14 (+?) Original States

No way Bermuda becomes a state...

Too small and far to small a population...

The Bahamas, maybe, but not Bermuda.

True, but one could argue this on the province of Prince Edward Island in Canada and Delaware in America.

I figure if they were a seperate colony and joined the ARW, they'll be allowed in as a state.
 
Instead of going to Florida, Danial Boone sticks with his Kentucky plan. Virginia releases Kentucky sooner. Congress recognises Kentucky as number 19.

It was already the unrecognized state/colony of Transylvania at that point, so it'd have that as a name.

And what's this on Boone going to Florida...?
 
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. :p

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.

...You guys seem to be under the missaprehension that the Nova Scotians were one good grab at Halifax away from becoming a state. That is (bluntly) Not True. Apart from the fact that Eddy never had a chance of taking Halifax (c'mon. I want to hear a plausible way for him to take the Citadel within ever), he was the only time anyone in NS ever tried to revolt. The brits had the better part of NY, too, as late as 1783, and there was no question of them ever holding on to it because the populace was generally against them; just like there was no chance of the Brits handing over NS, because there was no support for the revolution there. Plus - and this needs repeating - there is the Citadel, which there is no way that anything less than Lafayette's entire army is going to take (and even then it's iffy).

I'm not saying that NS as the 14th colony is impossible; just that doing so requires something more along the lines of "WI NSians are more amenable to the revolution", and possibly also "WI the Brits never build Halifax", rather than "WI Eddy gets lucky".
 
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.
 
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.

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.

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?).
 
Zyz-

It's a truism, that Halifax would have been impossible to take. But would the patriots even need to? A Fort Cumberland victory, smack in the Saint John heartland where most patriot sentiment existed, wouldn't have been enough to galvanize the population into siding with the Americans?

Even in 1775 itself the assembly in the city itself tended to debate on some of the policies of what England was doing. Let those walk out of the local government and make their own rebelling one-not like many other governors in the other colonies were sympathetic to the Revolution.

Yes, NS as a 14th colony is a hard sell, but as you said, not impossible. Enough writings out there, even by Canadians, muse that it was still plenty of luck and Eddy's failure that really helped the NS stuck with the British. Even the whole point of New Brunswick's creation was to have the newly settled Loyalists break from the 'Yankee' sentiment in Halifax. If by THEN there still existed such a local streak, surely it can mean the Nova Scotians were willing enough to join if they had a sign it was possible. Fort Cumberland's capture may will be that.
 

General Zod

Banned
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.

It has been proposed as a PoD for this, by myself as well as others, that the ATL Quebec Act severely limits the religious freedom of the Quebecois. This severely alienates them against British colonial rule and makes the Patriot offer of religious tolerance and self-government look much more alluring in comparison. The bonds of brotherhood that grow by fighting a war together shall bridge most of the remaining differences between the English and the French Patriots. No doubt TTL Articles of Confederation and US Constitution shall include some clausle as to reassume the Quebecois about their right to be masters in their own house, but it's manageable.
 
Last edited:
Wait wait wait. We need an Ambiguity Check. Does anyone have any sources as to which colonies were invited to the Continental Congress (and the Albany Congress) that didn't end up becoming American states? All this stuff about Quebec getting invited sounds like hearsay.
 
I think Quebec would be a good choice. The inhabitants don't like the British(being French and all). And that might get France involved in the American Revolution Earlier.
 
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.

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.)


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.
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.

Halifax, now that's another matter. But if Halifax were taken (somewhat ASB), I don't think the rest of the province would object to American rule.

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?).
SJI (=PEI) going rebel would certainly require NS to go rebel.

Newfoundland was administered entirely separately. The North American Squadron (of the RN) based out of Halifax not only didn't have control of Nfld, but sometimes had to convince the Admiralty in London to get the Nfld squadron to work with them. Remember, that Newfoundland was never part of 'Canada' until after WWII.
 
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?).

Probably a small population (that's what you get when Britain tries to discourage settlement of an area that's going to get settlement anyway, regardless), but certainly not 3. St. John's was a bustling little town at that time ("bustling" being a relative term here).
 
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.

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.

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.)

Even with that, though, I would probably not see les Canadiens warming up to independence. The problem? France. If France were on the side of the Americans, EVEN IF the ATL Québec restricted the religious liberties of the Canadiens, the Canadiens would most likely support the British (even the Catholic Church supported Britain in OTL during the Revolution - there was a bishop, I forgot the name, who threatened to excommunicate anyone who supported the Americans).
 
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.
 
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.

I've seen it in a lot of French-language books dealing with Québécois history. The only real reasons for moving from the land was to engage in the fur trade, which France discouraged at first (after all, in their reasoning, the "civilized" European can't be "contaminated" by the "savages" - their words, not mine). But, for the most part, they were tied to the land (even if the seigneural system was looser than in France), including the hated corvée.
 
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.
0222_31.jpg

Nope, not serfs. Free.
 
They will be a single state known as Acadia... America would have a greater fishing economy, with the grand banks. and thus would not have been as interested in the Alaskan panhandle, most likely that would have been Canadian.
 
Top