WI: U.S. war with Spain over the latter rescinding U.S. Mississippi River navigation & trade rights?

[Wendell]

Reading up on the Louisiana Purchase led me to this passage on Wikipedia:

Following the establishment of the United States, the Americans controlled the area east of the Mississippi and north of New Orleans. The main issue for the Americans was free transit of the Mississippi to the sea. As the lands were being gradually settled by American migrants, many Americans, including Jefferson, assumed that the territory would be acquired "piece by piece." The risk of another power taking it from a weakened Spain made a "profound reconsideration" of this policy necessary.[4] New Orleans was already important for shipping agricultural goods to and from the areas of the United States west of the Appalachian Mountains. Pinckney's Treaty, signed with Spain on October 27, 1795, gave American merchants "right of deposit" in New Orleans, granting them use of the port to store goods for export. The treaty also recognized American rights to navigate the entire Mississippi, which had become vital to the growing trade of the western territories.

In 1798, Spain revoked the treaty allowing American use of New Orleans, greatly upsetting Americans. In 1801, Spanish Governor Don Juan Manuel de Salcedo took over from the Marquess of Casa Calvo, and restored the American right to deposit goods. However, in 1800 Spain had ceded the Louisiana territory back to France as part of Napoleon's secret Third Treaty of San Ildefonso.[6] The territory nominally remained under Spanish control, until a transfer of power to France on November 30, 1803, just three weeks before the formal cession of the territory to the United States on December 20, 1803.

How might this have led to war?

 

[raharris1973]

Reading up on the Louisiana Purchase led me to this passage on Wikipedia:


How might this have led to war?

1798-1800 is a bit early for this to happen, because the development of trans-allegheny US was so small (despite admission of Kentucky and Tennessee) and the Federalists in power didn't answer to a western constituency.

I would say it turning into a fight is more likely if Jefferson wins the 1796 election. But his and his party's greater interest in western matters is counterbalanced by his fiscal conservative and anti-military spending ways.

So the likeliest way for this to happen is for Napoleon to never demand Louisiana back. Spain keeps Luisiana, and then a later Governor of Luisiana revokes the right of deposit once again. Perhaps if they do this again as early as the 1805-1811 era, America may be ready to fight to seize New Orleans at that time.

Certainly if Spain played any games over Mississippi rights post 1815, the more developed US would be inclined to fight.

Perhaps the situation could come about as a spiral of escalation and misunderstanding. The Spanish don't just shut down the river for funzies, but maybe they try to raise fees, and that causes tensions or violence, and Spain retaliates with closure, which leads to war. Or, when Spain is dealing with South American rebellions, it gets pissed off by Yankee smuggling to rebels, and shuts down Mississippi navigation, and that provokes the US to fight.

 

[unprincipled peter]

It's my opinion (a guess reading the tea leaves) that Spain got boisterous, or backed down, based on alliances. They definitely backed off once USA negotiated the Jay Treaty with Britain in 1795. They then started getting more boisterous when France started angling for the return of Louisiana. I'm guessing this was at the behest of France. No France in the picture likely means Spain leaves the river open, and thus, no war. As long as Spain is weakened by War of Pyrenees, forcing it to switch alliances to France, and is embroiled in the European wars, Spain is unlikely to be antagonistic without cause.

Now, if it is war you want, move the date up a bit. Post American Revolution, Spain claimed everything south and west of the Tennessee River. Concurrently, Spain didn't really do much with Louisiana. If Spain had decided to push that claim, war could break out prior to Louis XVI beheading, and Spain would win this war. with ease. Spain held possession of the region, and merely has to defend. USA does not have the means (and doubtful the will) to force project.

 

[raharris1973]

Now, if it is war you want, move the date up a bit. Post American Revolution, Spain claimed everything south and west of the Tennessee River. Concurrently, Spain didn't really do much with Louisiana. If Spain had decided to push that claim, war could break out prior to Louis XVI beheading, and Spain would win this war. with ease. Spain held possession of the region, and merely has to defend. USA does not have the means (and doubtful the will) to force project.

Yes, an early war like this will suck for the US and be a spanking. Spain need only defend. But, Spain could punitively raid the east coast.

The military shortcomings of the US Army at this time, even closer to the Alleghenies and against natives foes, are shown here: https://www.amazon.com/Victory-No-N...keywords=defeat+no+name&qid=1617484768&sr=8-1

Indeed if Spain asserts and moves to consolidate its claims in the immediate aftermath of that book's subject, St. Clair's defeat of 1791, the US won't even contest until it takes a significant amount of time to reform and prepare.