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.

[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.

[euromellows]

Two words: Royal Navy.

If Britain feels the Americans are flouting the treaty openly they could be in a position to bombard or even blockade the American coast (which is pretty much the entire country at this stage). I don't think the Government (America) will feel particularly compelled to risk that for the sake of a few settlers illegally settling the frontier in breach of a treaty they themselves have signed in good faith. They would also need to ensure they are new nation that is known for honouring their commitments.

[Enigmajones]

Originally Posted by euromellows

Two words: Royal Navy.

If Britain feels the Americans are flouting the treaty openly they could be in a position to bombard or even blockade the American coast (which is pretty much the entire country at this stage). I don't think the Government (America) will feel particularly compelled to risk that for the sake of a few settlers illegally settling the frontier in breach of a treaty they themselves have signed in good faith. They would also need to ensure they are new nation that is known for honouring their commitments.

Ah yes, the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy is busy, they are going to try to blockade the entire coast? And abandon their Empire in the process. Don't think Dutch and French are going to sit idly by and not do anything.

[TurkishCapybara]

Originally Posted by euromellows

Two words: Royal Navy.

If Britain feels the Americans are flouting the treaty openly they could be in a position to bombard or even blockade the American coast (which is pretty much the entire country at this stage). I don't think the Government (America) will feel particularly compelled to risk that for the sake of a few settlers illegally settling the frontier in breach of a treaty they themselves have signed in good faith. They would also need to ensure they are new nation that is known for honouring their commitments.

Doesn`t matter that much.

Did it stop the USA in Oregon? No.

Did it stop the Revolutionary War? No.

Did it stop the USA in Maine? No.

DId it stop the War of 1812? No.

And why would the USA except the Proclamation line of 1763? That was one of the things that started the Revolution.

[Faeelin]

I don't think this is improbable; the British didn't withdraw form the Northwest forts until the 1790s in OTL. Maybe Greene does less well, although I suspect you'd see the US lose Georgia and the Carolinas as well.

[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.

[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.

[Kaiphranos]

Originally Posted by MAlexMatt

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.

Interesting--tying this into the scenario I proposed a few posts up, I wonder if this would mean the state militias retain their influence, and how this would affect both inter-state relationships and the balance of power between the states and the central government.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by TurkishCapybara

And why would the USA except the Proclamation line of 1763? That was one of the things that started the Revolution.

This might be true, but even in OTL Fort Detroit wasn't surrendered to the US until 1796, during the Treaty of Jay.

American history will look very different.

Oh, and I suspect a lot of United Empire loyalists go south, instead of North.

[chimaera]

although i agree with malexmatt that the population growth would force expansion of the colonies, the threats out there will slow them down considerably. this slowdown will also lead to more colonization in the french an spanish area's, as wel as further build up of the british.

I dont know much about indian tribes and their organisation, but i can imagine that if they had had more time, they could have reached better levels of organisation and a larger amount of european weaponry, in turn making them more difficult to displace than in otl ( if someone has some insights about this, id be happy to hear them )

Politicaly i think the larger degree of militarization, and its control on state level, would considerably slow down the "federalization" of the thirteen colonies. with the individual colonies having conflicting (terretorial) intrests in the expansion west, it would take them considerably longer to reach a more federal state, and remain a more confederated hole, like for instance the swiss confederation in its earlier days.

[Kaiphranos]

Assuming we do get American *filibusters settling in British/Native territory, what areas would they head for first? Follow the Ohio west, I'm guessing?

[chimaera]

i think the ohio would be geografically logical, although i do not know if there was much indian activity or british forts in the region.
That could have " motivated" them to travel a less easy road/river.

[Enigmajones]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

This might be true, but even in OTL Fort Detroit wasn't surrendered to the US until 1796, during the Treaty of Jay.

American history will look very different.

Oh, and I suspect a lot of United Empire loyalists go south, instead of North.

A stronger British presence in Michigan and possibly Wisconsin is not off the table, but the whole territory? Not gonna happen.