WI: American revolution sees the 13 colonies independent but nothing more?

[euromellows]

I'm not sure if this topic has been broached before, but I'm interested in what the forum's views might be on the development an Independent America would take that is limited to just the 13 original colonies.

I'm not sure what the POD would be to get here, I guess some kind of military stalemate in which Britain is unable to destroy the Americans but they too are unable to completely expel the British. Basically America would gain its independence but not be able to claim anything beyond the proclamation line of 1763. Perhaps a further concession is that they recognise Britain's protectorate status on the Indian territories to its west.



Under this scenario there's not much room for expansion, possibly Florida in the south. Would America develop into an enlightened maritime republic or a vengeful former colony? Would she want to go round 2 with Britain to get more territory, or possibly the other way around - would Britain consider attacking her former colony?

Regards,
Euromellows

[TMS2224]

A series of wars that lead to long lasting enmity between the two nations.

[Kaiphranos]

This could be more complicated than it looks. The western claims were mostly by the individual states, rather than "America" as a whole--I could see there being a lot of internal dissent if some states perceive their western claims having been unfairly traded away in exchange for independence, particularly in those areas where Loyalist sentiment was strong. Likewise, any subsequent wars to reassert western claims might not enjoy the support of all the states--and if successful, the victors might not be interested in turning the spoils over a central government. All in all, I think this scenario has the potential to strain the fledgling US to the breaking point, in a couple of ways.

[Enigmajones]

The colonists can be held to the Mississippi River, because unless the British are going to settle it, the Americans will, regardless of the treaty.

[Kaiphranos]

Originally Posted by Enigmajones

The colonists can be held to the Mississippi River, because unless the British are going to settle it, the Americans will, regardless of the treaty.

Yeah, demographics are another important consideration.

[MAlexMatt]

Originally Posted by Kaiphranos

Yeah, demographics are another important consideration.

Demographics is an all important consideration. The American population tripled in a 40 year period around this time, and that was almost all natural increase. Immigration didn't really start taking off until the late 1830's.

The American population in the 18th and early 19th century was one of the most rapidly growing human populations ever. The local religious ideology was one that heavily stressed natalism, with family sizes that would make Greatest Generation parents of the baby boom blush. There will be a demographic pressure to expand (as, in this period, North and South were heavily agrarian in economy and you essentially cannot change this within the technological constraints of the time) that the British will be able to do absolutely nothing about, Natives or no Natives. The British are funneling war material to the Native Americans, what you're likely to see is an American society that retains the militarization it had in the late 18th century well into the 19th, instead of dropping it going into the 1800's as happened IOTL.

[euromellows]

Originally Posted by Enigmajones

The colonists can be held to the Mississippi River, because unless the British are going to settle it, the Americans will, regardless of the treaty.

Britain would quite easily be able to enforce the treaty imo, particularly if the 'protected indians' protest against American incursion. A compromise might be if the American settlers forgo American citizenship for British settler status? How realistic is this part, would either side want it?

[Enigmajones]

Originally Posted by euromellows

Britain would quite easily be able to enforce the treaty imo, particularly if the 'protected indians' protest against American incursion. A compromise might be if the American settlers forgo American citizenship for British settler status? How realistic is this part, would either side want it?

Look at it this way. The British have a lot on their plate. They just lost the most profitable part of their colony in North America and have their largest presence in Canada, which isn't saying much. Americans had already settled large portions of the territory and had been doing it since the Seven Years War. The most likely approach is the American settled areas declare their independence and join the United States as states. The British aren't going to bog themselves down in a territory that isn't even under their rule.

[TurkishCapybara]

Originally Posted by euromellows

Britain would quite easily be able to enforce the treaty imo, particularly if the 'protected indians' protest against American incursion. A compromise might be if the American settlers forgo American citizenship for British settler status? How realistic is this part, would either side want it?

Mexico did a really bad job at stopping American Colonists and enforcing treaties, and that is an Nation who`s main Interests is in the region that is being contested.

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by euromellows

Britain would quite easily be able to enforce the treaty imo, particularly if the 'protected indians' protest against American incursion. A compromise might be if the American settlers forgo American citizenship for British settler status? How realistic is this part, would either side want it?

That's not so different from what really happened in Upper Canada.

