AHC/WI: Loyalist Georgia in the American Revolution

Redhand

Banned
It was actually pretty Loyalist as it was. This came not from any sort of support for Parliament's policies that screwed them just as much as the rest of the colonies but rather from the fact that it was less than 50 years old as a colony and needed British protection from hostile Indians. They didnt send anyone to the first Continental Congress and they were the last colony to depose their royal governor.

Support for the American cause came from mercantile and urban population in Savannah. The backcountry, unlike pretty much everywhere else, was staunchly Loyalist. Geographics as much as anything made Georgia become independent. There was a lot more support for the American cause in Nova Scotia and some of the Caribbean Islands than in Georgia.
 
It was actually pretty Loyalist as it was. This came not from any sort of support for Parliament's policies that screwed them just as much as the rest of the colonies but rather from the fact that it was less than 50 years old as a colony and needed British protection from hostile Indians. They didnt send anyone to the first Continental Congress and they were the last colony to depose their royal governor.

Support for the American cause came from mercantile and urban population in Savannah. The backcountry, unlike pretty much everywhere else, was staunchly Loyalist. Geographics as much as anything made Georgia become independent. There was a lot more support for the American cause in Nova Scotia and some of the Caribbean Islands than in Georgia.

Indeed, it was mostly IIRC set up as a combination buffer against Florida-dumping ground for debtors (although not necessarily convicts the way Australia was). They were even more Loyalist than South Carolina, although to be fair the fact that it was such a greatly contested state leads me to conclude that it wasn't nearly as Loyalist as often depicted (ditto for NC). As for Georgian support for the American cause, bear in mind that whoever wasn't Loyalist tended in that state to just be on the fence, which is more a plus for Britain than the Patriots by way of virtual attrition.
 
I don't think a miltary victory is the way to do it. Britain had lost control of the countryside by 1781, and was facing a protracted guerilla conflict in the countryside. Even if you presume the British hold onto Georgia, whatdoes this gain them? Without Florida, Georgia is highly indefensible, no?
 

Redhand

Banned
I don't think a miltary victory is the way to do it. Britain had lost control of the countryside by 1781, and was facing a protracted guerilla conflict in the countryside. Even if you presume the British hold onto Georgia, whatdoes this gain them? Without Florida, Georgia is highly indefensible, no?

Greene kicked the British out of the entire south except for the coastal cities like Charleston and Savannah, which they abandoned voluntarily to consolidate forces elsewhere. Florida is highly unlikely to be given up in the case of Georgia being seen as integral to British North America, which it wasn't as it was more trouble than it was worth. Instead of lucrative fur trade or sugar plantations, it was a debtor colony with a rampant Indian problem. A commitment early on by Georgia to actively oppose the American cause could change things, but OTL the Loyalists lost the fight in the backcountry and the elites decided to throw their lot in with Congress as they were being strangled by the trade laws like everyone else.
 
Hmmm, so in the event of a really early victory (1778 or so) and the British keeping East and West Florida, could the border be drawn differently with more of OTl Georgia remaining in British hands? As it sounds like the backcountry might prefer that.

OTOH, a shorter war, with American wins at Brandywine/Germantown plus a massacre of British forces retreating in New Jersey, means less antagonism against Loyalists which means they would be treated better and not necessarily opt to leave, but to rather stick around and see how this new nation goes.
 
Top