AH Challenge: Independent USA and Loyalist Colonies both surface

[Askelion]

Hello everyone!
I'm in the process of finishing up a Japanese timeline that I'm working on, and a thought occurred to me: What if some of the 13 British Colonies successfully achieve independence while others remain under Loyalist control? What do you guys think might lead to such a scenario?

Bonus points if the Loyalist Colonies are in the South, and thus don't get mashed together with Canada.

As the descendant of a Loyalist (Of the King's American Regiment), I'd love to be able to write a TL or Story with such a situation.

Thanks everyone!

-Askelion

 

[Jord839]

Hello everyone!
I'm in the process of finishing up a Japanese timeline that I'm working on, and a thought occurred to me: What if some of the 13 British Colonies successfully achieve independence while others remain under Loyalist control? What do you guys think might lead to such a scenario?

Bonus points if the Loyalist Colonies are in the South, and thus don't get mashed together with Canada.

As the descendant of a Loyalist (Of the King's American Regiment), I'd love to be able to write a TL or Story with such a situation.

Thanks everyone!

-Askelion

Well, you could check out Glen's "Dominion of Southern America" TL, which has a POD before the Quebec Act, so Canada rebels, but the South remains loyal.

It's a long and detailed TL, very much worth reading.

 

[Askelion]

Well, you could check out Glen's "Dominion of Southern America" TL, which has a POD before the Quebec Act, so Canada rebels, but the South remains loyal.

It's a long and detailed TL, very much worth reading.

Thanks! (I look forward to reading that Timeline...it's right up my alley )
However, I'm looking for two factions within the 13 Lower Colonies...such as a USA in the north and a Loyalist Commonwealth in the south or some such.

Thanks anyway, Jord. I appreciate the response!

 

[black angel]

the 13 colonies were a split, there were in the Americas 26 British colonies, 13 (or so) rebelled, any ways during the southern part of the War, the Brits controlled all of Georgia and 80-90% of South Carolina so Florida+ Georgia+ South Carolina=British South?

 

[Kerblo]

If New England and the Mid Atlantic became independent they may be contained more. I don't see the British Empire allowing them to expand beyond the great lakes.

The south would probably still rebel later on though. If not when the British outlawed the slave trade than years later if they tried to outlaw slavery in the south. I don't see them joining the US though. Most likely form their own nation.

 

[Shawn Endresen]

er...no, even with Cornwallis and Tarleton running amok, the British never controlled more than the ports. Because they delayed too long. In 1776, Loyalists appear to have had a solid majority in the South, but Britain concentrated its armies in the rebellious provinces to the North - leaving Southern Loyalists to the mercies of their rebel neighbors. By the time Cornwallis arrives it's two years too late - the Southern Loyalists have come to understand that the Crown cannot or will not protect them. Keeping the South is probably easy, but requires a significant troop presence in 1776, not 1778.

 

[Askelion]

er...no, even with Cornwallis and Tarleton running amok, the British never controlled more than the ports. Because they delayed too long. In 1776, Loyalists appear to have had a solid majority in the South, but Britain concentrated its armies in the rebellious provinces to the North - leaving Southern Loyalists to the mercies of their rebel neighbors. By the time Cornwallis arrives it's two years too late - the Southern Loyalists have come to understand that the Crown cannot or will not protect them. Keeping the South is probably easy, but requires a significant troop presence in 1776, not 1778.

This sounds like the right kind of scenario for me. Does anybody have a suggestion for a POD to increase troop presence in the aSouth at the time of Revolution?

Any proto-timelines to kind of outline the effects of such a scenario would be great as well...I'm not as strong in US Colonial history as I'd like to be.

Thanks for all the responses!

 

[Kerblo]

This sounds like the right kind of scenario for me. Does anybody have a suggestion for a POD to increase troop presence in the aSouth at the time of Revolution?

Any proto-timelines to kind of outline the effects of such a scenario would be great as well...I'm not as strong in US Colonial history as I'd like to be.

Thanks for all the responses!

In 1772 a series of large scale native american attacks in the south forces British troops stationed in the Caribbean to set up a series of forts in the southern colonies.

When revolution breaks out the British, due to their forts in the western parts of the colonies and significant presence in the ports to supply these forts have a firm grasp on the south. The population in the southern colonies for the most part doesn't see the redcoats as occupiers but defenders of the white race against indians.

Although the southerners see the rebels in the north as ungrateful traitors enlistment in the loyalist regiments are low. Northern propaganda spreads the belief that British troops will take their women when they go off to fight. British troops remain in the south even though it is secure on fear that the south will rebel the moment they leave.

 

[Askelion]

In 1772 a series of large scale native american attacks in the south forces British troops stationed in the Caribbean to set up a series of forts in the southern colonies.

When revolution breaks out the British, due to their forts in the western parts of the colonies and significant presence in the ports to supply these forts have a firm grasp on the south. The population in the southern colonies for the most part doesn't see the redcoats as occupiers but defenders of the white race against indians.

