DBWI: Nova Scotia stayed loyal to Britain?

I was reading a book about the ARW recently that focused on the war in the northern colonies and the role people and events in Nova Scotia played not only in that phase of the war, but the overall course of the war; Legge's crackdown on dissident speech and public assembly, Johnathan Eddy, the Arnold-Stark Expedition, the 'Sabotage War' in Halifax and Yarmouth, the Nova Scotia privateers (a crucial factor- and faction -in the formation of the United States Navy), etc..., and I can't help but wonder if the colonies could have succeeded without such a crucial member of the coalition.

What if the Arnold-Stark Expedition had actually attempted it's original plan: Travel up the Kennebec Track, cross the height of land to Lake Mégantic, then make the descent to Quebec via the Chaudière River?

Aside from the overly ambitious route to the city (which was much more fortress than city), what the hell were they supposed to do once they got there? Even if Montgomery's force captures Montreal (the other prong of the invasion), they're facing one of the most formidable fortresses in the western hemisphere- without a single heavy siege gun!

Far smarter to do what they did; sail straight from Cambridge to the Bay of Fundy, make landfall on the north shore and strike inland, taking the small forts in Cumberland and Sunbury Counties. That campaign convinced (most) Nova Scotians the rebellion was credible. What would getting clobbered in Quebec have done?

Without the contributions of the men and women of Halifax and Yarmouth to the overall war effort (both on the high seas as privateers and in the ports as saboteurs and spies) I can't help but think that the war would have been an even steeper uphill battle, or perhaps even a failure.

What would U.S. history look like without Nova Scotia's contributions?

What would Canada's history look like if Nova Scotia had stayed loyal?

I figure, if Nova Scotia had stayed loyal, it probably would have become a prime dumping ground for all those loyalists that were sent to present day Ontario in OTL. Ontario's importance to helping Canada form a national identity cannot be denied. Without such a large, loyal (and well armed) population in the former Upper Canada, it might have been a tempting target for invasion in 1812. I'm not so sure going on the offensive would have been a good idea in 1812; not on land at least.
 
I was reading a book about the ARW recently that focused on the war in the northern colonies and the role people and events in Nova Scotia played not only in that phase of the war, but the overall course of the war; Legge's crackdown on dissident speech and public assembly, Johnathan Eddy, the Arnold-Stark Expedition, the 'Sabotage War' in Halifax and Yarmouth, the Nova Scotia privateers (a crucial factor- and faction -in the formation of the United States Navy), etc..., and I can't help but wonder if the colonies could have succeeded without such a crucial member of the coalition.

What if the Arnold-Stark Expedition had actually attempted it's original plan: Travel up the Kennebec Track, cross the height of land to Lake Mégantic, then make the descent to Quebec via the Chaudière River?

Aside from the overly ambitious route to the city (which was much more fortress than city), what the hell were they supposed to do once they got there? Even if Montgomery's force captures Montreal (the other prong of the invasion), they're facing one of the most formidable fortresses in the western hemisphere- without a single heavy siege gun!

Far smarter to do what they did; sail straight from Cambridge to the Bay of Fundy, make landfall on the north shore and strike inland, taking the small forts in Cumberland and Sunbury Counties. That campaign convinced (most) Nova Scotians the rebellion was credible. What would getting clobbered in Quebec have done?

Without the contributions of the men and women of Halifax and Yarmouth to the overall war effort (both on the high seas as privateers and in the ports as saboteurs and spies) I can't help but think that the war would have been an even steeper uphill battle, or perhaps even a failure.

What would U.S. history look like without Nova Scotia's contributions?

What would Canada's history look like if Nova Scotia had stayed loyal?

I figure, if Nova Scotia had stayed loyal, it probably would have become a prime dumping ground for all those loyalists that were sent to present day Ontario in OTL. Ontario's importance to helping Canada form a national identity cannot be denied. Without such a large, loyal (and well armed) population in the former Upper Canada, it might have been a tempting target for invasion in 1812. I'm not so sure going on the offensive would have been a good idea in 1812; not on land at least.

OOC: the only non-Quebec good port for the British in this case is st. john's, and that's on an island. It's more likely after the capture of Nova Scotia the Americans can make an assault on Newfoundland, and they probably would. then with some language concessions and better treatment overall the Quebecois probably would have joined the revolution. It's also likely they would not be able to break out due to their low population. So I think the current scenario is a tad asb, probably should change it a bit.
 
OOC: the only non-Quebec good port for the British in this case is st. john's, and that's on an island. It's more likely after the capture of Nova Scotia the Americans can make an assault on Newfoundland, and they probably would. then with some language concessions and better treatment overall the Quebecois probably would have joined the revolution. It's also likely they would not be able to break out due to their low population. So I think the current scenario is a tad asb, probably should change it a bit.

OOC: Capturing Nova Scotia isn't the POD, the POD is that, rather than invading Canada (Quebec), Arnold directs his expedition towards Nova Scotia, with a much more attainable goal: Getting the colonists there to throw in with the revolution. The area that the expedition targets is OTL New Brunswick- capturing the smaller, more lightly armed and garrisoned forts there, with help from the Abenaki (Note the inclusion of John Stark in the expedition; Stark had been captured by the Abenaki in his youth, was forced to run the gamut, but, instead of trying to run through the line of Abenaki who would have been pounding him from one end to the other, he took a run at one of the Abenaki at the head of the line, knocked him over, took his club and began fighting his way down the line. This impressed the Chief so much, he adopted Stark.)

The Abenaki assisted the Arnold expedition OTL, they have even larger numbers in OTL New Brunswick, where they can be of even more assistance, as this expedition would basically be in country where the Abenaki make up a good size chunk of the local population. With the two northern counties in the Patriot camp, Legge cracks down even harder, leading to greater dissent and more Patriot sympathy in the peninsula.
 
I was reading a book about the ARW recently that focused on the war in the northern colonies and the role people and events in Nova Scotia played not only in that phase of the war, but the overall course of the war; Legge's crackdown on dissident speech and public assembly, Johnathan Eddy, the Arnold-Stark Expedition, the 'Sabotage War' in Halifax and Yarmouth, the Nova Scotia privateers (a crucial factor- and faction -in the formation of the United States Navy), etc..., and I can't help but wonder if the colonies could have succeeded without such a crucial member of the coalition.

What if the Arnold-Stark Expedition had actually attempted it's original plan: Travel up the Kennebec Track, cross the height of land to Lake Mégantic, then make the descent to Quebec via the Chaudière River?

Aside from the overly ambitious route to the city (which was much more fortress than city), what the hell were they supposed to do once they got there? Even if Montgomery's force captures Montreal (the other prong of the invasion), they're facing one of the most formidable fortresses in the western hemisphere- without a single heavy siege gun!

Far smarter to do what they did; sail straight from Cambridge to the Bay of Fundy, make landfall on the north shore and strike inland, taking the small forts in Cumberland and Sunbury Counties. That campaign convinced (most) Nova Scotians the rebellion was credible. What would getting clobbered in Quebec have done?

Without the contributions of the men and women of Halifax and Yarmouth to the overall war effort (both on the high seas as privateers and in the ports as saboteurs and spies) I can't help but think that the war would have been an even steeper uphill battle, or perhaps even a failure.

What would U.S. history look like without Nova Scotia's contributions?

What would Canada's history look like if Nova Scotia had stayed loyal?

I figure, if Nova Scotia had stayed loyal, it probably would have become a prime dumping ground for all those loyalists that were sent to present day Ontario in OTL. Ontario's importance to helping Canada form a national identity cannot be denied. Without such a large, loyal (and well armed) population in the former Upper Canada, it might have been a tempting target for invasion in 1812. I'm not so sure going on the offensive would have been a good idea in 1812; not on land at least.

It's a heck of an interesting scenario, if you ask me. Firstly, if Nova Scotia hadn't joined the United States, Halifax might be rather smaller than it is now; 500,000 people as of this year-but Boston might also have been somewhat more important. Also, the McDougall political family, which gave the Congress several Senators, and the White House a Vice President, might have remained obscure, and never come to prominence in Nova Scotia, or Massachusetts and New Hampshire for that matter.

And for those of my own German ancestors, who made their homes in Lunenburg, would they have ever left? Or would they have stayed, and become Canadian citizens?

Kind regards,

Robert (Felix) Eddy III

OOC: An interesting factoid, yours truly actually *is* a descendant of one of the earliest branches of the Eddy family, Samuel's to be more exact, as well as that of a real German-Canadian family that actually lived in Nova Scotia in that era. ;)
 
OOC: Capturing Nova Scotia isn't the POD, the POD is that, rather than invading Canada (Quebec), Arnold directs his expedition towards Nova Scotia, with a much more attainable goal: Getting the colonists there to throw in with the revolution. The area that the expedition targets is OTL New Brunswick- capturing the smaller, more lightly armed and garrisoned forts there, with help from the Abenaki (Note the inclusion of John Stark in the expedition; Stark had been captured by the Abenaki in his youth, was forced to run the gamut, but, instead of trying to run through the line of Abenaki who would have been pounding him from one end to the other, he took a run at one of the Abenaki at the head of the line, knocked him over, took his club and began fighting his way down the line. This impressed the Chief so much, he adopted Stark.)

