New York as a British exclave?

[Falastur]

OK, this is a bit of a new one for me - I've always kept myself to answering questions and posited TLs rather than posing the questions myself. But there are some things I've often wondered about, and this one happened to capture my imagination so I thought "why not?"

So here's the thing. We regularly (well, occasionally) talk about the possibility of the USA forming after a different ARW, and the possibility of a British southern states and a US only extending across the north (with or without Canada). But while the British held the south, they also retained an outpost in New York (and a couple of other places, though I forget which), which - because of the significant numbers of refugees - became quite strongly loyalist. Of course, they lost it and then they lost the south OTL, but even in TLs where they keep the south, New York is always lost. So was it possible that the British could keep the south AND keep New York (and maybe a couple of other pockets of resistance?) as an exclave in a peace deal? Could they entrench themselves well enough that the US couldn't even think about assaulting the city, and/or could the population become so anti-revolutionary that they would not accept being traded in a peace deal? Would the rebels ever accept it, or would they insist on New York being handed over, even to the possible extension of the war to a point when they lost? Is there any way it could work?

This is one of those areas where I know the dates and characters but I don't properly understand the mindset of those living there at the time, which I generally regard to be integral to debating alternate history, so I'm very interested by this stuff. Anyone have any strong opinions either way? I would suggest this being an AHC, except that I think that the PODs are clear enough - it all comes down to whether it could ever be acceptable to those involved.

 

[black angel]

I could see a long term war where the Brits control the coasts but can never really hold down the rural in-land, we'd likely see the British pockets have very large black populations..... British black people living in New York City I love AH.com.

 

[Evan]

I don't think so. New York is a major city and harbor; a British base there would jeopardize the independence of the colonies.

And would it even be useful without a sizable hinterland, which the Americans certainly wouldn't give it?

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

When you mean New York, do you mean the state or the famously much better known future metropolis-to-be New York City?

I know that New York City had a large Loyalist population during the war.

 

[Falastur]

I meant the city. Apologies, I thought I had put that in my post, but clearly I forgot. I know that keeping all of the state of New York would be too much of a push, especially as it would divide the fledgling USA in two.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Then it's kinda hard, though not impossible. Keeping New York City is hard; you have a population loyal to the Crown but it's a small population that's situated on the lowest tip of Manhattan Island which in the late 1700s was mostly uninhabitated north of Canal Street save for a farm or two. I think it's easier if the British manage to secure control of the Hudson River Valley in addition to New York.

 

[Falastur]

Then it's kinda hard, though not impossible. Keeping New York City is hard; you have a population loyal to the Crown but it's a small population that's situated on the lowest tip of Manhattan Island which in the late 1700s was mostly uninhabitated north of Canal Street save for a farm or two. I think it's easier if the British manage to secure control of the Hudson River Valley in addition to New York.

Wouldn't that create problems with fulfilling the rest of the scenario - i.e. a successful ARW - though? Doesn't that weaken the new US republic to the point where it basically can't survive and the British should be able to finish the job in the war anyway? And do you just mean the Hudson River Valley? Would they be able to hold it without a sizable hinterland?

Do enlighten me, I'm not an expert on this period by any means, but it seems that British control of that much territory would basically rip the USA in two and weaken it too much for it to achieve independence.

 

[black angel]

Wouldn't that create problems with fulfilling the rest of the scenario - i.e. a successful ARW - though? Doesn't that weaken the new US republic to the point where it basically can't survive and the British should be able to finish the job in the war anyway? And do you just mean the Hudson River Valley? Would they be able to hold it without a sizable hinterland?

Do enlighten me, I'm not an expert on this period by any means, but it seems that British control of that much territory would basically rip the USA in two and weaken it too much for it to achieve independence.

well the Hudson River Valley was largely Dutch at the time, the land was split between a large number of super farms, farmed by tenant farmers, the Land Lords (known as Patroons or "River Gods") supported the Rebels, their tenants rebelled against the River Gods in favor of the Brits.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

That's why it's an AH challenge. Without it, holding New York City would be far more difficult for the Brits. And remember New York City was just Manhattan south of Wall Street (which was a wall made to protect the settlements from Indian raids), you'll need to build lots of fortifications all around NYC and I don't think the Brits will make much an effort.

 

[Falastur]

well the Hudson River Valley was largely Dutch at the time, the land was split between a large number of super farms, farmed by tenant farmers, the Land Lords (known as Patroons or "River Gods") supported the Rebels, their tenants rebelled against the River Gods in favor of the Brits.

Curious. But my question still stands. Loyalist support may exist, but surely the British demanding to keep the entire river valley in a peace deal would be a push too far for the rebel diplomats? Or could they be persuaded? Please, educate me if you have any ideas.

That's why it's an AH challenge.

It's not an AHC though. I thought about making it one and decided against. This is more of a plausibility check instead. I would have marked it as a plausibility check but generally PCs are an indicator that a TL is going to be written and...I have my reasons for not writing TLs. This won't be one, this is just for my own peace of mind.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

I don't think you can really persuade the rebels. The Hudson River valley is vital to maintain control of New York City for the British but it'll end up splitting the nation into two which can lead to more problems.

I say it's hard.

 

[Alex Richards]

The British did control the southern stretch of the Hudson, as well as parts of New Jersey and Connecticut IIRC.

 

[Uriel]

I could see a long term war where the Brits control the coasts but can never really hold down the rural in-land, we'd likely see the British pockets have very large black populations..... British black people living in New York City I love AH.com.

And you wonder why people think you are a black Brit.

 

[Socrates]

The fact that maintaining control over New York without getting the Hudson valley is tenuous, might be the very thing that makes this a possible peace settlement. If the British consolidate their control of Canada and the South the American might be much more happy to get a peace deal, in a similar manner to Michael Collins ("freedom to achieve freedom").