Although the southerners see the rebels in the north as ungrateful traitors enlistment in the loyalist regiments are low. Northern propaganda spreads the belief that British troops will take their women when they go off to fight. British troops remain in the south even though it is secure on fear that the south will rebel the moment they leave.

An excellent POD.
I have a question though...do you think that Northern Propaganda-spun as you said-would be seen as anything more than what it is? I think that they'd be hardpressed to believe a bunch of 'ungrateful traitors' over their British defenders. I'd personally expect to see a bit more loyalist troops than OTL...although their numbers would still be 'low' relative to the Rebel forces.

Any thoughts on the impact on the opinion of the Souther Colonies towards British troops if they give them protection from the natives? Any other suggestions?

Thanks, Kerblo. I may just use this POD

 

[Kerblo]

Well the way I figured, if there were too many loyalists then the revolution may have failed. Not just because they would be fighting the rebels but because an unquestionably loyal south would mean British troops weren't tied down in southern colonies and could move north to kick some butt.

Northern propaganda could have been done covertly. Simply bribe some newspapers to write false stories. There wasn't anyone checking facts back then. Newspapers were pretty much just the blogosphere of today. The north didn't have to convince the south that the British would take there women, they just needed to plant the seed of doubt.

 

[Shawn Endresen]

Even in the South, the colonists dislike the regulars. They've been used more to bully the colonists, and displayed cowardice and incompetence against both Indians and other Europeans, for 100 years. But their presence may be enough to keep the more psychotic rebel elements in line, which is all you need.

If there are significant fortifications in the South, Clinton and his lot may be sent to Charleston instead of New York. Where he will proceed to fortify and make few offensive actions, as he did in OTL. Then you get a war with Virginia as the major battleground, the Carolinas and Georgia Loyalist, and the North from Pennsylvania to Massachussets pretty much lost from day one.

 

[Dauven]

I've heard this scenario before, or something rather similar. The rumor was that if there was no decisive battles in 1781 then France was going to allow a European diplomatic council decide how America was split up (much like the Council of Vienna). So all General Cornwallis had to do was not lose a battle and he would win the war. So a POD would go something like this.
A. General Cornwallis decides not to march to Yorktown and stays in the south.
B. Minor skirmishes are fought in 1781 and early 1782, but no convincing battles.
C. France desperately low on gold decides that she has been enough of a thorn in Britain's side and calls a European Council to decide the fate of the colonies.
D. The Council decides on a peace based on Uti possidetis, leaving each side with roughly the Colonies that they occupy.
This would leave Britain with most of the south and New England and likely all of New York. The Colonies in between would be recognized as independent.
You could even come up with other factors, such as America accepting a French monarch to try to influence the Council, or a Monarch being forced upon them.
Opinions/comments?

 

[Askelion]

I've heard this scenario before, or something rather similar. The rumor was that if there was no decisive battles in 1781 then France was going to allow a European diplomatic council decide how America was split up (much like the Council of Vienna). So all General Cornwallis had to do was not lose a battle and he would win the war. So a POD would go something like this.
A. General Cornwallis decides not to march to Yorktown and stays in the south.
B. Minor skirmishes are fought in 1781 and early 1782, but no convincing battles.
C. France desperately low on gold decides that she has been enough of a thorn in Britain's side and calls a European Council to decide the fate of the colonies.
D. The Council decides on a peace based on Uti possidetis, leaving each side with roughly the Colonies that they occupy.
This would leave Britain with most of the south and New England and likely all of New York. The Colonies in between would be recognized as independent.
You could even come up with other factors, such as America accepting a French monarch to try to influence the Council, or a Monarch being forced upon them.
Opinions/comments?

It's an impressive scenario, but I don't think that the Rebels could last very long if the South, New England, and New York. As a UE such a scenario sounds awesome, but I'm sure that the Proto-US will die quickly...which is cool, but not exactly what I'm looking for.

I'm really liking the Loyalists holding everything from NC south though. Perhaps they can get East/West Florida and the Caribbean as well? As long as they don't flub it up I'm sure London would be pretty happy to do so.

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions? Keep them coming!
You guys are doing great!

 

[Eurofed]

It's an impressive scenario, but I don't think that the Rebels could last very long if the South, New England, and New York. As a UE such a scenario sounds awesome, but I'm sure that the Proto-US will die quickly...which is cool, but not exactly what I'm looking for.

I'm really liking the Loyalists holding everything from NC south though. Perhaps they can get East/West Florida and the Caribbean as well? As long as they don't flub it up I'm sure London would be pretty happy to do so.

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions? Keep them coming!
You guys are doing great!

Letting Canada and Nova Scotia side with the Revolution by using either the PoD that Glen used in his TL (switching Carleton from Canada to NC), or the one (a sorry misunderstanding chain of events leads to a Quebec Act that screws the Catholic Canadiens and gives the Ohio Valley to HBC, pushing Canada and Nova Scotia to rebellion) that we used in the Vive le Revolution one by Aranfan and yours truly (although for the latter you are indeed going to need the secondary PoD of an increased pre-ARW British military presence in the South owing to regional Indian unrest to keep it Loyalist) would balance the strategic equation enough that the Canada-New England-Mid Atlantic block may win the ARW even if it fails to get the South. If the South remains a British colony, I'm otally expecting that the Floridas and British Caribbean would be thrown with it with little delay. In such a TL, we ought to expect Britain moving to acquire Cuba, St. Domingo, and Puerto Rico during the Napoleonic Wars one way or another. A Canadian-North US would be strong enough to assimilate all North America north of the 36°30' line.