The Abenaki assisted the Arnold expedition OTL, they have even larger numbers in OTL New Brunswick, where they can be of even more assistance, as this expedition would basically be in country where the Abenaki make up a good size chunk of the local population. With the two northern counties in the Patriot camp, Legge cracks down even harder, leading to greater dissent and more Patriot sympathy in the peninsula.

OOC: what I meant was that successfully capturing nova Scotia (mainly difficult due to the naval factor) would more likely make the Americans push for Newfoundland to cut off ANY supply bases for the British. At that point or even before, as the importance of Halifax in Canada/British America is IMMENSE, Quebec is not going to just sit there. Either the Americans will make a play for it (even with just Halifax cut off it would be hard for the British to hold it), or the Quebecois will rise up and declare independence or join america.

My main point is, losing Halifax means that the British are almost guaranteed to lose Quebec if the Americans try even just a little bit. Having NOTHING happen to it at that stage is kinda fishy to me.
 
I think the USA still would have won its independence, but it would have been a very different place, as would Nova Scotia, had the Fourteen Colonies been reduced to just Thirteen.

For one, Nova Scotia gave the USA full control of Acadia and New England, which would have an important impact on the early development of both the early USA and Canada. Take it away, you not only just dealt a blow to early American trade and industry, but have given British Canada an important shot in the arm.

As others pointed out, with Nova Scotia a part of British Canada rather than the USA, it would have dramatic impacts on the development of Canada, giving it more important ports and more land to settle Loyalists. Rather than being stuck to a belt centered on the St. Lawrence River, British Canada might have been less of a proverbial backwater in the British Empire. Maybe some of the Loyalists who headed to Africa or Australia would stick around if Canada was more than Ontario and a bunch of Frenchies in Quebec.

For that matter, if Canada had been more viable, would the British have given the area more focus? Might that have cost them elsewhere?

As for the USA, Nova Scotia gave us another important detail - it was yet another free state, and one whose members of the Constitutional Convention played a key role in the debates over slavery before we settled on the gradual abolition plan we did in OTL. With the balance between North and South a bit closer, and the lack of men like John Stark and Benedict Arnold in Philadelphia, might the supporters of slavery been more vocal, or even managed to prolong its survival?

What about American Gaelic? Without that belt of Irish-Americans from Boston to Halifax under one flag, would the regional Gaelic dialect still have sprung up? I know the last few decades have been rough on it, but its still pretty cool to hear Gaelic spoken in smaller towns in the Northeast.
 
I think the bigger issue is long term.

Nova Scotia's made canada less viable and as has been stated helped lead to the gradual peaceful end of slavery, and with Canada being less viable the british folded on the 45 40 or fight...

Which looking back on it was a total bluff, which out that bigger north its unlikely america buys alaska from the russians. Which means Canada would have a west coast and Alaskan oil, gold and other reasources.

The Mexican american war probally still happens because Mexico was unstable going through one civil war after another and their territory was easy pickings.

So you get a smaller america, a richer canada with far more oil wealth and a giant civil war between free states and slave states that turns america into a third world country.
 
It's a heck of an interesting scenario, if you ask me. Firstly, if Nova Scotia hadn't joined the United States, Halifax might be rather smaller than it is now; 500,000 people as of this year-but Boston might also have been somewhat more important. Also, the McDougall political family, which gave the Congress several Senators, and the White House a Vice President, might have remained obscure, and never come to prominence in Nova Scotia, or Massachusetts and New Hampshire for that matter.

And for those of my own German ancestors, who made their homes in Lunenburg, would they have ever left? Or would they have stayed, and become Canadian citizens?

Kind regards,

Robert (Felix) Eddy III

OOC: An interesting factoid, yours truly actually *is* a descendant of one of the earliest branches of the Eddy family, Samuel's to be more exact, as well as that of a real German-Canadian family that actually lived in Nova Scotia in that era. ;)

OOC: Cool.:)

IC:

Ah, Halifax, where the puck drops at 6:05 PM (EST) on Hockey Night in North America.:D

I grew up in Connecticut, and, being a Hartford Whalers fan, I have a love/hate relationship with that city; on the one hand, I love going there; especially on business. The food, the local culture, Moosehead beer...;)

One of my business partners attended Halifax (The Frozen Ivy!:D), and my spouse, Erin, and I, are Yalies, so, there's a friendly level of ribbing there, especially during the collegiate hockey season.

The 'hate' (such as it is) is for The Hated Sea Wolves.

When you only have the one major league sports franchise in your state, you tend to take it very seriously, and I do. Very seriously. The clashes between 'The Whale and The Wolf' are well known in the annals of IHL history (since 1979, when the IHL finally gave us a promotion from 'The Best Minor Hockey City in The Nation!'), but the rivalry has gotten much more intense over the last decade, with both team's starting out at the bottom of the 'Adams Family', and now they're fighting for the top spot (with The Hated Habs, of course), such to the point that the traditional rivalry with the Boston Ruins has been eclipsed, and I never though that would happen.

