British Honduras)
- Eastern Internal Provinces (of New Spain, as shown above), or
- Western Internal Provinces (of New Spain, as shown above)?
|
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Jun 13, 2021 8:35:27 GMT
The British would value access to the Pacific so they would want to take the Captaincy General of Guatemala. James Cook and the Endeavour entered the Pacific in 1769 after negotiating the treacherous waters of Kaap Hoorn on his first voyage to observe the transit of Venus and to find evidence of this mysterious land known as Terra Australis Incognita. En-route he claimed several Pacific Islands for the Empire giving the British a relatively stable land bridge to span the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean from central America to their newly established colonies in Australasia. I can imagine having Guatemala would avoid any future issues with Spain who could seek to stop or severely restrict Britain's ability to navigate round Kaap Hoorn and access her Pacific possessions.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Jun 13, 2021 12:09:33 GMT
The British would value access to the Pacific so they would want to take the Captaincy General of Guatemala. James Cook and the Endeavour entered the Pacific in 1769 after negotiating the treacherous waters of Kaap Hoorn on his first voyage to observe the transit of Venus and to find evidence of this mysterious land known as Terra Australis Incognita. En-route he claimed several Pacific Islands for the Empire giving the British a relatively stable land bridge to span the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean from central America to their newly established colonies in Australasia. I can imagine having Guatemala would avoid any future issues with Spain who could seek to stop or severely restrict Britain's ability to navigate round Kaap Hoorn and access her Pacific possessions.
That's a possibility but it still gives relatively limited access give the technology of the time and Britain already has connections to the Pacific via the developing eastern empire and trade. I would say that the most likely option might be to simply keep Cuba which was a very wealthy island at the time. [Although I have seen suggestions that Britain gave up Cuba and the captured French Caribbean Islands in part because the existing British planters, who had influence due to their great wealth, didn't want competition from plantations in those islands so that's a possible factor.].
Of course Florida, with its borders being disputed no doubt, does leave Georgia somewhat more exposed and Spanish control of Louisiana and especially New Orleans more secure. Which will have impacts on the development of mainland N America.
|
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Jun 19, 2021 8:40:49 GMT
The British would value access to the Pacific so they would want to take the Captaincy General of Guatemala. James Cook and the Endeavour entered the Pacific in 1769 after negotiating the treacherous waters of Kaap Hoorn on his first voyage to observe the transit of Venus and to find evidence of this mysterious land known as Terra Australis Incognita. En-route he claimed several Pacific Islands for the Empire giving the British a relatively stable land bridge to span the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean from central America to their newly established colonies in Australasia. I can imagine having Guatemala would avoid any future issues with Spain who could seek to stop or severely restrict Britain's ability to navigate round Kaap Hoorn and access her Pacific possessions.
That's a possibility but it still gives relatively limited access give the technology of the time and Britain already has connections to the Pacific via the developing eastern empire and trade. I would say that the most likely option might be to simply keep Cuba which was a very wealthy island at the time. [Although I have seen suggestions that Britain gave up Cuba and the captured French Caribbean Islands in part because the existing British planters, who had influence due to their great wealth, didn't want competition from plantations in those islands so that's a possible factor.].
Of course Florida, with its borders being disputed no doubt, does leave Georgia somewhat more exposed and Spanish control of Louisiana and especially New Orleans more secure. Which will have impacts on the development of mainland N America.
Taking Guatemala would open up more opportunities for British traders to move in to the western Pacific and conduct business with Spanish South American territories. It would be a cheaper option as it would take less time to reach the western Pacific region and not only would trade benefit from accessing these new markets there would also be opportunities to try and establish a presence in perhaps the western areas of the North American continent. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Jun 19, 2021 12:21:23 GMT
That's a possibility but it still gives relatively limited access give the technology of the time and Britain already has connections to the Pacific via the developing eastern empire and trade. I would say that the most likely option might be to simply keep Cuba which was a very wealthy island at the time. [Although I have seen suggestions that Britain gave up Cuba and the captured French Caribbean Islands in part because the existing British planters, who had influence due to their great wealth, didn't want competition from plantations in those islands so that's a possible factor.].
Of course Florida, with its borders being disputed no doubt, does leave Georgia somewhat more exposed and Spanish control of Louisiana and especially New Orleans more secure. Which will have impacts on the development of mainland N America.
Taking Guatemala would open up more opportunities for British traders to move in to t he western Pacific and conduct business with Spanish South American territories. It would be a cheaper option as it would take less time to reach the western Pacific region and not only would trade benefit from accessing these new markets there would also be opportunities to try and establish a presence in perhaps the western areas of the North American continent.
