13 Colonies = 12 or less Colonies?

I would imagine so. The war could still be won without the support of Georgia ( my home state :( ) and probably without the Carolinas, however it would be increasingly difficult now that the British do not have to divert their troops as much as in OTL.
 
Last edited:
Bit embarrassing for Washington and Jefferson if Virginia remains a loyal colony for all their efforts.
Virginia is more likely to be a rebel, the most Loyalist South was NC and Georgia (South Carolina too, but less).
I could see the Carolinas and Georgia staying out.
 
13 - 1 = 12

In OTL, New Hampshire beat everyone to the punch and declared their independence on January 6, 1776. Various scenarios could be set up where the former NH landowners of sections of Vermont prevent NH from joining with the other 12 colonies in a joint Declaration, and decide to go it alone, or stay loyal. Vermont would again become part of NH, not becomming the 15th state in 1791, and possibly take over Maine from Massachusetts preventing Maine statehood in 1820.

Without the New Hampshre regiments, and the Ticondaroga cannons at the battle of Bunker Hill, would the Colonists have won Boston? Without General Stark cutting off the Hessians at the Battle of Bennington, would Gates have won Saratoga?

"For Want of a Nail?"

Hey! I like this! A New Hampshire wank!

New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, probably Nova Scotia (including New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island) and Newfoundland (including Labrador). Certainly a viable start for a country.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I thought New York's position was less effective loyalism and more the bitter rivalry between NYC and Boston as the two primary ports in the area playing out?

Also how is this New Hampshire planning to make its viable start if it gets crushed and conquered within the year... NH in 1790 has only 142.000 people. That's less than Nova Scotia, certainly less than both Massachussetts and New York, and I very much doubt they'd enjoy a three way war with the Vermonters if the other two parties happened to be the US and Britain :p
 
13 - 1 = 12

I thought New York's position was less effective loyalism and more the bitter rivalry between NYC and Boston as the two primary ports in the area playing out?

Also how is this New Hampshire planning to make its viable start if it gets crushed and conquered within the year... NH in 1790 has only 142.000 people. That's less than Nova Scotia, certainly less than both Massachussetts and New York, and I very much doubt they'd enjoy a three way war with the Vermonters if the other two parties happened to be the US and Britain :p[/QUOTE

Total population of NH, VT & Maine in 1790 was 316,860 according to US Census. That is approximately 10 % of US. The residents of these three states would not enjoy a three way war, any more than they enjoyed a two way war.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I thought New York's position was less effective loyalism and more the bitter rivalry between NYC and Boston as the two primary ports in the area playing out?

Also how is this New Hampshire planning to make its viable start if it gets crushed and conquered within the year... NH in 1790 has only 142.000 people. That's less than Nova Scotia, certainly less than both Massachussetts and New York, and I very much doubt they'd enjoy a three way war with the Vermonters if the other two parties happened to be the US and Britain :p[/QUOTE

Total population of NH, VT & Maine in 1790 was 316,860 according to US Census. That is approximately 10 % of US. The residents of these three states would not enjoy a three way war, any more than they enjoyed a two way war.

That's because they didn't go on an invading spree: New York considered Vermont its territory and the republic had declared independence in 1777 while Maine was officially recognized as a part of Massachussetts. Taking this= fighting Mass thus the US. Taking Nova Scotia = fighting Britain. And if the New Hampshirians want to hang alone, the remaining colonies will gladly oblige.
 
Top