OK, this is a bit of a new one for me - I've always kept myself to answering questions and posited TLs rather than posing the questions myself. But there are some things I've often wondered about, and this one happened to capture my imagination so I thought "why not?"
So here's the thing. We regularly (well, occasionally) talk about the possibility of the USA forming after a different ARW, and the possibility of a British southern states and a US only extending across the north (with or without Canada). But while the British held the south, they also retained an outpost in New York (and a couple of other places, though I forget which), which - because of the significant numbers of refugees - became quite strongly loyalist. Of course, they lost it and then they lost the south OTL, but even in TLs where they keep the south, New York is always lost. So was it possible that the British could keep the south AND keep New York (and maybe a couple of other pockets of resistance?) as an exclave in a peace deal? Could they entrench themselves well enough that the US couldn't even think about assaulting the city, and/or could the population become so anti-revolutionary that they would not accept being traded in a peace deal? Would the rebels ever accept it, or would they insist on New York being handed over, even to the possible extension of the war to a point when they lost? Is there any way it could work?
This is one of those areas where I know the dates and characters but I don't properly understand the mindset of those living there at the time, which I generally regard to be integral to debating alternate history, so I'm very interested by this stuff. Anyone have any strong opinions either way? I would suggest this being an AHC, except that I think that the PODs are clear enough - it all comes down to whether it could ever be acceptable to those involved.
So here's the thing. We regularly (well, occasionally) talk about the possibility of the USA forming after a different ARW, and the possibility of a British southern states and a US only extending across the north (with or without Canada). But while the British held the south, they also retained an outpost in New York (and a couple of other places, though I forget which), which - because of the significant numbers of refugees - became quite strongly loyalist. Of course, they lost it and then they lost the south OTL, but even in TLs where they keep the south, New York is always lost. So was it possible that the British could keep the south AND keep New York (and maybe a couple of other pockets of resistance?) as an exclave in a peace deal? Could they entrench themselves well enough that the US couldn't even think about assaulting the city, and/or could the population become so anti-revolutionary that they would not accept being traded in a peace deal? Would the rebels ever accept it, or would they insist on New York being handed over, even to the possible extension of the war to a point when they lost? Is there any way it could work?
This is one of those areas where I know the dates and characters but I don't properly understand the mindset of those living there at the time, which I generally regard to be integral to debating alternate history, so I'm very interested by this stuff. Anyone have any strong opinions either way? I would suggest this being an AHC, except that I think that the PODs are clear enough - it all comes down to whether it could ever be acceptable to those involved.