Jefferson and others might think that if they can show how successful an inland Republic could be, they will alter be able to have a second revolution, particularly as they will be able to control inland trade going into New York, and think that great city will eventually join them. Meanwhile the Brits might think that Republics are doomed to failure anyway (as they did IOTL) and ultimately will fall back into the British fold.

I can imagine the end result would be the revolutionaries divided into a hardline anti-treaty and moderate pro-treaty camps. You would also probably get strong rivalry between a New England based around Boston and a Southern Republic based around Philadelphia. Would be a fascinating timeline.

 

[corditeman]

Gibraltar springs to mind...

The Rock, the Harbour and the Straits.

I'll take Manhattan, Coney Island, Long Island, Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard and God's Own Cape (Cod). Viable for the Royal Navy to hold.

Keep this going!

 

[King Gorilla]

The Rock, the Harbour and the Straits.

I'll take Manhattan, Coney Island, Long Island, Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard and God's Own Cape (Cod). Viable for the Royal Navy to hold.

Keep this going!

But unlike Gibraltar New York isn't a natural fortress...nor is Coney Island, Long Island, Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard or Cape Cod. Whats more, America will probably decline to agree to any peace treaty explicitly designed to reprieve them of their very profitable whaling industry.

I could see Britain keeping a single enclave, and I could see said enclave being quite profitable as a smugglers port. But New York would not be the New York of OTL. Philadelphia would likely continue be the industrial and financial capital of the United States. From there butterflys would commence.

 

[DJB001]

I've been thinking about this very thing for a while now. I even posted a similar question a while back. It's kind of central to a TL I keep mulling over.

Short of a Saratoga victory (which unleashes too many butterflies and even then I'm not sure it would work), I think what you're looking at is a 'status quo' situation at the end of the ARW. The best thing I could come up with was that the British hold Long Island, Manhattan, Staten Island and the Mainland up to the 41st parallel or so. A bit of New Jersey (maybe to the Hackensack river for defensive depth) would be icing on the cake. I see the events rolling out something like this...

1) No Yorktown, which probably means a British victory at the Battle of the Chesapeake to let Cornwallis escape.
2) A failed attack on the fortifications that Clinton had built to protect New York as a last gasp in the 1782 campaign season.
3) A much harder line on the part of the British in Paris, which probably means the North administration is in charge of the British delegation, which is more than possible given 1) and 2)... Something along the line of we have it, he've had it since 1776 and we're not giving it back.
4) A British willingness to give up something of value to the Americans to get the extar few bits of defensive depth....Maybe Quebec west of the Ottawa river or the proposed Nippising line...Maybe implicitly linking New York to the Fishing rights in the North Atlantic...Maybe both.

Short term...I see the Loyalists settling this area rather than going north to Nova Scotia and Lower Canada. Maybe generating a population of about 100,000 or so.

Medium term... Britain needs to deal with the fact that this is not a wilderness colony like Upper Canada or a conquered french territory like Lower Canada...might lead to earlier representative government. There will also have to be some serious fortifications to hold off the 'inevitable' American attack in a future war. I also see the pitt government fostering immigartion there to further beef up the loyalist population and defences.

I'm not sure what the impact of a New York State in the Union but no New York City. It will certainly remain a constant irratant fo the new country but I don't see it as a Make or Break thing. The constitutional convention could go either way but is suspect New York state would fall much harder into the anti-federalist camp. I suspect Philadelphia might remain the capital. The interesting thing would be to see what New Yorkers stay ( Jay, Hamilton, Clinton, Burr etc.) with the city and what ones uproot...to Philadelphia??

Long term. I can see an Ultra-loyalist mind-set developing "Loyal she began, loyal she remains" by the first quarter of the nineteenth century. This New York will thrive simply because of the competative advantages of being within the British Navigation acts. It wil take over the whole West Indian trade and a good chunk of the British Trade to the Americas.

My two cents,

David

 

[Socrates]

I'm not sure what the impact of a New York State in the Union but no New York City. It will certainly remain a constant irratant fo the new country but I don't see it as a Make or Break thing. The constitutional convention could go either way but is suspect New York state would fall much harder into the anti-federalist camp. I suspect Philadelphia might remain the capital. The interesting thing would be to see what New Yorkers stay ( Jay, Hamilton, Clinton, Burr etc.) with the city and what ones uproot...to Philadelphia??

This is a very interesting point. Seeing as New York divides the colonies, you basically can't get a single republic more centralised than rural New York wants to be. The two likely outcomes are either two republics - one East of New York and one South - or a pretty decentralised agreement. If it's the latter, and if NYC becomes a successful autonomous dominion, I can see other states considering rejoining the Empire under the same conditions.

 

[Falastur]

Some interesting points. Any more to add, anyone?

As I say, this isn't for any TL I'm writing (though if it helps someone else write a TL then bonus). I'm just eager to expand my understanding of the how and why. Could anyone elaborate on how interested the British would be in keeping a staunchly loyalist NYC, and how willing the US would be to lose it in the peace bartering? Good points on the plausibility and I'm enjoying reading this all, but it's equally good to read up on mindsets as well as events.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Some interesting points. Any more to add, anyone?

As I say, this isn't for any TL I'm writing (though if it helps someone else write a TL then bonus). I'm just eager to expand my understanding of the how and why. Could anyone elaborate on how interested the British would be in keeping a staunchly loyalist NYC, and how willing the US would be to lose it in the peace bartering? Good points on the plausibility and I'm enjoying reading this all, but it's equally good to read up on mindsets as well as events.

Maybe the US loses the Battle of Saratoga thus withholding any promises for foreign support?