I think you mean the eastern Pacific, i.e. those areas on the west coast of the Americas? The problem is that this would be illegal under the laws at the time, with the dominant economic philosophy being mercantilism. The Spanish still had a fair bit of control over their empire at the time so its going to be a continued source of problems with them. Probably expect a few more Captain Jenkin's in this scenario.  Plus I think you over-estimate the potential of such a land link in the topics in the pre-railway age. Even apart from continued resentment by the locals who would be no friendlier to us than to the Spanish everything is going to have to be hauled by mule train probably between the two oceans while disease is going to be a very serious problem there. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Jun 19, 2021 12:35:33 GMT
IOTL, at the end of the Seven Years War, Britain regained control over Minorca, and took control over Florida, with both handed over to them as Spanish concessions in the Treaty of Paris in 1763; acquired in exchange for returning Cuba, which the British had captured from Spain after the Siege of Havana (which had been the third largest city in the Americas at this time), and Manila (along with Luzon and the rest of the Philippines by extension, which had also been conquered by the British in the Seven Years' War), back to the Spanish. Spain evacuated Florida immediately after the exchange, leaving the province virtually empty. And the Spanish concession of Florida, in exchange for regaining Havana, had been negotiated IOTL on France's advice that declining the offer could well result in Spain being forced to concede Cuba, the Philippines, or at least one of the other Captaincies of the Spanish Empire, to the British instead. So, then, let's say that ITTL, the British decide that Florida isn't really valuable or lucrative enough to merit handing either Havana or Manila back over to the Spanish in exchange for, and demand somewhere else instead. Which other colonial territory might have taken Florida's place ITTL's Treaty of Paris? Could the British have held on to either Havana or Manila ? Or could it have demanded (and received, with the Spanish and French conceding to said demand) one of the other Capitanías/Real Audiencias of the Spanish Empire ITTL? So then, excluding the more implausible options from the reckoning, with the British deciding not to bother with trying to acquire Florida, what colonial possession would they be most likely to demand (and receive) from the Spanish instead ITTL? And what might be the long term consequences of them picking that option instead of Florida? Which do you feel would make for the most interesting option to become British in 1763, instead of Florida, in an Alternate TimeLine? - Royal Audience of Buenos Aires (excluding most of Southern Argentina, which was dubbed as Pueblos Originarios/the 'Indigenous Territories' and largely controlled by the hostile Mapuche)
- Captaincy General of Venezuela (not yet created, having been recently transferred from the Royal Audience of Santo Domingo to that of New Grenada; included Trinidad)
- Royal Audience of Quito (as above)
- Captaincy General of Guatemala (as above)
- Royal Audience of Chile (including claims to most of Southern Argentina- former Captaincy General long since dissolved at this point in time, and yet to be reestablished)
- Captaincy General of Yucatan (including all Spanish claims to sovereignty over Belize/British Honduras)
- Eastern Internal Provinces (of New Spain, as shown above), or
- Western Internal Provinces (of New Spain, as shown above)?
If Britain doesn't keep Cuba or take Florida instead, the latter having the benefit of securing security and expansion for the southernmost colonies then while in hindsight the Royal Audience of Buenos Aires might seem the best option as its suitable land for settlement but I would suspect that Yucatan might be an option as it gives acceptance of British claims over what's now Belize and would expand that colony. Or possibly Venezuela although that's likely to be a death-trap for disease reasons and difficult to control given its size and population.
I can't see either New Spain internal province options being likely. The western one would be very difficult to reach and had little known population or resources at that point. The eastern one could be reached by sea as it borders the Gulf of Mexico but is surrounded by Spanish territory while also threatening from the west their fragile control of Louisana which they have just received from France to compensate for their other losses. As such it would be a source of tensions and concerns for both sides.
With Guatemala I think it unlikely for the reasons I gave to halferking, while Chile and Quito are too far away and difficult to reach let alone control between the local population, their size and neighbouring Spanish colonies.
Possibly another option might be Trinidad and Tobago which was still in Spanish hands at this time. Its a smaller but potentially still wealthy plantation region that would be relatively easy and cheap for Britain to control, which would be an important issue for the government. While possibly not upsetting the existing British plantation owners as much as the larger Cuban colony.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by halferking on Dec 12, 2021 18:40:03 GMT
Taking Guatemala would open up more opportunities for British traders to move in to t he western Pacific and conduct business with Spanish South American territories. It would be a cheaper option as it would take less time to reach the western Pacific region and not only would trade benefit from accessing these new markets there would also be opportunities to try and establish a presence in perhaps the western areas of the North American continent.
I think you mean the eastern Pacific, i.e. those areas on the west coast of the Americas? The problem is that this would be illegal under the laws at the time, with the dominant economic philosophy being mercantilism. The Spanish still had a fair bit of control over their empire at the time so its going to be a continued source of problems with them. Probably expect a few more Captain Jenkin's in this scenario. Plus I think you over-estimate the potential of such a land link in the topics in the pre-railway age. Even apart from continued resentment by the locals who would be no friendlier to us than to the Spanish everything is going to have to be hauled by mule train probably between the two oceans while disease is going to be a very serious problem there. Travelling east from Great Britain... |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Dec 12, 2021 21:21:15 GMT
I think you mean the eastern Pacific, i.e. those areas on the west coast of the Americas? The problem is that this would be illegal under the laws at the time, with the dominant economic philosophy being mercantilism. The Spanish still had a fair bit of control over their empire at the time so its going to be a continued source of problems with them. Probably expect a few more Captain Jenkin's in this scenario. Plus I think you over-estimate the potential of such a land link in the topics in the pre-railway age. Even apart from continued resentment by the locals who would be no friendlier to us than to the Spanish everything is going to have to be hauled by mule train probably between the two oceans while disease is going to be a very serious problem there. Travelling east from Great Britain...
Sorry that doesn't make sense?? That would take them down the Atlantic, into the Indian Ocean and then across the Pacific which would be a hell of a long distance and negate the use of the proposed new colony. Or do you mean traveling east from there to the UK? Either way, unless your referring to trade with the Philippines we're talking about the eastern half of the Pacific.
|
|
Plus I think you over-estimate the potential of such a land link in the topics in the pre-railway age. Even apart from continued resentment by the locals who would be no friendlier to us than to the Spanish everything is going to have to be hauled by mule train probably between the two oceans while disease is going to be a very serious problem there.