Most likely additional territorial gains for the United States

Zachariah

Banned
Ooh! Very interesting! :)

However, who had the larger Navy during this time--(France plus the U.S.) or Britain?
I think it was probably the French and Spanish combined. The Spanish ended up capturing the Bahamas themselves in May 1782, as part of their involvement in the American War of Independence, since Nassau served as a major British privateering base. However, the commander of the expedition, Juan Cagigal, Governor of Havana, had been explicitly ordered by Bernardo de Gálvez to abandon the previous plan to capture the Bahamas, so his forces could be used for an Franco-Spanish invasion of Jamaica instead. However, Cagigal defied orders and launched it anyway- succeeding without a fight or a single casualty sustained, but in doing so, also depleting the Spanish garrison at Havana, starving Gálvez's Jamaican expedition of reinforcements, and condemning the invasion of Jamaica to failure. But if the Americans had already captured The Bahamas on a more permanent basis, instead of simply occupying it for a fortnight and then withdrawing, who's to say how that situation would have panned out...?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I think it was probably the French and Spanish combined. The Spanish ended up capturing the Bahamas themselves in May 1782, as part of their involvement in the American War of Independence, since Nassau served as a major British privateering base. However, the commander of the expedition, Juan Cagigal, Governor of Havana, had been explicitly ordered by Bernardo de Gálvez to abandon the previous plan to capture the Bahamas, so his forces could be used for an Franco-Spanish invasion of Jamaica instead. However, Cagigal defied orders and launched it anyway- succeeding without a fight or a single casualty sustained, but in doing so, also depleting the Spanish garrison at Havana, starving Gálvez's Jamaican expedition of reinforcements, and condemning the invasion of Jamaica to failure. But if the Americans had already captured The Bahamas on a more permanent basis, instead of simply occupying it for a fortnight and then withdrawing, who's to say how that situation would have panned out...?
What about if the U.S. would have offered to buy the Bahamas from Spain in 1782, though?

Also, the reason that I am concerned about an early U.S. occupation of the Bahamas is because, prior to France's entry into the war, the U.S. Navy was presumably no match for Britain's Navy.
 

Zachariah

Banned
What about if the U.S. would have offered to buy the Bahamas from Spain in 1782, though?

Also, the reason that I am concerned about an early U.S. occupation of the Bahamas is because, prior to France's entry into the war, the U.S. Navy was presumably no match for Britain's Navy.
It wasn't a match for Britain's navy, not by a long shot. But Nassau was a relatively weak and poorly defended naval outpost for the British Navy, with its forts more than adequate to defend against any naval assault or bombardment, but extremely poorly equipped and ill-designed to deal with any amphibious attacks. If they could have manned the forts, then they could have potentially fended off all but the largest attempts by the British to retake the port, using more conventional methods of naval bombardment.

And after the Continental Congress and individual state governors through their legislatures allowed privately owned ships to help in the battle against Britain by issuing letters of marque, in the immediate aftermath of Hopkin's successful raid, there were virtually thousands of these privateers, overtaking the number of British ships, helping the war effort at sea. These privateer ships were allowed to claim any items found on the British ships they conquered as their own, and were therefore able to pay their seamen and officers nearly twice the amount that the Continental Navy could pay their crews, since the items captured by Continental ships went for the good of the colonies.

And of course, Nassau had always been primarily a privateer base; it was thanks to the Revolutionary War, and the influx of funds from privateering, that Nassau had experienced an economic boom, with the influx of cash enabling a new fort, street lights and over 2300 sumptuous houses to be built, and the mosquito-breeding swamps to be filled in, greatly expanding the city. With the Americans securing their hold over Nassau and the Bahamas ITTL, and issuing their letters of marque in the immediate aftermath )as they did IOTL), it isn't hard to imagine that practically all of those privateers who operated out of Nassau and were employed by the British IOTL would readily switch their allegiances at the drop of a hat, and direct their efforts to raiding British ships on behalf of the American Revolutionaries instead ITTL. There'd have been higher risks, but also far greater profits to be made...
 
