DBWI: Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and the West Indies didn't join ARW

During the American Revolutionary War, all of the nineteen British colonies in North America and ten colonies in British West Indies unite to win their independence from the British forces. But what if some of them remained loyal to the British Crown?

Other than the thirteen colonies that hold the largest grudge to the Parliament (Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, New York, Rhode Island), there was some possibility that the other North American colonies (Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Island of St. John, East Florida, West Florida) as well as the colonies in West Indies (Jamaica, Bahamas, Bermuda, Grenada, Barbados, Honduras, St. Vincent, Tobago, Dominica, Leeward Islands) might not join the Revolution at all. A lesser degree of sympathy toward the Patriot cause, perhaps? Or maybe geographical isolation and the dominance of British naval power precluded any effective participation?

Thus instead of "Nineteen Colonies and The West Indies", there would be only "Thirteen Colonies"...
How would this affect the United States? Or the world?
 
Perhaps the United States would be more culturally homogeneous, and be on better terms with one another. I know that religious discrimination has dropped to a minimum after over two hundred years, but the introduction of such a large number of Catholics into the fledgling United States posed a serious threat to the cohesion of the early union.
 
Perhaps the United States would be more culturally homogeneous, and be on better terms with one another. I know that religious discrimination has dropped to a minimum after over two hundred years, but the introduction of such a large number of Catholics into the fledgling United States posed a serious threat to the cohesion of the early union.
But maybe the Diccey Rebellion would have succeeded.
 
Would the United States have been less involved in foreign affars? If it was entirely based on the mainland, I can see a much stronger isolationist streak developing.

The reduced need for the navy would also likely have made the British dominant on the seas for a lot longer - potentially a bigger British Empire?
 
Would the United States have been less involved in foreign affars? If it was entirely based on the mainland, I can see a much stronger isolationist streak developing.
Indeed, I bet it wouldn't gain Cuba from Spain and Haiti from France during the French Revolutionary War, and Gran Colombia, Venezuela, and Peru wouldn't end up as de facto US protectorates when they get their independence.

The reduced need for the navy would also likely have made the British dominant on the seas for a lot longer - potentially a bigger British Empire?
But OTOH, the British might not be interested to Rio de la Plata at all, thus there would be no British South America (at least as we know it).
 
No Russo-American war to secure the gold discovered in Alaska. Maybe Britain gets involved there instead. It would be interesting to see what that does for relations between Japan and America, since the two got so close after Japan fought its own war with Russia, maybe the Pacific looks less like a Japanese-American lake? Maybe even a war between the two nations over control there?
 

Eurofed

Banned
Can I ask what OOC is?

OOC: Out of character. The basic idea in a DB (Double-Blind) discussion is that you post from the perspective of an ATL described in the thread title and OP (original post). OOC is used when you wish to make a comment from an OTL perspective.
 
But OTOH, the British might not be interested to Rio de la Plata at all, thus there would be no British South America (at least as we know it).

The British have been interested in the Rio de la Plata since the middle of the 18th century. Can't imagine them not taking it in a scenario where they were even more powerful than our own.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Indeed, I bet it wouldn't gain Cuba from Spain and Haiti from France during the French Revolutionary War, and Gran Colombia, Venezuela, and Peru wouldn't end up as de facto US protectorates when they get their independence.

And the US would have been much less driven to assimilate Mexico after its independence.

But OTOH, the British might not be interested to Rio de la Plata at all, thus there would be no British South America (at least as we know it).

True, without the total loss of British North America, probably London would have been much less motivated to rebuild a "second empire" in the southern half of South America, southern Africa, and Indonesia.
 

Eurofed

Banned
OOC: Carribean islands revolting? With the most powerful navy in the world opposing them?

OOC: Carribean islands revolting? With the most powerful navy in the world opposing them?

OOC: well, Bahamas and Bermuda almost pulled it off IOTL. One may easily assume that with the right PoD, Quebec, Nova Scotia, the Floridas, the Bahamas, and Bermuda successfully join the ARW.

The other British colonies may join the revolt but be crushed by the RN. However this creates a powerful irredentist-continentalist mindset in the US which leads them to prepare its military much better than OTL for a second round with the British.

They intervene in the French Revolutionary Wars and grab Cuba (I'd drop the idea of them getting Haiti, the island was politically radioactive to the South after the antislavery revolution), expanding their power projection capabilities in the Caribbean, then achieve a decisive victory in the *War of 1812 equivalent, liberating the British West Indies. For its little size, the early USN was actually quite good and performed well IOTL. A much bigger one could have punched the RN hard enough to force it to let its grip loose on the Caribbean. If an efficient US Army and Militia storm Rupert's Land and crush pro-British native tribes and UK landing attempts, it is actually quite reasonable that a demoralized Britain still mired in the Napoleonic Wars concedes defeat before the fall of Napoleon.

Even more so if Britain already got a third front in its ongoing efforts to conquer Rio de la Plata, and the combination of early Manifest Destiny mindset (and less WASP prejudice) in the US and UK expansion in South America lead the USA and the Libertadores into alliance and a close political bond, wrapping the *War of 1812 and the Spanish-American Wars of Independence into the 2nd ARW, and giving the US a powerful support base across the Spanish colonies.

US defeat/stalemate in the War of 1812 was far from inevitable (with a UK distracted by the Napoleonic Wars, of course) if one can keep the Jeffersonian faction and their idiotic ideas about minimal government and war by embargo from screwing up US military preparedness. And a US Canada and Cuba hugely improves the strategic situation of the USA, and so does an alliance with the Libertadores.
 
Last edited:
And the US would have been much less driven to assimilate Mexico after its independence.



True, without the total loss of British North America, probably London would have been much less motivated to rebuild a "second empire" in the southern half of South America, southern Africa, and Indonesia.

Agreed with both of your statements. Another interesting butterflies are how the changes in the Americas would affect the unification of Germany and Italy. Would it be accelerated or delayed than 1831? Would Prussia and Naples still unified Germany and Italy, respectively?

OOC: So...do you recognize what ATL that I'm referring to, Eurofed? :D
 

Eurofed

Banned
OOC: So...do you recognize what ATL that I'm referring to, Eurofed? :D

OOC: Now I do. I was misled into assuming TTL was not USAO, but a close parallel, by the reference to the US getting Haiti in the FRW.

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I totally agree. :D
 
Well, it's possible that, with colonies still in the New World outside of the control of the Hudson's Bay Company/Hudsonia, Britain would never have undertaken the population of Australasia by transportation, and the colonies there may well have become French or Dutch/German. This in turn would likely not have resulted in a desire to control Patagonia in order to facilitate travel around Cape Horn, which would have meant no interventions in the Argentine, no British South America, and no Kingdom of Patagonia.

British-US relations would probably have forever remained poor; with a US coveting remaining British North American possessions and the British smarting from a defeat by colonial upstarts, there's likely to be several almighty to-dos until either the US collapses or the British are forced from the Continent. Assuming as the OP does that the First Thirteen still succeed in rebelling, the St Lawrence likely becomes one of the worst theatres for rhyfelbach fighting in the world. Something like the Hudson Purchase would be out of the question.

It's highly possible, too, that the US would never have ended slavery; without the alliance between the Acadian states and New England in Congress, the issue may still have been unsettled by the time of the expansion into Mexico, and once that happened the slave states were only going to go on increasing.
 
It's surely pretty unlikely Britain would hang on to French-dominated American rump, if the Thirteen went. I imagine a Republic of Canada would spring up by the 1810s, allied to France. That, bizarrely, might push the smaller US into British arms...
 
Top