One last note on the McDougalls, as someone who works in finance, The McDougall Act (of 1933, which laid the foundations for the modern American banking system) is a big reason firms like mine can not only operate, but also compete. It's one of the few rare instances where regulation hasn't hindered progress, but did what it was meant to do: Keep the large banks from forming perilously massive banks that would crush out the smaller banks. Can you imagine how catastrophic it would be, in a financial crisis, if there were, effectively, maybe five or six major banks that held the interests of 75-85% of the population?

I prefer less regulation to more, but sometimes, a little regulation is a good thing. Saves a lot of problems down the road.

I think the USA still would have won its independence, but it would have been a very different place, as would Nova Scotia, had the Fourteen Colonies been reduced to just Thirteen.

For one, Nova Scotia gave the USA full control of Acadia and New England, which would have an important impact on the early development of both the early USA and Canada. Take it away, you not only just dealt a blow to early American trade and industry, but have given British Canada an important shot in the arm.

AND the robust banking and financial services spawned by the growth of Halifax as a major commercial port. Halifax Financial started out as the Merchant Bank of Halifax. Now, it's not only a Power 20 bank, but also a Fortune 500 financial service provider. The Halifax shipyards have been, since independence, a vital source of commercial and naval vessels. Were it not for the added commercial shipping, fishing and (back then) whaling, (and the voices those interests added to Congress in the earliest days of The Republic), would Congress have disbanded the Continental Navy (already calling itself the United States Navy as early as 1776) like they dismissed the Continental Army after independence? Without the 'Strong Navy and Marine', as Benedict Arnold put it, U.S. commercial shipping would have been a magnet for pirates of every stripe and at the mercy of every nation that did have a standing navy in times of war.

The Barbary States were quick to test that navy, and the results proved to just about everybody, North, South and West that we needed a strong navy. Without a strong navy, could we have swatted revolutionary France in the Quasi-War? Could we have maintained our (relatively) peaceful neutrality during the Napoleonic era for as long as we did? If the Royal Navy hadn't seized the Sylph (which was a merchantman owned by a resident of...Yarmouth, keeping with a theme here), we just might have escaped the Napoleonic era without getting hung up in a single armed conflict.

Without the USN, while not as powerful as the RN of the day, but more formidable than the British assumed, 1812 could have gotten ugly. If the USN wasn't strong enough to make the stand at the Virgina Capes, who knows what the British would have done with control of the Chesapeake.

As others pointed out, with Nova Scotia a part of British Canada rather than the USA, it would have dramatic impacts on the development of Canada, giving it more important ports and more land to settle Loyalists. Rather than being stuck to a belt centered on the St. Lawrence River, British Canada might have been less of a proverbial backwater in the British Empire. Maybe some of the Loyalists who headed to Africa or Australia would stick around if Canada was more than Ontario and a bunch of Frenchies in Quebec.

For that matter, if Canada had been more viable, would the British have given the area more focus? Might that have cost them elsewhere?

I tend to wonder if South Africa and Australia would be anything close to what they are today if British North America had been a more viable colony.

They were the clear beneficiaries of a less appealing Canada.

As for the USA, Nova Scotia gave us another important detail - it was yet another free state, and one whose members of the Constitutional Convention played a key role in the debates over slavery before we settled on the gradual abolition plan we did in OTL. With the balance between North and South a bit closer, and the lack of men like John Stark and Benedict Arnold in Philadelphia, might the supporters of slavery been more vocal, or even managed to prolong its survival?

Quite. Also, when slave states like Virginia and Maryland saw the potential for both wealth and growth in commerce, as demonstrated by Nova Scotia's model of 'Manufacture-Agriculture-Commerce', they began to change to the point where slavery eventually became far less important to their economies than immigrant labor from the British Isles and Europe.

It's like my high school history teacher said: Once Virginia became the 'Nova Scotia of The South', slavery was over; commercial shipping, financial services, shipyards and manufacturing in the Tidewater, mining and metal works in the West, banking, manufacturing and tobacco and hemp agriculture in the Piedmont and livestock and food crops in the Shenandoah. Only tobacco and hemp 'required' slave labor, but the writing was on the wall. Pull the plug on slavery and get it over with.

So, in that respect, I'd argue that Nova Scotia, in a way, not only helped establish abolition as a course of action, it also accelerated abolition in the process by giving a state like Virginia (largest and most politically powerful of the slave states) a viable (and prosperous) example of how to structure their economy for a post-slavery Republic.

What about American Gaelic? Without that belt of Irish-Americans from Boston to Halifax under one flag, would the regional Gaelic dialect still have sprung up? I know the last few decades have been rough on it, but its still pretty cool to hear Gaelic spoken in smaller towns in the Northeast.