Last edited:
This one is pretty far off, but what if the US was able to continue their occupation of Bermuda? I’m also unsure if it would’ve been a state, or a county in VA, considering its smallness, but I lean to the former.
 
Wasn't British Columbia important for Britain for access to the Pacific Ocean, though? Indeed, it looks like the Canadian equivalent of the Polish Corridor!

If Jphn Jacob Astor's colony in the northwest had succeeded *, than that region could have potentially come under American domination from the start, instead of entering the muddy joint-control period of OTL.

*Not all that unreasonable, even with the War of 1812 - if the reinforcements and armed vessels chartered by Astor had actually arrived instead of meeting disaster along the way, and the Tonquin hadn't met its unfortunate demise, it's likely that the Americans and their allied tribes would have been too difficult for the British to dislodge, and the forced sale of the colony to the North West Company wouldn't have occurred.
 
Wasn't British Columbia important for Britain for access to the Pacific Ocean, though?


Such would, on the face of it, seem so but apparently it was not, according to David E. Shi's Seward's Attempt to Annex British Columbia, 1865-1869 (Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 47, No. 2 (May, 1978), pp. 217-238):

The Oxford professor, Goldwin Smith, who later emigrated to Canada, advised Seward that Canada "seems likely (unless our statesmen adopt a different policy) to fall into your hands of itself, perhaps before you want it."8 The London Times echoed Smith's assessment, reporting that Britain would not object if Canadians wished to join the United States, but if a union was promulgated by force, Her Majesty's government would protest.9 This was a common view of British scholars and politicians, who had little faith in Canada's future and even less regard for her aspirations for dominion.
___

Between Russian America and Washington Territory lay the British colony of British Columbia. Until 1858 the area had been an underdeveloped and sparsely populated region, serving primarily as an outpost for the Hudson's Bay Company. In that year, however, the discovery of gold brought an influx of American miners. This rapid growth led to the formation of the Crown Colony of British Columbia. Its boundaries extended from the summit of the Rocky Mountains on the east to the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Georgia on the west, and from the Finlay branch of the Peace River and the Nass River on the north to the 49th parallel on the south. Vancouver Island remained a separate colony until 1866.

British Columbia's rapid growth and prosperity, however, quickly subsided. By 1865 the colony was in a state of decay, a "poor, struggling, bankrupt colony on the edge of things."' As the gold deposits were depleted, the populace began to drift away, leaving less than 10,000 inhabitants in 1866, three-quarters of whom were of British or Canadian origin. Moreover, since the Hudson's Bay Company owned the territory from the head of the Great Lakes to the Rocky Mountains, the colony remained isolated from the rest of Canada East and West. Consequently, the British Columbians, especially those on Vancouver Island, maintained closer economic and social relations with the western American territories and states than with either Canada or Great Britain.

The belief among many colonists that the Home Office had abandoned them further contributed to their sense of isolation and frustration. During the Civil War, British Columbia alone of the British North American colonies was left undefended. Rear Admiral Joseph Denman informed the Admiralty that the colony did not warrant protection: "I would consider it would be greatly for the interest of England to divest herself of these possessions by any means consistent with honor and with justice to the English settlers." Denman's comments were symptomatic of a general spirit of Little Englandism emerging in Great Britain during the 1860s, a spirit that caused great concern among the colonists in British Columbia.

In such an unstable situation, growing support among the colonists for annexation to the United States represented a logical development. Many were painfully aware of the prosperity and lower taxes prevalent in the neighboring American states. Agitation for annexation began in 1866 and remained a prominent issue for several years. Vancouver Island emerged as the center of support for the movement, particularly the port town of Victoria.

