Was thinking about this the other day. What if the British managed to hold on New York City after the American war of Independence like they did with Hong Kong. What would be the effect? Could they hold on to Manhattan/New York City for the long-term or would it eventually go back to the United States in the 18th century? I personally think that at some point in the late 19th century or early 20th century New York City would revert to the United States.
The British Empire keeps New York city after American war of Independence
- Thread starter xxmagex
- Start date
Remember there is an enclave of France in Canada named San Miguel de Miquelon and Llivia in Cerdagne.
It's ASB. If the Americans gain their independence that's because they won the war, if they're winning the war they'll take New York City. It's not at all a comparable situation to Hong Kong, which was leased to Britain for 99 years at a time when China was both not at war with Britain and was weaker than the British Empire. But to have the Americans be winning the Revolutionary War and yet give up New York City to the British requires rewiring the minds of every patriot, therefore it's an ASB scenario. NYC was Washington's primary target, he had to be persuaded at length by the French to go after Virginia. After the Battle of Yorktown Washington would be heading back to take New York.
I could also see them keeping everything west of the Appalachian mountains in this scenario too
its not relevant to your point, but Hong Kong wasn't leased only the new territories were.
Manhattan would be indefensible by land in the event the rest of the 13 colonies were lost to the British, so I don't see the benefit in trying to keep it. Long Island is theoretically easier to hold, but it wasn't nearly as populated then as it is now, so that raises the question of how it would benefit the British to have to keep defending that in perpetuity.
New York is already the largest city in the 13 colonies, just ahead of Boston. It's crucial to New York's economy because it's place on the mouth of the Hudson River. The colonies would give up everything to the west of the Proclamation line if that's what it took to keep New York City.
I think Philadelphia was actually larger than New York City until some time after the war. Though both were much larger than Boston which itself was the 3rd largest city in the colonies.
If the British do hold Long Island, it might be a good place for Loyalists to move to after the war, thus increasing the population. Obviously that doesn't create a reason for Britain to retain the island in the first place, but it would provide (1) the aforementioned new home for fleeing Loyalists and (2) a sense of identity placing the Long Islanders in stark contrast with the rebel mainland, similar to how Canadian identity developed. In turn, this would produce a justification for Britain to continue defending the island long afterwards.
Well, I think the precedent of Hannover would discourage the British from holding onto tiny, hard to defend exclaves for parochial political reasons.
IOTL the rebels were close to running out of bankruptcy by the end of the war, if the British manage to both hold on to New York and refuse to make peace without it, the rebels might be forced to accept by financial necessity, especially if the French start making noises about "The British are offering you 99% of the colonies, we're not going to stick around and keep fighting over the remaining 1%".
The main difficulty is that there's no real reason for Britain for insist on New York in the first place. Hong Kong was taken to provide a base for trading with China, but Britain could trade with the US perfectly well without New York. Not to mention, keeping the city would risk alienating the new country, thereby undoing any potential trading advantage which holding it could confer.
The main difficulty is that there's no real reason for Britain for insist on New York in the first place. Hong Kong was taken to provide a base for trading with China, but Britain could trade with the US perfectly well without New York. Not to mention, keeping the city would risk alienating the new country, thereby undoing any potential trading advantage which holding it could confer.
A lot of them wound up in New York or Long Island during the war, actually. Other than that, I think the main concentrations were farther inland in places like the Carolinas, so trying to turn them into some kind of independent polity would be tricky.
I think you mean Saint-Pierre et Miquelon. It's not an enclave but a pair of islands off Newfoundland, which is very different - this is like saying that the Channel Islands are an enclave.
Llivia is an enclave but exists mostly because it isn't very important (only about 1500 residents). Also it's very close to the rest of the border. New York would be quite another story.
There's an few issues with this.
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. (And Dutch). Maintaining control over New York without getting the Hudson valley is tenuous at best. And New York isn't a natural fortress to boot.
Tariffs would also make NYC a poor place to serve as an entrepot and the city would suffer greatly.
NYC and Long Island in this case would be an sort of ealry Hong Kong, with the fact America could storm the city and Long Island with ease and the British not being able to do much.
OTL, the British were very generous to the US in the Treaty of Paris, as they wanted to woo the US away from their French alliance. Keeping New York City would go against that. (The end result the UK got far more from an independent and friendly America. This would only invite a future war where the US will attack and conquer the city.)
HOWEVER.
Loyalist groups ranged as far north as Westchester County, which could give them some strategic depth. A British New York would be massively influential. A second harbor next to Halifax in British North America, easy access to their Caribbean colonies, access up the Hudson River, and a natural port for refueling Royal Navy vessels.
The Caribbean would also help enrich New York/Long Island. It's a shorter distance than the Caribbean and England, plus Royal Navy vessels would find a friendly harbor where they can easily resupply.
(I don't think the British could, or want to hold onto New York/Long Island, I am just showing the other side of it.)
Could also keep Philly as the capital which is always an win.
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. (And Dutch). Maintaining control over New York without getting the Hudson valley is tenuous at best. And New York isn't a natural fortress to boot.
Tariffs would also make NYC a poor place to serve as an entrepot and the city would suffer greatly.
NYC and Long Island in this case would be an sort of ealry Hong Kong, with the fact America could storm the city and Long Island with ease and the British not being able to do much.
OTL, the British were very generous to the US in the Treaty of Paris, as they wanted to woo the US away from their French alliance. Keeping New York City would go against that. (The end result the UK got far more from an independent and friendly America. This would only invite a future war where the US will attack and conquer the city.)
HOWEVER.
Loyalist groups ranged as far north as Westchester County, which could give them some strategic depth. A British New York would be massively influential. A second harbor next to Halifax in British North America, easy access to their Caribbean colonies, access up the Hudson River, and a natural port for refueling Royal Navy vessels.
The Caribbean would also help enrich New York/Long Island. It's a shorter distance than the Caribbean and England, plus Royal Navy vessels would find a friendly harbor where they can easily resupply.
(I don't think the British could, or want to hold onto New York/Long Island, I am just showing the other side of it.)
Could also keep Philly as the capital which is always an win.
Last edited: