No way Bermuda becomes a state...
Too small and far to small a population...
The Bahamas, maybe, but not Bermuda.
Too small and far to small a population...
The Bahamas, maybe, but not Bermuda.
No way Bermuda becomes a state...
Too small and far to small a population...
The Bahamas, maybe, but not Bermuda.
Instead of going to Florida, Danial Boone sticks with his Kentucky plan. Virginia releases Kentucky sooner. Congress recognises Kentucky as number 19.
Same thing with Isle St Jean, now known as PEI - IIRC it was also part of Nova Scotia, along with Cape Breton.
The only thing that would stand in the way of Nova Scotia becoming a state is the HUGE British military presence in Halifax. Find a way of defeating them, and you probably have Nova Scotia in the US.
The best way to do this is to assume that Britain does not grant religious liberty and administrative autonomy to Quebec in 1774 and the PO Quebecois therefore side with the 13 colonies. This will grant the patriots the foothold and extra troops they need to expel the British from Nova Scotia.
Of course, this will make the original colonies 15, with Quebec and Nova Scotia.
I'm uncertain myself about the fate of Saint Jean's Isle, and West/East Florida. Would they belong in the original states' rooster ? There is the precedent of Rhode Island for tiny states.
See my previous post regarding St. John's Island.
As for the British military presence, there WAS considerable fortifications, but not during the very early stages of the Revolution. Jonathan Eddy barely lost out against 200 British with his own 500 militia, *before* new amounts of troops came in. If he has even the tiniest bit of luck the population in Nova Scotia would probably shift to the American side and even if Halifax is retaken (bloody likely) the countryside and thus most people would still be rebelling.
Georgia, Nova Scotia, St. John's Island, East Florida, West Florida, and Quebec were all colonies not participating in the First Continental Congress which were invited by that Congress to the Second. If any of the latter five send a plausible delegation to Philadelphia, they're likely to wind up founding states no matter how British-occupied . . . just like British-controlled Georgia did.
Accordingly, set your POD to get a delegation to Philadelphia in 1775 from the colony(ies) of your choice to the Second Continental Congress, under circumstances where the Congress is willing to accept the delegation as genuinely representative of that colony.
Again, that's the problem. The Quebecois are essentially all ancien regime French. A lot of illiterate peasants tied to the land, with a thin leavening of psychotically reactionary aristocrats and some equally reactionary clergy, and a middle class you could count on both hands. And apart from the fact that our hypothetical Quebec delegates would be in no way representative, I'm not sure how much they'd want to be sucked into this protestant English USA anyways. Quebec, frankly, is going in as a conqered province or not at all.
Ummm.... Sort of. Certainly, the habitants were not likely to be interested in joining a group of anti-catholic protestants (which is what the 13 colonies largely were). I don't know how literate they were, but they most certainly weren't serfs tied to the land. I do know that visitors from France were often annoyed at the freedom and dignity of the habitants. The 'aristocracy' was hardly at the level of European aristocracy, either. Certainly, there were Seigneurs (lords) in charge of Seigneuries, but I THINK that a better model for thinking of most of them would be English squires - lords of the manor. Much better off than the people on the land, but still most of them got their hands dirty.Again, that's the problem. The Quebecois are essentially all ancien regime French. A lot of illiterate peasants tied to the land, with a thin leavening of psychotically reactionary aristocrats and some equally reactionary clergy, and a middle class you could count on both hands. And apart from the fact that our hypothetical Quebec delegates would be in no way representative, I'm not sure how much they'd want to be sucked into this protestant English USA anyways. Quebec, frankly, is going in as a conqered province or not at all.
actually, you might want LESS urbanization. Many of the farmers, especially in what would become New Brunswick were... ambivalent. The RN mostly kept American forces out the area (or cut them off when they tried), so the ultimate loyalties of the people their were not totally tested.Nova Scotia is the archtypical loyalist colony: lots of farmers and a middle class basically based around the presence of the enormous naval base at Halifax. Which, coincidentally, is nigh impregnable; again, Lafayette might be able to take it but Washington (or, God help us all, Arnold) sure as hell can't. To get NS in, you need a lot more urbanization (it's not coincidental that the center of the revolution was the cities of New England) and some more heavyhanded British activities there. Also, making the British give up Halifax will be tough in the best of times; Georgia's a backwater colony but Halifax is the biggest naval base between Bristol and... I don't even know where, and is the centre of the british presence on the continent.
SJI (=PEI) going rebel would certainly require NS to go rebel.St John's Island is small, poor, and rural. And separated from the revolution by the entirity of Maine, NB, and a big bloody channel. It's going to be all but impossible to get in. If you can make the revoltuion popular (some kind of anti-absentee landlord rising, I guess?) it might revolt, but it's delegates are going to be middle class and therefore largely opposed to the aims of the rebels. Also, it's not exactly hard for the british to retake: no guns, and no way for the americans to reinforce it.
No idea about W or E Florida; Newfoundland isn't even on the list and with good reason (what was its winter population in 1775? 3?).
No idea about W or E Florida; Newfoundland isn't even on the list and with good reason (what was its winter population in 1775? 3?).
Ummm.... Sort of. Certainly, the habitants were not likely to be interested in joining a group of anti-catholic protestants (which is what the 13 colonies largely were). I don't know how literate they were, but they most certainly weren't serfs tied to the land. I do know that visitors from France were often annoyed at the freedom and dignity of the habitants. The 'aristocracy' was hardly at the level of European aristocracy, either. Certainly, there were Seigneurs (lords) in charge of Seigneuries, but I THINK that a better model for thinking of most of them would be English squires - lords of the manor. Much better off than the people on the land, but still most of them got their hands dirty.
The locals were just fine with British rule as long as their religious liberties were guarded - which they were. Better Brits who have a track record of allowing religious freedom, than the Americans who don't. (NB: even the Constitution, which is rather later, says only that the FEDS can't have a state church, individual states did have established churches for a while, and most places were pretty vehemently opposed to Roman Catholicism.)
Oh? cite please? Besides, it was just to easy for them to pick up and move (into Indian tribes, if necessary), that there just wasn't any way to impose on them too much.Most of the rural population in Québec WERE serfs tied to the land, but these serfs had more freedom than serfs in France. The only exceptions were the inhabitants of Québec the town, Montréal, and Trois-Rivières.
Oh? cite please? Besides, it was just to easy for them to pick up and move (into Indian tribes, if necessary), that there just wasn't any way to impose on them too much.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0003514 said:Habitant (inhabitant) In NEW FRANCE, habitants were free proprietors who were differentiated from indentured servants and those whose stay was perceived to be temporary. By the late 17th century, "habitant" came to mean peasant proprietor, as opposed to seigneur or town resident. Finally, in the waning years of the 18th century, when landless peasants had become common, all those who earned their living from agricultural labour were known as habitants. See also SEIGNEURIAL SYSTEM.
![]()