Seward learned of the support in British Columbia for annexation from several sources. In January 1866, he received an extensive report from E. H. Derby, a congressional investigator. Citing the rising discontent among the colonists in British Columbia, Derby suggested that Great Britain cede its Pacific territory to the United States as payment of the Alabama claims:

If Great Britain desires to propitiate this country after all that has occurred, would it not be her true policy to cede to us a portion of her remote territories, valuable to us, but of little value to her? Were she to cede us Vancouver's Island and British Columbia ... might she not easily bring our claims to a peaceful solution...

Seward responded favorably to Derby's suggestion. After sending the report to the Senate for consideration, he began negotiations with Great Britain on the subject.

Discussions concerning the Alabama claims had begun immediately after the Civil War. The main issues were Great Britain's recognition of the Confederacy and her building of Confederate privateers. By 1866 the negotiations had reached an impasse. Seward wanted Britain's policies judged before a neutral arbitration court. Lord Russell refused, arguing that his country's actions were beyond the jurisdiction of any foreign court.

In June 1866, Russell's government fell. As the Conservatives assumed power, conditions appeared favorable for reopening the negotiations. In a lengthy dispatch to the new government, Seward listed the American claims against Great Britain for her part in building the privateers. Lord Stanley, the new Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, finally replied in November, professing his willingness to accept arbitration of the American claims, apart from those involving the right of the British government to recognize a state of belligerency. Seward countered in January 1867, stressing that the individual claims represented only a small part of the much greater losses caused by British actions which had prolonged the war. He implied that he was holding Great Britain responsible for indirect damages that could produce enormous claims. Apparently following the plan outlined earlier in Derby's report, Seward hoped to raise the claims high enough to convince British officials to agree to a quid pro quo settlement, ceding British Columbia in exchange for the claims.

For several months prior to this last dispatch, Seward had been receiving additional evidence from British Columbia indicating substantial support in the colony for annexation. Allen Francis, the American consul in Victoria, reported in September 1866 that "the people of Vancouver Island, and of British Columbia, are almost unanimous in their desire for annexation to the United States." He included an article excerpted from the Victoria Evening Telegraph of September 5, 1866, which characterized British Columbia's relations with the United States as being closer "than our relations with any of the colonies." Two weeks later a public meeting in Victoria voted to request Great Britain to permit annexation to the United States.
 
Last edited:
This one is pretty far off, but what if the US was able to continue their occupation of Bermuda? I’m also unsure if it would’ve been a state, or a county in VA, considering its smallness, but I lean to the former.
I say it is dropped into the laps of Rhode Island. Whereas people might complain about Massachusetts, Virginia, or New York gaining new land from a conquest, having a small state with loads of ships who got much of their money by trading things between the Europeans and Americans... Can you link to the occupation of Bermuda? Was it Virginian ships who occupied it or Us Navy ones?
 
One which never gets mentioned, even though it's extremely unpopulated compared to most alternatives and one of the closest on the map- what about The Bahamas? Say, if the Battle of Nassau had resulted in a more permanent occupation by the American Revolutionaries, rather than merely the fortnight-long occupation by the US Marines in 1776, with The Bahamas falling under the control of the United States of America from its very independence as one of the agreements of TTL's Treaty of Paris?

Yeah, and Bermuda/Turks and Caicos are also suprisingly easy to add to the United States via privateer actions and those of the French/Spanish.

How exactly do you get such a U.S., though?



Would Britain have been willing to tolerate a U.S. conquest of the Corn Islands, though?

To get a Central Powers/pro-Germany and anti-Anglo-French United States is indeed a challenging question. I think you'd need a third war against Britain in the 19th century (ending in anything but a total American victory which is impossible), and maybe even the French and British supporting the CSA (who still lose). That might be enough to poison the Americans against the French and British, even if they'd still want to remain neutral in a European Great War. But you could have something force their hand anyway that makes them join a European Great War. Note that an America which went through all that trauma in regards to the Anglo-French would probably have a much bigger army and navy in the early 20th century than the OTL US did.

