AHC: 13 Colonies Win Independence, but Britain keeps all land west of proclamation line

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What circumstances could lead to Britain ultimately conceding independence to the 13 Colonies, but where it completely retains the old west, Canada, Florida and the lands between the proclamation line of 1863 and the Mississippi?

How would an Atlantic-seaboard bound United States develop in its early decades, and what would be the British approach to administration of their still vast North American territories, and dealing with issues of relations with the natives and potential white settlement in these lands?

Would the altered and enlarged British North America spanning from Hudson's Bay to the Gulf of Mexico still be colloquially called "Canada" or some different name?
 
How can Britain retain that? To them, the safety and property of the loyalists in the Americas was worth more than the Tennessee-Alabama-Mississippi region. If they get into any good position to demand the West, they would likely also demand that all loyalist property and debts be honored.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How can Britain retain that? To them, the safety and property of the loyalists in the Americas was worth more than the Tennessee-Alabama-Mississippi region. If they get into any good position to demand the West, they would likely also demand that all loyalist property and debts be honored.

Native Allies and their own Rangers being better/more successful than the Patriots rangers. British, Indians and Loyalists did win a post-Yorktown victory at Blue Licks, Kentucky, so they can conduct tactics in the interior. Property seized from the loyalists is going to be one of the few things Patriots would be less willing to part with than frontier areas at this point.
 
Native Allies and their own Rangers being better/more successful than the Patriots rangers.

Funny thing, the Royal Army's rangers were better and more successful than their Patriot counterparts in the wilderness on a tactical level despite the fact that the (false) reputation of Colonial guerillas kicking ass on regulars. Now if someone wasn't in such a rush (to be fair, he was behind schedule) that he cancelled the scouting parties September 30th, his army might not have met an untimely demise in 1777.

A lot (not all) of the patriot success in harassment was that when things went pear shaped, they just dressed like civilians and whistled. The tactic of combatants dressing as civilians provokes the other side into attacking civilians and the colonists should be grateful the British kept the high moral ground by not indiscriminately killing people whenever their own fell, something that happened in Scotland in 1715 when the British felt a bit less magnanimous to localities where rebels might live.

Back to the original point, Post-Yorktown the British just wanted out, so no amount of Kentucky or Ohio victories can get the goal post Yorktown. I'm less sure about 1780 to Yorktown
 
I think the immediate result would be a vast effort to improve Baton Rouge. Without direct control of New Orleans, it is their best spot for controlling the Mississippi territories, and resettling them. I can see it (in theory) becoming a Conurbation with New Orleans by the modern day. (If New Orleans doesn't become British at some point).

But yeah, significant investment, settlement, and fortification of Baton Rouge to ensure control over the Mississippi, and likewise with Chicago. (It may lead to an earlier canal in the area). Assuming good relations with Spain - Britain would then have rock solid control over the Mississippi, and can use it as an artery to settle the Midwest and Great Lakes aggressively, but crucially, with some sort of devolved government so that it doesn't turn into a repeat of the 13 Colonies.

Functionally, I think you'd see a VERY different North America, with the investment that made the US East Coast an industrial powerhouse instead focused on the Mississippi watershed and Great Lakes.

However, I can't say it'd be the most pleasant colonial endeavour. War with the Spanish means a really active riverine navy. War with the states almost requires any settlements to be fortified and on the river to ensure they don't just get ridden into and burnt down. Mainly because fortifying the Appalachian Mountains on the Proclamation Line would be a nightmarish task. (If there are better places to fortify, let me know, because everything is contingent on that.).

I'd also question the future of both the US, and British North America. I can't see this leading to no wars in the future, and if British North America is much more successful economically than the USA because it gets more investment from the British - then I could see a war which reverses some of the war of Independence - especially in the south. (Which changes the slave trade dramatically)
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
@AcaciaSgt


probably no redirection from Canada to the west, at first. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will be the first, most accessible destinations. Ontario's York peninsula is also accessible via the St Lawrence and i think the indians are more subdued and pacified up there. Shawnee and Cherokee and Iroquois lans will be off limits for a long time. But eventually white settlement will increase. Parts of Kentucky and Tennessee would be one nucleus of white settlement. West Florida would be anothder that liksely gets developed for plantation agriculture.
 
Last edited:
@AcaciaSgt


probably no redirection from Canada to the west, at first. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will be the first, most accessible destinations. Ontario's York peninsula is also accessible via the St Lawrence and i think the indians are more subdued and pacified up there. Shawnee and Cherokee and Iroquois lans will be off limits for a long time. But eventually white settlement will increase. Pats of Kentucky and Tennessee would be one nucleus of white settlement. West Florida would be anothder that liksely gets developed for plantation agriculture.