One of my favorite things about visiting Nova Scotia.:)

When I was younger (high school and college), I thought it made the U.S. seem a bit more worldly, but now that I've seen the rest of the country, I look at it as more so one of those things that makes the U.S. such a great place; like regional dialects and cuisines. It adds to the tapestry.

I think the bigger issue is long term.

Nova Scotia's made canada less viable and as has been stated helped lead to the gradual peaceful end of slavery, and with Canada being less viable the british folded on the 45 40 or fight...

Which looking back on it was a total bluff, which out that bigger north its unlikely america buys alaska from the russians. Which means Canada would have a west coast and Alaskan oil, gold and other reasources.

The Mexican american war probally still happens because Mexico was unstable going through one civil war after another and their territory was easy pickings.

So you get a smaller america, a richer canada with far more oil wealth and a giant civil war between free states and slave states that turns america into a third world country.

What a terrible thought!:eek:

A civil war...where one side is fighting to preserve the permanent bondage of an entire people.

The scars and divisions of such a thing would last for decades, possibly longer.

Dodged a bullet there.
 
Last edited:
OOC: Why/how would the U.S. seize Newfoundland in the Revolutionary War exactly? Also, I'm not sure why a completely separate successful campaign in Nova Scotia (which happens instead of the Quebec expedition) would lead to Quebec suddenly wanting to join the U.S. I think the current scenario at least makes some sense.

IC: Interesting to think about one less founding state. (Wouldn't 13 colonies be really unlucky you think?) I think another consequence of this, if the Arnold-Stark Expedition did fail (or go for Quebec or whatever), could be Arnold not being as prominent a general (and maybe not serving in the southern theater then?) So we could see Jefferson having a different Vice President maybe. (Horatio Gates or Philip Schuyler?)
 
OOC: what I meant was that successfully capturing nova Scotia (mainly difficult due to the naval factor) would more likely make the Americans push for Newfoundland to cut off ANY supply bases for the British. At that point or even before, as the importance of Halifax in Canada/British America is IMMENSE, Quebec is not going to just sit there. Either the Americans will make a play for it (even with just Halifax cut off it would be hard for the British to hold it), or the Quebecois will rise up and declare independence or join america.

My main point is, losing Halifax means that the British are almost guaranteed to lose Quebec if the Americans try even just a little bit. Having NOTHING happen to it at that stage is kinda fishy to me.

OOC: One last time: The POD isn't Nova Scotia being 'captured' during the revolution, it's Nova Scotia JOINING the revolution. The course of events goes like this:

June 1775: Johnathan Eddy, of Nova Scotia, convinces George Washington to send an expedition to Nova Scotia, in hopes of stirring rebellion there. Washington chooses Benedict Arnold and John Stark to organize the expedition, authorizing them to take a maximum of 2,000 volunteers from the CA in the area of Boston on a seaborne expedition to Nova Scotia.

July 1775: The Arnold-Stark Expedition is ready to debark from Cambridge for the Bay of Fundy, where they'll land on the north shore and head inland to recruit allies in Cumberland and Sunbury Counties.

August 1775: After a month of cultivating, recruiting and organizing allies in the area, Arnold, Stark and Eddy begin a three pronged campaign to take the small forts (and their stores of arms, shot and powder) in Cumberland and Sunbury Counties. The successes lead to skirmishes with the small force of British regulars in the colony, none of which the regulars can say they've won, as the Patriot forces play hit-and-run, then withdraw to a network of refuges in Patriot communities and the forts they've captured.

September 1775: Colonial Governor Francis Legge, in an effort to maintain control of the colony, clamps down on 'sedition' and becomes increasingly heavy handed, antagonizing many to the point of organizing meetings (in secret) to discuss joining the revolt.

October 1775: Legge's actions (and the continued success of the expedition in the two vast, northern counties) lead to the colonial assembly voting to join the revolution. It isn't a huge majority, but a majority none the less. The Scots Highland Clans that were forcibly removed from their lands in Scotland and forcibly resettled on Cape Breton Island begin organizing for war, as well as deserters from the Royal Fencible American Regiment of Foot and other able bodied men from throughout the peninsula. Contact is made between forces from the peninsula and the Patriot force in the northern counties and meetings are held between the leaders of the respective forces.

November 1775: Patriot forces deal a major defeat to a small force of British regulars and remaining fencibles in the 1st Battle of the Saint John River, when supporting militia from the peninsula attack the regulars and fencibles from the rear, catching the British/Loyalist force in an encirclement, forcing a capitulation.

December 1775: Patriots control several settlements, including Saint John, Yarmouth, Lunenburg, Moncton Township and Sackville. Halifax still remains in firm Crown control, but a war in the shadows is just beginning, as both sides retire to winter quarters...