The United States technically owned the Corn Islands IOTL. See the Bryan-Chamorro Treaty. If the United States had wanted to, they could have upgraded the territorial administration and been more effectively incorporated it into the US.

This one is pretty far off, but what if the US was able to continue their occupation of Bermuda? I’m also unsure if it would’ve been a state, or a county in VA, considering its smallness, but I lean to the former.

It would have to be a state since it was technically a separate colony. I think it would get grandfathered in under any Constitutition--support the Constitution, and we won't try and annex you to another state (it would probably be Virginia) or something. Hell, Bermuda's presence might mean we get a rather different Constitution.

Bermuda would no doubt do very well in the US given its position and the fact that despite the small population and area, it still gets two senators and one representative like any other state.
 
How about this:
The Netherlands getsinvaded by Germany during WWI. The waterline actualy holds (partly because Germany focuses more on France than the Netherlands), so the western part of the Netherlands remains unoccupied. Yet fighting a war for 4 years is quite expensive, so the Dutch sell (part of) their Carribean islands to the USA. I am thinking specifically of the SSS islands (st Maarten, St Eustatius and Saba), since not only do they actualy speak English, they are realy close to the Danish/America Virgin Islands.
 
It would have to be a state since it was technically a separate colony. I think it would get grandfathered in under any Constitutition--support the Constitution, and we won't try and annex you to another state (it would probably be Virginia) or something. Hell, Bermuda's presence might mean we get a rather different Constitution.

Bermuda would no doubt do very well in the US given its position and the fact that despite the small population and area, it still gets two senators and one representative like any other state.
I doubt you could get Bermuda in before the Constitution comes around. There would be no way to get and conquer it and the Royal Navy could easily quash it, filling the area with Loyalists, Redcoats, and Hessians. The British aren't giong to leave one of their best "help us not drown" stations in the hands of rebels. If necessary the British might go Chagos Islands on them.
 
I doubt you could get Bermuda in before the Constitution comes around. There would be no way to get and conquer it and the Royal Navy could easily quash it, filling the area with Loyalists, Redcoats, and Hessians. The British aren't giong to leave one of their best "help us not drown" stations in the hands of rebels. If necessary the British might go Chagos Islands on them.

The economy was dependent on the United States, the colonists were largely pro-American, and in theory, a rebellion by the locals assisted by the French or Spanish could leave the islands in anti-British hands and the islanders could join the Americans.
 
The economy was dependent on the United States, the colonists were largely pro-American, and in theory, a rebellion by the locals assisted by the French or Spanish could leave the islands in anti-British hands and the islanders could join the Americans.
I suppose that is an option, but I feel that as one of the main transport hubs it would be loaded with soldiers and decently fortified. Plus the Spanish and French were more focused on grabbing more valuable areas. I imagine Bermuda was equally connected to Britain as well, as it was a way station between both areas. I probably should look up shipping routes though, as it may be it was bypassed by New Englanders heading straight to England. I don't know.
 
But it's use as a shipping hub is precisely what might make it valuable for Britain's numerous opponents in the American Revolution to attack. If timed right, you have an uprising that will throw out the British and leave it the hands of the Americans, guarded by the European allies. The Great Hurricane of 1780 (deadliest of all time) caused large damage to fleets on both sides and also caused a lot of damage to Bermuda. Maybe have a disaster like that, but have the French and other anti-British forces avoid most of the damage and the British take even worse damage. At the same time, get another major hurricane to strike Bermuda, right around when a Royal Navy fleet is sailing around the islands, which ideally will wreck the fleet. Not long after, a French expedition combined with a local uprising, already in the works for at least a few months, strikes the island and turns it over to the Americans.

You can combine this with operations in Bermuda and the Turks and Caicos to have the end result be that at the Treaty of Paris, the United States is able to assume control of all three groups of islands. Note that Bermuda would likely demand control over the Turks and Caicos despite the large geographic separation.
 
