Different Treaty of Paris, 1783

1782: Rodney defeats French in Battle of the Saints - British naval superiority in the Caribbean established; Gibraltar repels Franco Spanish attack;
France financially exhausted; some British reinforcements present in America.
1782/3: British concede American independence and agree generous boundary south and west of the Great Lakes and favourable terms for American shipping entering British ports.

Clearly Britain was defeated with reference to the greater point of American independence; but what about the linits of the new American state?

1. How could the Treaty of Paris be renegotiated more or less advantageously for Britain or the USA - i.e. what other plausible boundaries for the USA and Canada are there.
2. As an aside do you agree that Shelburne's 'generous' terms with the USA in 1783 marked an informal doctrine in British foreign policy not to come to loggerheads with the USA unless in defence of vital national interests. For example President Madison and Secretary of State Adams later admitted that they would not have gone to war in 1812 had the British concessions been received before their declaration; British concessions regarding Maine and Oregon, etc. Just a thought.
 
Lord Slingsby

The obvious suggest is that Britain could have maintained the borders of Canada as defined in 1763, i.e. the Ohio river. Still conceding the new republic large areas of land west of the Applachians but south of that. This would probably have led to a clash at some later stage, as US land hunger meant they tried to seize more land and it would be a little more difficult to hold such lands in a 1812 equivalent as nearer the US base of power but should still be possible to hold most/all of it.

In the longer term this would have big effects on both states. Canada, with complete control of the Great Lakes would be a much greater economic power even if no further border changes occurred. You would probably have a steady flow of settlement the other way, from the northern US to Canada, as before 1812 OTL. The US would lose an important economic region but still be potentially a great power, especially if it makes roughly the gains elsewhere it made OTL. [Although less likely to get the southern Oregon region in this scenario I suspect]. The fact that there would be more pressure on land in the south and central states would make them more influential politically but might force either a challenge to slavery earlier, due to more competition for land, or possibly earlier industrialisation, along with possibly a more nativist culture with earlier and longer lasting immigration controls perhaps.

Steve
 
Interesting.

Does RN superiority in the US revolutionary war means the RN procedures are not reviewed and the same tactics are kept?

If that's the case, the RN won't dominate so much in the 1790s and 1800s, which can have some interesting consequences ( Nelson on the beach, Hoche in Ireland.... )
 
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7021/is_/ai_n28245624

America could have had Ontario as part of the Northwest Territory, as well as other British North American colonies' rebel populations managing to form rebel governments or send delegates to the Continental Congress.

Thanks, this is an excellent article and also to stevep for your interesting thoughts. I've drawn three maps based on my reading of this article. (The search for the Canadian-American boundary along the Michigan frontier, Michigan Historical Review, 2004 by Francis M. Carroll)

USA 1779 instructions "Drafted largely by John Jay, the terms included a Canadian boundary that followed the instructions given in 1779 to John Adams, another American delegate. This boundary line began in the east by following the Saint John River to the origin of the Connecticut River and then south to the 45th degree of north latitude and west to the St. Lawrence River, then by a line to Lake Nipissing, northeast of Lake Huron, and by a second line to the source of the Mississippi River (not yet discovered). The western boundary of the United States would then have extended down the Mississippi River." My triangle shape around Lake of the Woods tries to reflect the difference between the expected and actual source of the Mississippi. Could have misread the St.John River bit.

USA 1782 alternative proposal, i.e. continue the 45 degree New York-Quebec boundary to the Mississippi. The second 1782 alternative was roughly the current border.

1782 Spanish proposals. My map may be way out but the black is my ‘current’ reading of: “d'Aranda, while discussing Florida, claimed territory south of Lake Superior and west of a line running along the western shore of Lake Huron to Lake Erie, then south across country to the Ohio River, and then southeast to the headwaters of the Flint River and on into the St. Marys River and East Florida.” While the read is my reading of “Spanish claims on the east bank of the Mississippi River would extend only as far north as the Ohio River, east to the Cumberland River, and then south by a series of lines to the Apalachicola River in West Florida. The territory north of the Ohio River was to remain in British jurisdiction, perhaps as an Indian buffer zone.”

The British government urged their negotiators to press for the Quebec Act boundary essentially leaving the Northwest Territory in British hands.

I hope I've added these maps correctly.
 
1782 Spanish proposals

May be wrong! Very happy to be corrected.

USA 1782 Spanish proposals 2.GIF
 
USA 1779 instructions

The green triangle around Lake Superior is supposed to represent the area between the expected and actual source of the Mississippi.

USA 1779 instructions 2.GIF
 
Alternatively...

Suppose that the border had followed along the course of the Saint Lawrence River, putting whare in our timeline the Canadian maritime provinces and southeastern Quebec into the United States?
 
Suppose that the border had followed along the course of the Saint Lawrence River, putting whare in our timeline the Canadian maritime provinces and southeastern Quebec into the United States?

I'd say only doable if Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island joined the revolution for the Maritimes, and the St. Lawrence valley if Canada was conquered.
 
Suppose that the border had followed along the course of the Saint Lawrence River, putting whare in our timeline the Canadian maritime provinces and southeastern Quebec into the United States?
I would say that would be very, very unlikely. Quebec (excluding the areas that would at this point be part of Rupert's Land) on both sides of the river at this point is already a solid entity, there's not much use in owning only half of it.
 
I would say that would be very, very unlikely. Quebec (excluding the areas that would at this point be part of Rupert's Land) on both sides of the river at this point is already a solid entity, there's not much use in owning only half of it.

Wasn't the area northwest of the Ohio River technically part of Quebec at the time as well?
 
Wasn't the area northwest of the Ohio River technically part of Quebec at the time as well?
Well, yes, but it wasn't as much of a solid entity as the "core Quebec" area was. I'm not sure how to express what I'm getting at... really, the best example is that the most important fortress here is Montreal, and Montreal is on neither side of the river. If the Revolutionaries hold Montreal at the negotiations, they'd almost certainly be in a position to claim up to the Rupert's Land border, and I don't see why they wouldn't.
 
Well, yes, but it wasn't as much of a solid entity as the "core Quebec" area was. I'm not sure how to express what I'm getting at... really, the best example is that the most important fortress here is Montreal, and Montreal is on neither side of the river. If the Revolutionaries hold Montreal at the negotiations, they'd almost certainly be in a position to claim up to the Rupert's Land border, and I don't see why they wouldn't.

Suppose the Americans held Montreal, but the British held some important American pro-independence fort or city?
 
Top