From there, use your imagination. Nova Scotia joined the revolution, played a major role in the war and, from the perspective of someone from the ATL where this happened, they wonder if The U.S. War of Independence would or could have succeeded without Nova Scotia.
 
OOC: One last time: The POD isn't Nova Scotia being 'captured' during the revolution, it's Nova Scotia JOINING the revolution. The course of events goes like this:

June 1775: Johnathan Eddy, of Nova Scotia, convinces George Washington to send an expedition to Nova Scotia, in hopes of stirring rebellion there. Washington chooses Benedict Arnold and John Stark to organize the expedition, authorizing them to take a maximum of 2,000 volunteers from the CA in the area of Boston on a seaborne expedition to Nova Scotia.

July 1775: The Arnold-Stark Expedition is ready to debark from Cambridge for the Bay of Fundy, where they'll land on the north shore and head inland to recruit allies in Cumberland and Sunbury Counties.

August 1775: After a month of cultivating, recruiting and organizing allies in the area, Arnold, Stark and Eddy begin a three pronged campaign to take the small forts (and their stores of arms, shot and powder) in Cumberland and Sunbury Counties. The successes lead to skirmishes with the small force of British regulars in the colony, none of which the regulars can say they've won, as the Patriot forces play hit-and-run, then withdraw to a network of refuges in Patriot communities and the forts they've captured.

September 1775: Colonial Governor Francis Legge, in an effort to maintain control of the colony, clamps down on 'sedition' and becomes increasingly heavy handed, antagonizing many to the point of organizing meetings (in secret) to discuss joining the revolt.

October 1775: Legge's actions (and the continued success of the expedition in the two vast, northern counties) lead to the colonial assembly voting to join the revolution. It isn't a huge majority, but a majority none the less. The Scots Highland Clans that were forcibly removed from their lands in Scotland and forcibly resettled on Cape Breton Island begin organizing for war, as well as deserters from the Royal Fencible American Regiment of Foot and other able bodied men from throughout the peninsula. Contact is made between forces from the peninsula and the Patriot force in the northern counties and meetings are held between the leaders of the respective forces.

November 1775: Patriot forces deal a major defeat to a small force of British regulars and remaining fencibles in the 1st Battle of the Saint John River, when supporting militia from the peninsula attack the regulars and fencibles from the rear, catching the British/Loyalist force in an encirclement, forcing a capitulation.

December 1775: Patriots control several settlements, including Saint John, Yarmouth, Lunenburg, Moncton Township and Sackville. Halifax still remains in firm Crown control, but a war in the shadows is just beginning, as both sides retire to winter quarters...

From there, use your imagination. Nova Scotia joined the revolution, played a major role in the war and, from the perspective of someone from the ATL where this happened, they wonder if The U.S. War of Independence would or could have succeeded without Nova Scotia.

My point is that with ANY american territory on the gulf of st. Lawrence, the British are going to be very hard-pressed to defend it in case of attack. Because Halifax's siege is successful, wouldn't the Americans try for Newfoundland? (Cracking Halifax means that the american could essential crack ANYTHING in N.A., as the huge moral boost from winning against some of the most impressive fortifications on earth and the British losing their most important loyal supply port means that the rest of British america is free for taking, shipping can be cut off from the St. Lawrence and eventually, the cut-off British forces in Quebec can be overwhelmed by a combination of Quebecois resistance and a land army marching through.) My point is, if they win in Nova Scotia, why wouldn't they try for the rest of British america? Losing Halifax means that the Americans can just defeat the British elsewhere and then invade. Without a good supply port, the British will be hard-pressed to stop them. So why wouldn't they try?
 
My point is that with ANY american territory on the gulf of st. Lawrence, the British are going to be very hard-pressed to defend it in case of attack. Because Halifax's siege is successful, wouldn't the Americans try for Newfoundland? (Cracking Halifax means that the american could essential crack ANYTHING in N.A., as the huge moral boost from winning against some of the most impressive fortifications on earth and the British losing their most important loyal supply port means that the rest of British america is free for taking, shipping can be cut off from the St. Lawrence and eventually, the cut-off British forces in Quebec can be overwhelmed by a combination of Quebecois resistance and a land army marching through.) My point is, if they win in Nova Scotia, why wouldn't they try for the rest of British america? Losing Halifax means that the Americans can just defeat the British elsewhere and then invade. Without a good supply port, the British will be hard-pressed to stop them. So why wouldn't they try?

How long do you think the war will last in Nova Scotia?

You seem to think it'll be quick.

It won't.

The scenario sees a long war of attrition, subterfuge, sabotage, espionage with the Patriot cause slowly closing a noose around Halifax during the course of the war, not capturing it until 1781, one of the two blows that year that drive the Crown to the bargaining table.

