AH Challenge: Loyalists are more numerous and successful in the American 'Revolution'

Askelion

So, I'm almost finished with a TL in which the US loses the war of independence because of a more dedicated and militant loyalist movement(my ancestors were Tories rather than Patriots, in case you can't tell ;) ).

But I haven't been able to figure out how this could come about without a significant increase in the loyalist population (OTL only 20% were actively working to preserve the union with Britain).

So, in short, could any of you kind ladies and gents help this old U.E. by brainstorming a bit on this?
 

oudi14

I've only given this a moment's thought, but if you have a loyalist population in New England and the mid-Atlantic colonies anywhere near as big as it was in the Carolinas, then you will have a full blown civil war, not just brave continentals fighting evil redcoats and Hessians. And here I can speak about my own ancestors, who fought in the South Carolina militia on the side of the King. They lost, were forced to leave, relocated to East Florida, then came to the Bahamas in 1785. I think even in this scenario, the patriots would still prevail in the end, but it would have been a much more vicious fight. Worse in many ways, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale, than the ACW; that was a regional fight, in the 1770s-80s there was often brother against brother, father against son, husband agaisnt wife even. [remember Ben Franklin and his son William] Just my .02.
 

RCAF Brat

oudi14 said:
I've only given this a moment's thought, but if you have a loyalist population in New England and the mid-Atlantic colonies anywhere near as big as it was in the Carolinas, then you will have a full blown civil war, not just brave continentals fighting evil redcoats and Hessians. And here I can speak about my own ancestors, who fought in the South Carolina militia on the side of the King. They lost, were forced to leave, relocated to East Florida, then came to the Bahamas in 1785. I think even in this scenario, the patriots would still prevail in the end, but it would have been a much more vicious fight. Worse in many ways, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale, than the ACW; that was a regional fight, in the 1770s-80s there was often brother against brother, father against son, husband agaisnt wife even. [remember Ben Franklin and his son William] Just my .02.
Click to expand...

Who knows, if there were more Loyalists, only parts of the rebellious colonies would gain independence. There would have been, like OTL, Thirteen Colonies in revolt against Britain, plus the three Loyalist colonies of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. The end result would have been probably six or seven of the Colonies go independent, and can't stay united, some of the Colonies get pacified, and some end up having to be divided based on who occupies what.

And maybe my ancestors would have got to stay in Boston... Rather than go to New Brunswick. Massachusetts a loyal part of the King's realms after 1783 or so...:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top