What States Could You Realistically Get To Stay With Brittian

Hello,

I have seen a few people suggest at times that some of the original states eventually stay with BRA slash become part of Canada. I got especially interested when reading Dathi THorfinnsson timeline.

So my question is as the title says, what states could be written to realistically have become part of what would become Canada before late 19th century.

Side Question: Could Canada have its own monarchy.

Any answers would be appreciated.
 
Actually, I think Georgia would be the most likely of the original 13 colonies to remain with Britain. Formed in 1733, Georgia's population was new enough to be realistically loyal to Britain. Georgia's government was, for the most part, competent and popular.
 
All of the Southern Colonies were quite neutral during American Revolutionary War. Although their assemblies decided to join the revolution, local population wasn't enthusiastic. The same thing with the Middle Colonies, e.g. New York was viewed as a loyalist stronghold. Even in New England there were colonies not necessarily desiring full independence, of course excluding Massachusetts. My call is that the main problem would be the latter and if Britain could crush the riots in Boston early enough the rest of her colonies would have stayed loyal.
 
All thirteen, if you get change the outcomes of enough battles.

As for which would want to stay with Britain, that's a different question - perhaps with a greater British presence? My understanding is that some of Britain's other colonies, especially those in the Caribbean, were actually pro-revolution, but weren't exactly in a position to rebel, given their isolation and the presence of the British navy.

As for the separate Canadian monarchy, good question. I feel like it should be possible, but I can't really think of a specific PoD.
 
How many colonies would you need for an American Revolution without it turning into a screw for America.
 

SunDeep

Banned
How many colonies would you need for an American Revolution without it turning into a screw for America.

IMHO, OTL is a massive Americawank anyway. If you have an ATL where the USA ends up as the wealthiest, most powerful world power by a narrow margin, as opposed to being the sole superpower on Earth by a country mile as IOTL, I don't really see that as being an actual America screw. Do you?
 
By definition, would you care to define the method behind your reasoning?

He's saying that OTL can't be a wank or screw; by definition to wank or screw something would be to make something better or worse than OTL. It's a petty point.
 

SunDeep

Banned
He's saying that OTL can't be a wank or screw; by definition to wank or screw something would be to make something better or worse than OTL. It's a petty point.

Well then, by definition, every ATL is going to be a wank/screw to some degree, because if it isn't identical to OTL, it's either going to be 'better' or 'worse'. No 9/11? Less military spending=slightly smaller US economy= Americascrew. :rolleyes: An actual 'screw' isn't when a nation doesn't do quite as well as IOTL, it's when things actually go poorly for that nation.
 
Last edited:
True, though much of America's history could be considered to meet wank criteria (I mean, the colonies go from just off the shore to owning most of the inhabitable land in North America that is able to match in general terms the successor of Russia-I doubt that would not be considered a wank if done to most other countries.
 
Another question, anyone know good sources to read up on those states that could stay in this period?
 
If you take away the British offers of freedom to slaves (e.g. Lord Dunmore's proclamation), most of the southern states would probably stay reasonably loyal to Britain. That was probably what tipped the balance for the southern state leadership to side against Britain.
 
If you take away the British offers of freedom to slaves (e.g. Lord Dunmore's proclamation), most of the southern states would probably stay reasonably loyal to Britain. That was probably what tipped the balance for the southern state leadership to side against Britain.

In fact, even that didn't do much. It wasn't until the Patriots looked like they were sure to win that the Deep South(outside the Appalachians)really jumped into the fray, as it were. If that critical tipping point never gets reached and if the Patriots end up having more trouble, it's likely that the South(South Carolina especially) would indeed stay British, TBH.
 

Redhand

Banned
If you take away the British offers of freedom to slaves (e.g. Lord Dunmore's proclamation), most of the southern states would probably stay reasonably loyal to Britain. That was probably what tipped the balance for the southern state leadership to side against Britain.

I'm not totally sure about this. Conflict in the South during the revolution was less political than personal and the grudges that were held that led to conflict go far beyond the Regulators War. Slavery wasnt as widespread as you may think especially outside of the coastal areas. Conceivably Georgia could stay loyal as they didn't even send someone to the first congress. Also, you could see Nova Scotia rebelling if ITTL Halifax is not a major naval base. The popular sentiment was there but it was thwarted much like in the Caribbean.
 
Top