The capitulation of Cornwallis at Yorktown and the fall of Halifax.

The CA is locked in a war of attrition- why siphon off men from a colony that already supports the revolt, but will require a great deal of time and effort to secure, to attempt to force colonies that have shown NO INTEREST in joining the revolution to join?

Montgomery controls Montreal and the forts in that area; he effectively cuts the line of supply to the British forts in the interior, creating an opening for an expedition west to take the small forts and garner support from the population there, as well as block British support for allied tribes in the region. He has a limited window, however. He can't hold it forever, as the British will send a sizable force to retake it and reopen the supply lines to Fort Detroit, Fort Niagara, Fort Oswego, et al... and re-take Fort Ticonderoga.

Capturing Montreal and holding there, blocking supply to the western forts also has the knock on effect of changing the perceptions of the Iroquois. The British are unable to resupply and reinforce their forts in western New York. It might just tip the Iroquois into the Patriot camp- provided the Continental Congress makes them a better offer than the British did.

Taking ALL of Canada is not necessary to achieve the desired results. Hence, no reason to march on the impossible objective of Quebec.

Meanwhile, you keep yammering on about New Foundland, yet you do nothing to explain HOW the Continentals are supposed to even take it, much less hold it against the RN.

That is 'WHY'.
 
Last edited:
How long do you think the war will last in Nova Scotia?

You seem to think it'll be quick.

It won't.

The scenario sees a long war of attrition, subterfuge, sabotage, espionage with the Patriot cause slowly closing a noose around Halifax during the course of the war, not capturing it until 1781, one of the two blows that year that drive the Crown to the bargaining table.

The capitulation of Cornwallis at Yorktown and the fall of Halifax.

The CA is locked in a war of attrition- why siphon off men from a colony that already supports the revolt, but will require a great deal of time and effort to secure, to attempt to force colonies that have shown NO INTEREST in joining the revolution to join?

Montgomery controls Montreal and the forts in that area; he effectively cuts the line of supply to the British forts in the interior, creating an opening for an expedition west to take the small forts and garner support from the population there, as well as block British support for allied tribes in the region. He has a limited window, however. He can't hold it forever, as the British will send a sizable force to retake it and reopen the supply lines to Fort Detroit, Fort Niagara, Fort Oswego, et al... and re-take Fort Ticonderoga.

Capturing Montreal and holding there, blocking supply to the western forts also has the knock on effect of changing the perceptions of the Iroquois. The British are unable to resupply and reinforce their forts in western New York. It might just tip the Iroquois into the Patriot camp- provided the Continental Congress makes them a better offer than the British did.

Taking ALL of Canada is not necessary to achieve the desired results. Hence, no reason to march on the impossible objective of Quebec.

Meanwhile, you keep yammering on about New Foundland, yet you do nothing to explain HOW the Continentals are supposed to even take it, much less hold it against the RN.

That is 'WHY'.

If the Americans are able to hold nova Scotia AT ALL, which you seem to suggest, then I'm saying that Newfoundland is doable for the Americans, and would be seen as such. Nova Scotia is so hard for the Americans to hold due to the fact that it's a peninsula, and that Halifax has almost impenetrable fortifications. If they can keep Nova Scotia and Halifax from being reconquered, then Newfoundland is well within the realm of possibility. And because after that the British are blocked from the gulf of st. Lawrence, it would just be a matter of time for the hold on the st. Lawrence to be taken if the Americans launched a serious assault and got the support of the Quebecois. Hell, even if they don't assault the valley the Quebecois will probably revolt themselves if they see the British as weak enough.So once again, why wouldn't they?

I think you're drastically diminishing the importance of Halifax here, so let me put it in simple words. It's THE cornerstone for the British war effort. It was the only major supply port on the Atlantic that was completely loyal, and it was a close journey from britian there compared to the rest of the continent, making it very easy to use it as a base. St. John's is the only other port that could perform somewhat as a good troop base, and it neither has the good hinterland to support a large military complex or a nearly as good harbor. In simple terms, without Halifax to use as a port, the British war effort is screwed within 3 years, St. John's just doesn't have the capacity of Halifax and there is no other port in British america that does and is completely loyal.

Knowing this, the British will pull out ALL there stops to keep Halifax, so it's pretty much asb that the Americans could take it in the first place without help. therefore, I judge that if the Americans can take AND HOLD Halifax successfully without too much trouble as you seem to suggest, than Newfoundland should be well within the realm of possibility. And after that? Even if they don't have Newfoundland, the very fact that they have territory on the gulf of st. Lawrence at all means that Quebec is now well within the realm of possibility. At the very least those supply lines down the st. Lawrence are going to be severely affected by american raiders, because now the Americans have access directly in the gulf.