Actually, the US had a foothold in eastern Polynesia during the early 1800s, when the USS Essex landed on Nuku Hiva in 1813 to make repairs and resupply. The crew of the Essex allied with one of the major tribes in their ongoing war, and emerged victorious. A small fort and naval base was established, but after the main body of Americans departed, relations with their allies soured, and issues with their prisoners and mutineers led the the fort being abandoned in short order. If things had gone a bit better, perhaps the US could have retained its presence on Nuka Hiva, declaring a protectorate over the local tribes, with American influence expanding westward across Polynesia by the 1840s.

Wait, 1813? How did America get to Pacific in 1813?
 
Wait, 1813? How did America get to Pacific in 1813?
Whalers. New England, Maryland, etc had whaling stations all over the area, and I imagination some other American ships may have participating in blackbirding in the area. Americans also settled the Falklands for a bit.

I myself wonder about the Bonin Islands. They had American settlers but the Japanese came in and said "oh look, this badly drawn map shows there were specks here hundreds of years before we cut off contact with the outside world, now they are ours, lol." First time I ever used that word.
 
But it's use as a shipping hub is precisely what might make it valuable for Britain's numerous opponents in the American Revolution to attack. If timed right, you have an uprising that will throw out the British and leave it the hands of the Americans, guarded by the European allies. The Great Hurricane of 1780 (deadliest of all time) caused large damage to fleets on both sides and also caused a lot of damage to Bermuda. Maybe have a disaster like that, but have the French and other anti-British forces avoid most of the damage and the British take even worse damage. At the same time, get another major hurricane to strike Bermuda, right around when a Royal Navy fleet is sailing around the islands, which ideally will wreck the fleet. Not long after, a French expedition combined with a local uprising, already in the works for at least a few months, strikes the island and turns it over to the Americans.

You can combine this with operations in Bermuda and the Turks and Caicos to have the end result be that at the Treaty of Paris, the United States is able to assume control of all three groups of islands. Note that Bermuda would likely demand control over the Turks and Caicos despite the large geographic separation.
Too dependent upon hurricanes striking at the right time and not destroying American ships which were mostly just used for privateering. Besides, the British gave up the colonies while still holding land there as they thought it was just getting too expensive and that it was cutting off trade. I imagine the US would be wise to withdraw from the area, though it might be seen as politically unseemly. I can see people then seeing the British going up the Northwest and Southwest areas they gave IOTL in the Treaty of Paris as being part of a land trade. The Yankees and Southerners would be quite happy with that. Also the issue that Bermuda is multiple islands. Who knows? Maybe the US gets a lease on one. Doubtful, but I am sure something could be worked out is enough money changes hands.
 
They don't need to have hurricanes to conquer the colony, I'm just giving th eeasiest path to conquering the place. Besides, large hurricanes affecting areas in the vicinity of Bermuda occur frequently, so it isn't entirely unlikely they'd get a hurricane anyway (although whether the British are severely impacted AND the Americans/allies can make use of it is entirely different). And I don't understand why the British would want the perception that they surrendered the colonies in exchange for Bermuda (and people say the French exchanging a sugar island for Canada looks bad...)--if the United States/allies can push for Bermuda to be added to their territory, then they'll push and push and push, and besides, the Bermudans would too since economics dictate their close relations with the United States.

Yes, Bermuda is multiple islands, but presumably anybody who controls the main island controls the whole archipelago since it's only 53 km2 and was always governed as one entity thus why shouldn't it be transferred as one entity? Neither side, after all, wants a potential enemy base just a spit away.
 
Wait, 1813? How did America get to Pacific in 1813?

The USS Essex came around Cape Horn in January of 1813 after a failed cruise for enemy merchant ships in the Atlantic, with the intent of attacking British whaling vessels in the South Pacific, and protecting the sizable amount of American whalers plying those waters.
 
Top