 

[Askelion]

Letting Canada and Nova Scotia side with the Revolution by using either the PoD that Glen used in his TL (switching Carleton from Canada to NC), or the one (a sorry misunderstanding chain of events leads to a Quebec Act that screws the Catholic Canadiens and gives the Ohio Valley to HBC, pushing Canada and Nova Scotia to rebellion) that we used in the Vive le Revolution one by Aranfan and yours truly (although for the latter you are indeed going to need the secondary PoD of an increased pre-ARW British military presence in the South owing to regional Indian unrest to keep it Loyalist) would balance the strategic equation enough that the Canada-New England-Mid Atlantic block may win the ARW even if it fails to get the South. If the South remains a British colony, I'm otally expecting that the Floridas and British Caribbean would be thrown with it with little delay. In such a TL, we ought to expect Britain moving to acquire Cuba, St. Domingo, and Puerto Rico during the Napoleonic Wars one way or another. A Canadian-North US would be strong enough to assimilate all North America north of the 36°30' line.

So, in such a scenario, what do you think would be the 'high water mark' for the Loyal colonies? Virginia? North Carolina? New York?

The Carolinas and Georgia are surely going to be Loyalist if they serve as the main garrisson point TTL, but the 'middle colonies' of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia are far less certain.

Which colonies do you think would stay loyal here?

 

[Derek Jackson]

If parts of otl Southern US stayed in the British Empire I anticipate problems when the Imperial Parliament abolishes slavery in the early 1830s

 

[Eurofed]

So, in such a scenario, what do you think would be the 'high water mark' for the Loyal colonies? Virginia? North Carolina? New York?

The Carolinas and Georgia are surely going to be Loyalist if they serve as the main garrisson point TTL, but the 'middle colonies' of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia are far less certain.

Which colonies do you think would stay loyal here?

I'd totally make the Carolinas and Georgia stay Loyal, and the Mid Atlantic ones embracing the Revolution, and kicking out the Redcoats and the Loyalists with the help of New England and Canada (and later France and Spain). If you wish, further help to the Patriots may be given by the butterfly, which I used in USAO and VLR alike (both TL are variants of the same basic scenario, essentially diverging about who wins the Napoleonic Wars), of the Iroquois confederation siding with the Patriots, thanks to their leaders getting the epiphany that they need to do so in order to avoid destruction (in VLR, this is much developed as Joseph Bryant getting a nifty prophetic dream about the future rise of America to greatness: of course, in VLR the Patriots wholly kick the UK butt out of the 15 colonies).

In this TL, at the end of ARW, we ought to see at this kind of map:

 

[Eurofed]

If parts of otl Southern US stayed in the British Empire I anticipate problems when the Imperial Parliament abolishes slavery in the early 1830s

Absolutely yes (even more so if, as I expect, the Caribbean becomes part of British Southern America and Texas eventually throws its lot with the *CSA). ITTL, the ACW equivalent would happen in the 1830s and be the Slaver Rebellion of BSA-Texas against British rule. Depending on whether the USA (which without the South is going to abolish slavery very soon) decides it hates slavery or British colonial rule in North America more and intervenes or not, we may see BSA evolving to be the CSA slaveocracy we all know and love , or a Reconstructed Dominion of Southern America.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Dauven, except that if Cornwallis stays in the south that leaves the British holding, against nasty resistance, South Carolina and Georgia only.

The British have no presence in North Carolina, Virginia or New England and the only bit of New York they hold is around Manhattan.

 

[Askelion]

Absolutely yes (even more so if, as I expect, the Caribbean becomes part of British Southern America and Texas eventually throws its lot with the *CSA). ITTL, the ACW equivalent would happen in the 1830s and be the Slaver Rebellion of BSA-Texas against British rule. Depending on whether the USA (which without the South is going to abolish slavery very soon) decides it hates slavery or British colonial rule in North America more and intervenes or not, we may see BSA evolving to be the CSA slaveocracy we all know and love , or a Reconstructed Dominion of Southern America.

I'm not so sure that Texas will develop in a way that's wholly recognizeable to OTL...it only existed as such becase Mexico both gained independence and allowed slave-holding immigrants in from the US. Now that the structure of the Loyal Colonies has been established...let's talk slavery.

I'm no scholar of British history...but weren't the Caribbean colonies full of slaves when Parliament outlawed slavery? What happened there? Were there revolts from the plantation owners?

And, no, I doubt that the Loyal Colonies would evolve into a slavocratic CSA clone. I imagine that it will develop a similar 'southernness' but, doubt that Slavery will last past the 1830's.

Discuss! What are your guys' views on the matter?