But let's say that Halifax doesn't fall until the very end. If it's under siege for that long, then the British are going to be diverting serious resources to keeping it up. So in that case the war is going to go completely different, less troops further south will make the war there much easier for the Americans.

However, nova Scotia is almost guaranteed to be cut off from the British fleet at some point in the siege, the only entrance is a 10-16 mile peninsula, so it seems asb as well for the Americans to sustain the siege effort. So it is by far most likely for the British to kick the Americans out of nova Scotia, then retake the gulf coast of N.B. and try to continue the war as normal, but be defeated in a slightly quicker ttl Yorktown. However, even though nova Scotia join the revolution it and N.B. are occupied truly and fully by the British, so they aren't going anywhere. Why would the British give them up if they need them to keep a secure hold on the remaining possessions? The leaders of the revolution might not be happy, but there is nothing they can due now with the British concentrating everything they have there and no true fleet to assault Halifax. I don't find it possible for the americans not to be trapped in nova Scotia once the British fleet readies its power.

So I judge your scenario to be asb.
 
If the Americans are able to hold nova Scotia AT ALL, which you seem to suggest, then I'm saying that Newfoundland is doable for the Americans, and would be seen as such. Nova Scotia is so hard for the Americans to hold due to the fact that it's a peninsula, and that Halifax has almost impenetrable fortifications. If they can keep Nova Scotia and Halifax from being reconquered, then Newfoundland is well within the realm of possibility. And because after that the British are blocked from the gulf of st. Lawrence, it would just be a matter of time for the hold on the st. Lawrence to be taken if the Americans launched a serious assault and got the support of the Quebecois. Hell, even if they don't assault the valley the Quebecois will probably revolt themselves if they see the British as weak enough.So once again, why wouldn't they?

I think you're drastically diminishing the importance of Halifax here, so let me put it in simple words. It's THE cornerstone for the British war effort. It was the only major supply port on the Atlantic that was completely loyal, and it was a close journey from britian there compared to the rest of the continent, making it very easy to use it as a base. St. John's is the only other port that could perform somewhat as a good troop base, and it neither has the good hinterland to support a large military complex or a nearly as good harbor. In simple terms, without Halifax to use as a port, the British war effort is screwed within 3 years, St. John's just doesn't have the capacity of Halifax and there is no other port in British america that does and is completely loyal.

Knowing this, the British will pull out ALL there stops to keep Halifax, so it's pretty much asb that the Americans could take it in the first place without help. therefore, I judge that if the Americans can take AND HOLD Halifax successfully without too much trouble as you seem to suggest, than Newfoundland should be well within the realm of possibility. And after that? Even if they don't have Newfoundland, the very fact that they have territory on the gulf of st. Lawrence at all means that Quebec is now well within the realm of possibility. At the very least those supply lines down the st. Lawrence are going to be severely affected by american raiders, because now the Americans have access directly in the gulf.

But let's say that Halifax doesn't fall until the very end. If it's under siege for that long, then the British are going to be diverting serious resources to keeping it up. So in that case the war is going to go completely different, less troops further south will make the war there much easier for the Americans.

However, nova Scotia is almost guaranteed to be cut off from the British fleet at some point in the siege, the only entrance is a 10-16 mile peninsula, so it seems asb as well for the Americans to sustain the siege effort. So it is by far most likely for the British to kick the Americans out of nova Scotia, then retake the gulf coast of N.B. and try to continue the war as normal, but be defeated in a slightly quicker ttl Yorktown. However, even though nova Scotia join the revolution it and N.B. are occupied truly and fully by the British, so they aren't going anywhere. Why would the British give them up if they need them to keep a secure hold on the remaining possessions? The leaders of the revolution might not be happy, but there is nothing they can due now with the British concentrating everything they have there and no true fleet to assault Halifax. I don't find it possible for the americans not to be trapped in nova Scotia once the British fleet readies its power.

So I judge your scenario to be asb.

I'd have read all of this if you didn't feel the need to be such a prick about it.

Seeing as you did, off to The Void with you.
 
I'd have read all of this if you didn't feel the need to be such a prick about it.

Seeing as you did, off to The Void with you.
Then I claim victory.
Okay... :rolleyes:

Sigma7 I think it's neat, but MorningDew has some valid points. The Patriots need money, supplies, heavy guns, ships, and an early start to make a go at Nova Scotia. When I proposed this same scenario I posited an earlier French involvement. Even then I don't think they can actually hold Nova Scotia from the initial invasion, and they may not be able to take Halifax early in the war.

However, I think the British will be able to resupply Quebec City, take Newport in Rhode Island, take Manhattan in New York, maintain New Foundland, and maintain St. John's Island (PEI). I think Iroquois neutrality can be achieved, and I think Montreal can be brought over, but Quebec City is a different story, and I truly think they would go their own way if they allied with the Patriots.
 
Top