WI Britain keeps more territory at American independence?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Assuming an American fight for independence, but Britain is able to hold more territory,which alternate borders between independent and British-controlled territories are most plausible? Answer the poll and explain your rationale

A) Britain keeps Maine, New York City, Long Island, and the cities of Savannah & Charleston, other US borders same as in settlement of OTL 1783.

B) Britain cedes independence to the territory of all 13 colonies, but keeps title to western BNA btwn Proclamation Line of 1763 and Mississippi

C) Britain cedes independence of all eastern seaboard states in their entirety, but keeps all the territory between them and the Mississippi.

D) Georgia never declares independence, remains loyal and British rules, and Britain backs its claim to latter-day Alabama and Mississippi

E) British keep loyalist governments in Georgia and South Carolina

F) British keeps loyalists governments in Georgia and both Carolinas.

G) Britain keeps all New York state

H) Britain keeps everything west of 1763 proclamation line and north of Ohio river

I) Britain keeps all colonial territory north of Massachussetts, south of Virginia and west of Pittsburgh
 
Sounds like the US independance would be only technical in this case, because this US would be completly surrounded by British territory and therefore at the mercy of th stronger British. If the war of 1812 tells us anything, a concentrated effort by Britain could and would obliterate the US, especially a reduced US.

So you've got a US that is constrained completely by Britain. Maybe after seeing areas kept by the British prosper their is a reconciliation to the crown? Kind of an early commonwealth. Or there is a war and the US is conquered...
 

Jasen777

Donor
Keeping loyalist governments in Georgia and the Carolinas and/or keeping the "west" seems the most likely to me.

NYC will likely have to be turned over to get peace, it's too important to New York (which the British are unlikely to control completely - at least post-Saratoga).

Georgia and the Carolinas had perhaps the strongest loyalists support and the British play there later in the war sought to secure them even if they couldn't regain the north. The west was very lightly settled and the British could have keep some (all?) of it if they had done better there militarily or made a larger attempt to do so.
 
Assuming an American fight for independence, but Britain is able to hold more territory,which alternate borders between independent and British-controlled territories are most plausible? Answer the poll and explain your rationale

A) Britain keeps Maine, New York City, Long Island, and the cities of Savannah & Charleston, other US borders same as in settlement of OTL 1783.

B) Britain cedes independence to the territory of all 13 colonies, but keeps title to western BNA btwn Proclamation Line of 1763 and Mississippi

C) Britain cedes independence of all eastern seaboard states in their entirety, but keeps all the territory between them and the Mississippi.

D) Georgia never declares independence, remains loyal and British rules, and Britain backs its claim to latter-day Alabama and Mississippi

E) British keep loyalist governments in Georgia and South Carolina

F) British keeps loyalists governments in Georgia and both Carolinas.

G) Britain keeps all New York state

H) Britain keeps everything west of 1763 proclamation line and north of Ohio river

I) Britain keeps all colonial territory north of Massachussetts, south of Virginia and west of Pittsburgh

Hmmm. Anything that entirely blocks US expansion westward would mean that peace would be only a brief interlude, and both side would know it. Britain keeping New York is implausible, the states would never let themselves be cut off like that, nor would they give up their second-largest city, so the ARW would just continue until one side won. Maine was almost entirely unsettled, and the US being forced to give it up is plausible. Britain keeping Georgia is plausible, especially if it stays loyal, but the states are going to be increasingly unhappy the more Southern states it hangs on to. They might not even have accepted being sandwiched in between two large swaths of British territory at all. However, I can see them trying to work out a peace treaty where the US gets Canada, and Britain keeps the southern colonies, if that's how the chips fell.
 
Hmmm. Anything that entirely blocks US expansion westward would mean that peace would be only a brief interlude, and both side would know it. Britain keeping New York is implausible, the states would never let themselves be cut off like that, nor would they give up their second-largest city, so the ARW would just continue until one side won. Maine was almost entirely unsettled, and the US being forced to give it up is plausible. Britain keeping Georgia is plausible, especially if it stays loyal, but the states are going to be increasingly unhappy the more Southern states it hangs on to. They might not even have accepted being sandwiched in between two large swaths of British territory at all. However, I can see them trying to work out a peace treaty where the US gets Canada, and Britain keeps the southern colonies, if that's how the chips fell.

Look at this thread: Dominion of Southern America
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Is it possible to add a poll to a thread already started?

I meant to do a poll, but accidentally clicked past that stage. Once the initial post goes up, I do not think adding a poll is possible.
 
