What is the smallest USA possible after the ARW?

A prid pro quo for the Spanish ditching their support The revolutionaries.

I can go with that. As for what you said about the "TTL war of 1812"...I'm not so sure, though I could be wrong. Especially if it's the early 00's, but generally in this decade the UK was far less committed to the continental war with Napoleon than in 1812, which was iirc why the Americans struck when they did. Britain has very few land commitments at this point and therefore would probably be able to mobilise the troops quickly to quickly subdue the USA. In addition, in OTL the Americans failed to attack Canada and then saw their capital burned, I suspect a war on two fronts would go badly for them. Further to this, the south has become an area of concentrated loyalism, which would likely lead to the fielding of a number of militia regiments in British Southern North America to at least fend off an invasion there, if not to substantially bolster a British invasion of the USA. Personally, if I had to call it I'd say the USA would request an armistice after 12-18 months and the UK would take the opportunity to attempt to bottle them in so they couldn't expand into the west, maybe by demanding that the USA cede their claims to the Tennessee Territory and part of Kentucky with a consolidation and recognising of British control of Illinois/Winsconsin, though this is pure speculation.

It is, of course, entirely possible that there are factors I haven't considered, though...
 
I can go with that. As for what you said about the "TTL war of 1812"...I'm not so sure, though I could be wrong. Especially if it's the early 00's, but generally in this decade the UK was far less committed to the continental war with Napoleon than in 1812, which was iirc why the Americans struck when they did. Britain has very few land commitments at this point and therefore would probably be able to mobilise the troops quickly to quickly subdue the USA. In addition, in OTL the Americans failed to attack Canada and then saw their capital burned, I suspect a war on two fronts would go badly for them. Further to this, the south has become an area of concentrated loyalism, which would likely lead to the fielding of a number of militia regiments in British Southern North America to at least fend off an invasion there, if not to substantially bolster a British invasion of the USA. Personally, if I had to call it I'd say the USA would request an armistice after 12-18 months and the UK would take the opportunity to attempt to bottle them in so they couldn't expand into the west, maybe by demanding that the USA cede their claims to the Tennessee Territory and part of Kentucky with a consolidation and recognising of British control of Illinois/Winsconsin, though this is pure speculation.

It is, of course, entirely possible that there are factors I haven't considered, though...

Well the thought was that if a conflict did develop it would be over agitation by settlers in the Ohio to be annexed.. Its a zone of exclusive US influence but still part and parcel of the NW area of Joint occupancy.

Britain either has to act to prevent this or they respond with an annexation of Michigan in kind. Which has the possibility of spiralling into a scramble for the rest in some manner. Alternatively they simply agree to split it between them a la the alt. jay treaty of TTL. There is also the matter of the Spanish retrocession of Luisiana. I haven't decided whether that would actually happen as with a strong British position in the south it would likely make it less tenable. Mind you that said...that in itself could change the Fr. Imperial ambitions in Haiti in favour of a partnership instead and the troops destined for Haiti could end up with LeClerc in Nouveau Orleans instead . I suppose it depends on the Spanish departure I had planned. Thus you have a position where the Imp Fr. and Br. colonials are trading shots across the Mississippi and along the West Florida coast. If Spain allies with France as OTL as part of the Retrocession treaty then East Florida will probably end up over run by the Brits if not and I am leaning toward Spanish neutrality then you have the possibility of a 3-sided conflict in Nth Am. which is more how I am leaning. Not really an alliance between the US and Imp. France, more simply taking advantage of Br. pre-occupation there. 12-18 mo. seems about right for the US/Br. conflict As the US will likely not be prepared for a protracted conflict and the Br. will likely want to negotiate a early settlement ASAP.

How is the orientation of the US "almost co-operation" with Imp. France likely to play in New England politically? Given that I am thinking that something along the lines of the XYZ affair still happens.
 
Proclamation Line

Affix the border of the U.S. to the borders of the thirteen colonies themselves, ignoring U.S. claims to lands west of the Appalachian Mountains.
 
Trinidad vs Louisiana

If the Bony has a choice between retrocession of Luisiana or cession of Trinidad/Tobago which is the more likely? Trinidad at 1800 is majority French because of the influx of French immigrants and their slaves from Martinique. Assume of course that they are still Spanish in 1800 and not captured by Britain. The populations are probably about the same in 1800 and similiar in composition.
 
Affix the border of the U.S. to the borders of the thirteen colonies themselves, ignoring U.S. claims to lands west of the Appalachian Mountains.

That is the smallest but probably will not include Vermont and Georgia at least will probably return to Br. fold. I suppose you could have a trans-Appalachian republic develop in Kentucky/Tenn. instead that do not become states.

certainly the Spanish were active diplomatically to encourage that. Obviously if the Brits are still in the south and have dominant influence in the NW then they too might be active on that front.
 
Often we see threads about a big USA after the American revolutionary war, including all of Canada; somethimes it is less ambitious and only includes the Maritimes or part of Ontario.
Another often seen scenario is America losing the the war and becoming a British Dominion.
Hardly ever we seen the other possibility of the USA gaining independence while the British do better, so we get a smaller USA. So what is the smallest USA possible after the ARW without balkanising it. So is it possible for the British to keep a large part of Maine, keeping the south etc? Or is the OTL USA the smallest possible independent USA?

Wouldn't the British keep everything? They do like their tea you know.
 
In Aurora's map, there is no way Washington would still be the capital. Without as many southern states there is no reason to shift the political power to appease them.

Philadelphia remaining the capital is most likey I would think. Followed somewhat remotely by New York, and even futher by one of the Susquehanna compromise sites.
 
In Aurora's map, there is no way Washington would still be the capital. Without as many southern states there is no reason to shift the political power to appease them.

Philadelphia remaining the capital is most likey I would think. Followed somewhat remotely by New York, and even futher by one of the Susquehanna compromise sites.

You may be right on that, I did it mostly because I felt Virginia would still be influential enough to get it near their borders
 
Top