What about the Overmountain men? The Battle of Kings Mountain involved a lot of people who were involved in settlements along and beyond the Proclamation Line. They were more than capable of defending themselves from the Cherokee, and not all the Cherokee were united against them either. We can assume enough people will follow them that in time, you could get a sizable amount of land ceded to American colonists.

I wouldn't be surprised if things like that is what leads Britain to organise these trans-Appalachian territories into a new dominion or something, throwing the natives under the bus in favour of loyal white settlers. As long as Britain gives them easy access to New Orleans and the coast (the 1796 Tennessee state constitution demanded free navigation on rivers), protects them from American Indians, and as long as they don't mess around with the right to own slaves, the Old Southwest, at least, can easily be loyally British, since the settlers will find that the United States won't exactly be in the position to guarantee those rights.
 
What about the Overmountain men? The Battle of Kings Mountain involved a lot of people who were involved in settlements along and beyond the Proclamation Line. They were more than capable of defending themselves from the Cherokee, and not all the Cherokee were united against them either. We can assume enough people will follow them that in time, you could get a sizable amount of land ceded to American colonists.

I wouldn't be surprised if things like that is what leads Britain to organise these trans-Appalachian territories into a new dominion or something, throwing the natives under the bus in favour of loyal white settlers. As long as Britain gives them easy access to New Orleans and the coast (the 1796 Tennessee state constitution demanded free navigation on rivers), protects them from American Indians, and as long as they don't mess around with the right to own slaves, the Old Southwest, at least, can easily be loyally British, since the settlers will find that the United States won't exactly be in the position to guarantee those rights.

Honestly, I think there is a sizeable chance of the opposite.

The Cherokee could well be a useful pawn in politics between the US and Britain. Settlements on the wrong side might be tolerated, but as soon as they attack Cherokee on the British, then they can be evicted and resettled with "Good British settlers". Plus, the Cherokee make a brilliant group of allies for the British, and a local trade partner (much like the Iroquois and others would in the North).

It would probably be in British interests to maintain Cherokee and other native territories, partially to trade with, but also as buffer 'states' or buffer populations between themselves and the US.

(Plus, it better if the Cherokee have their lands burnt than British settlers.)
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I'd also question the future of both the US, and British North America. I can't see this leading to no wars in the future, and if British North America

Indeed, might this all but guarantee an Anglo-American round 2 sometime between 1792 and 1802, once the French Revolutionary Wars get underway? The French alliance is probably more important to an America that is physically hemmed in and weaker, and here's more resentment of the British.
 
Have you figured out a way the British take the frontiers and don't restore loyalist property? I told you any POD after Yorktown was pretty much too late since Parliament had enough at that point
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
there is plenty of time between 1776 and Yorktown 1781 for something to turn up. No particular need for a post Yorktown PoD.
 
Very difficult to keep everything west of the PL.

Conceivably everything north of the Ohio, but leaving KY, TN, and most of AL and MS to the US. Maybe also hang on to FL as a refuge for escaped slaves. That leaves an outlet for the more anti-British settlers, while Britain gets those who just want more land, and don't care too much which government issues the title deeds.

Could impact on the slavery question if KY and YN get a lot of "Patriot" New Englanders who dislike the institution.
 
What if Louisiana had been ceded to Britain after the Seven Years War? Would there still have been a War of Independence?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Maybe also hang on to FL as a refuge for escaped slaves.
'

If Britain hung on to Florida, I don't see why they couldn't hold on to Mississippi or Alabama.

Because of their nascent settlements, Kentucky and Tennessee are where the US could assert the strongest claims through the settlement activity of Virginians (but even there, they lost the Battle of Blue Licks, KY to an Indian and Loyalist force). Mississippi and Alabama didn't have settlers from Georgia and South Carolina yet though, Georgia still had yet to fill up most its modern land area.

What if Louisiana had been ceded to Britain after the Seven Years War? Would there still have been a War of Independence?

Don't see why there would not be.

And, I would assume the default option is for New Orleans to remain mainly francophone, get its own version of the Quebec Act, and decide not to join the Patriot cause even if invited. If Britain has both Canada and New Orleans, that likely would increase British interest in retaining the lands in between over OTL.

Of course, other things could happen -

Anglos mainly from the Deep South could settle in New Orleans in substantial numbers and maybe the region would favor the Patriot side.

Or a Spanish or French claim might not be impossible. While Canada was remote from existing French holdings, the French could at least try to approach New Orleans from their Caribbean islands.
 
Top