A smaller but still successful ARW

With most threads on alternate American Revolutionary Wars being about expanding the rebellion it occured to me: how few colonies do we need for an ARW to still be successful?

I know OTL ARW was surprisingly successful in itself but could one with less members still found itself?
Which Colonies are more important/necessary to achieve a successful ARW?
 
I like the idea of seeing a successful rebellion and independent south With the New England states all suppressed and returned to British control.
 
I'd say that for it to be a United States instead of just a 'greater Virginia' or whatever, it needs to have at least three out of Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts as these will result in the guarentee of a confederal/federal structure due to the balanced power. Having just two makes it more of a dual republic and likely to split apart.

So the bare minimum would probably be Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York for a 6 state Union. Though if Massachusetts has been retained it's more likely for New York to have been split leading to an unstable Pennsylvania-Virginia duopoly, so it might be more plausible to have a Massachusetts-Pennyslvania situation, possibly including Maryland, but probably an 8 state situation of PA, DE, NJ, NY, MA, RI, CN and NH, with or without VT. Delaware included because I honestly can't see an agreement that would lead to Philadelphia being so vulnerable to attack as having the Delaware River contested like that. Capitals would probably be remaining at Pennsylvania for the first case and New York for the second due to centrality.
 
I like the idea of seeing a successful rebellion and independent south With the New England states all suppressed and returned to British control.

IMO this is the least likely outcome; after 1777 the British wrote off New England and the Midatlantic; their plan envisaged holding onto the transappalachian and South.
 
I'd say that for it to be a United States instead of just a 'greater Virginia' or whatever, it needs to have at least three out of Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts as these will result in the guarentee of a confederal/federal structure due to the balanced power. Having just two makes it more of a dual republic and likely to split apart.

So the bare minimum would probably be Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York for a 6 state Union. Though if Massachusetts has been retained it's more likely for New York to have been split leading to an unstable Pennsylvania-Virginia duopoly, so it might be more plausible to have a Massachusetts-Pennyslvania situation, possibly including Maryland, but probably an 8 state situation of PA, DE, NJ, NY, MA, RI, CN and NH, with or without VT. Delaware included because I honestly can't see an agreement that would lead to Philadelphia being so vulnerable to attack as having the Delaware River contested like that. Capitals would probably be remaining at Pennsylvania for the first case and New York for the second due to centrality.

Interesting. It all seems to hinge around Virginia's power.
I like the idea of seeing a successful rebellion and independent south With the New England states all suppressed and returned to British control.

IMO this is the least likely outcome; after 1777 the British wrote off New England and the Midatlantic; their plan envisaged holding onto the transappalachian and South.

Yes. I think Iserjohn wrote a TL on that situation as a case in point.
 
Interesting. It all seems to hinge around Virginia's power.

Not just Virginia's, but any of the 4 members of the upper tier of states are going to dominate a federation if they're the only succesfull major state revolter, and having two in there will likely cause splits.

For example, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey (with or without Delaware) would result in a NY-PA split as neither would want to bow to the other, the same would happen in a New England plus New York situation.
 
Top