You got many Americans migrating west without paying much attention to political boundaries, so that a New England family might move to Upstate NY, then on into UC, where they came back under British rule, and subsequently further west still into Michigan or Wisconsin, where of course they became Americans again. As I understand it, there were so-called "Late Loyalists" migrating across the border well into the 1800s. Even in the Wo1812, they showed little or no inclination to rise against Britain.

Don't know how that would work out on a bigger scale, but it sounds at leat possible.

[Dave Howery]

Originally Posted by Enigmajones

The colonists can be held to the Mississippi River, because unless the British are going to settle it, the Americans will, regardless of the treaty.

the problem with this is that it leads almost irresistably to OTL... if the colonies expand to the Mississippi, then the USA is going to want to take control of New Orleans for the same reasons as OTL. The USA is going to pressure France into selling it, and Napoleon will have a lot of the same reasons to sell it; the Brits will take it otherwise.
And holding the colonies to the original 13 territories is going to be problematic too. The USA came into being partly because of their thwarted desire to expand west. Plus, they have a burgeoning population and healthy immigration rates; if they are stuck inside the original 13, expanding into all available space, sooner or later, they are going to arm up and try to expand west by force. The USA simply has the population base right next door to take advantage of all that space, way more than anyone else....

[Enigmajones]

Originally Posted by Dave Howery

the problem with this is that it leads almost irresistably to OTL... if the colonies expand to the Mississippi, then the USA is going to want to take control of New Orleans for the same reasons as OTL. The USA is going to pressure France into selling it, and Napoleon will have a lot of the same reasons to sell it; the Brits will take it otherwise.
And holding the colonies to the original 13 territories is going to be problematic too. The USA came into being partly because of their thwarted desire to expand west. Plus, they have a burgeoning population and healthy immigration rates; if they are stuck inside the original 13, expanding into all available space, sooner or later, they are going to arm up and try to expand west by force. The USA simply has the population base right next door to take advantage of all that space, way more than anyone else....

Thats what Im saying, its not hard to keep the US smaller, but 1763 smaller? Near impossible. You would have to drastically change the population of America to be much smaller to keep them from crossing that line. The only way to really keep the US to the East of the Mississippi is to have the Brits take Louisiana.

[whitecrow]

Originally Posted by Dave Howery

the problem with this is that it leads almost irresistably to OTL... if the colonies expand to the Mississippi, then the USA is going to want to take control of New Orleans for the same reasons as OTL. The USA is going to pressure France into selling it, and Napoleon will have a lot of the same reasons to sell it; the Brits will take it otherwise.
And holding the colonies to the original 13 territories is going to be problematic too. The USA came into being partly because of their thwarted desire to expand west. Plus, they have a burgeoning population and healthy immigration rates; if they are stuck inside the original 13, expanding into all available space, sooner or later, they are going to arm up and try to expand west by force. The USA simply has the population base right next door to take advantage of all that space, way more than anyone else....

Or, if they can't expend West for whatever reason, might U.S.A. become interested in overseas colonies earlier than OTL?

[whitecrow]

Not sure how "U.S. doesn't expend into America's interior" can be made possible, but if it did come about I think we may see U.S. becoming more interested in overseas colonies earlier than OTL.

[06294086]

Originally Posted by euromellows

I'm not sure if this topic has been broached before, but I'm interested in what the forum's views might be on the development an Independent America would take that is limited to just the 13 original colonies.

I'm not sure what the POD would be to get here, I guess some kind of military stalemate in which Britain is unable to destroy the Americans but they too are unable to completely expel the British. Basically America would gain its independence but not be able to claim anything beyond the proclamation line of 1763. Perhaps a further concession is that they recognise Britain's protectorate status on the Indian territories to its west.



Under this scenario there's not much room for expansion, possibly Florida in the south. Would America develop into an enlightened maritime republic or a vengeful former colony? Would she want to go round 2 with Britain to get more territory, or possibly the other way around - would Britain consider attacking her former colony?

Regards,
Euromellows

I would love to see someone make an POD out of this

[Enigmajones]

To get this you would actually need a French victory in the Seven Years War.

[PoeFacedKilla]

Originally Posted by Enigmajones

To get this you would actually need a French victory in the Seven Years War.

that would be great, america stays the thirteen colonies and probably becomes an imperialist nation like those of europe;
while britain is not the dominant world power and so is not at as much liberty to threaten the US.

i'd like to see how the US grows, probably participating a lot more in the scramble for africa.