Hmmm. Anything that entirely blocks US expansion westward would mean that peace would be only a brief interlude, and both side would know it.

Much like Canada was only British for a short period of time?

If British keeps Georgia and the West, the American states will be a French protectorate or British dependant, which is fine with London.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How did the Quebecois feel about the Quebec Act

...extending their territory down to the Ohio river? According to one thing I read, while they were glad their church was left alone, they were still ticked off by the Quebec act because it committed Quebecois to military service on behalf of the British.

After the revolution, when Britain was needing to settle loyalists, they shrank Quebec down again, ceding the old northwest, and reserving upper Canada for loyalists, effectively cancelling out all territorial gains from the Quebec act of 1774. Did Quebecois put up any resistance to this?
 
Much like Canada was only British for a short period of time?

If British keeps Georgia and the West, the American states will be a French protectorate or British dependant, which is fine with London.

Canada's different. While the early US would greatly like to take Canada, to destroy British presence on the continent if nothing else, there's still plenty of land for the taking westward, with a better climate. In contrast, the US would undoubtedly repeatedly try to seize swaths of unsettled territory from Britain if their expansion was entirely blocked off and they had the power to do so. And unless the US falls to pieces, they probably will have the power to occupy much of those border territories in war, even if they're losing on other fronts. Britain also doesn't have anywhere near the manpower the US does to fill those areas with settlers, meaning that repeated war over the territory would probably be inevitable.

After the revolution, when Britain was needing to settle loyalists, they shrank Quebec down again, ceding the old northwest, and reserving upper Canada for loyalists, effectively cancelling out all territorial gains from the Quebec act of 1774. Did Quebecois put up any resistance to this?

The British didn't want to do this, but they didn't have any choice. The American and French negotiators would probably have rejected a peace treaty that retained the Old Northwest for Britain. The British would need to be in a better negotiating position at the end of the ARW.
 
The British didn't want to do this, but they didn't have any choice. The American and French negotiators would probably have rejected a peace treaty that retained the Old Northwest for Britain. The British would need to be in a better negotiating position at the end of the ARW.

Actually the French more or less proposed exactly that, there is even a line of thought that the French wanted such a conclusion so as to poison future relations between Britain and the US.

Giving up the old northwest also wasn't popular in Parliament. In order to get away with the treaty parliament was kept out of session by Shelburne and when parliament resumed the government fell over such a lenient treaty. It was voted against twice and even Edmund Burke who was essentially with the rebels decried the territorial concessions and abandonment of the loyalists.

In the end the US got it because they were willing to go behind the back of the country instrumental in creating their victory and the British were willing to be soft to try and normalise relations and concentrate on the French.
 
If the British did manage to hold on to everything north of the Ohio River, I could imagine that the Loyalists might settle there as opposed to Quebec.
 
If britain keeps Ohio, but the colonies keep VA, Franklin and Ga to the Mississippi, we could see a divided Louisiana purchase. Slavery would of course be stronger
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
A couple points -

---Regarding a scenario where Britain retains sovereignty over the Old Northwest, how would Britain resolve the probably competing interests of the Quebecois, Anglophone loyalists, and Amerindian allies?

---Regarding a scenario where Britain retains sovereignty over some or all of the Deep South, how would Britain resolve the probably competing interests of Anglophone white loyalist slaveholders, Anglophone back-country yeoman, Amerindian allies, and free or escaped black refugees from USA territory, many with records of service to the British?

---Regarding probability of future conflict, I do have the feeling that renewed Anglo-American war is quite likely, and before 1812 at that, in any peace settlement where where the British retain all the Trans-Allegheny west. I am less confident renewed conflict is likely if Britain retains more territory on the northern (Maine) or southern (Georgia, etc) flanks of the US. Although, with the eventual importance of Mississippi navigation, and with southern insecurities about slaveholding security, British territory to the south could also cause alot of tension, at least if it goes beyond current day Florida.
---thoughts?

I think that the outcome of future Anglo-American conflicts is by no means certain as the first respondent thought. Britain can harass the east coast on all flanks, but America will have a continually growing population and economy. Plus, America could host efficient French revolutionary armies in between any alt-French revolution and alt-Trafalgar, and even support a body of veteran troops by its own resources if sea communications are cut-off. However, the British can make more use of western discontent, Amerindian allies or possibly servile war.
 
The only likely event is the British retaining 2/3 of the Deep South states and then having a British colony expanding to the Mississippi River. This was actually proposed after the Battle of Camden, there was much debate over whether a '10 state solution' should be offered to the British while the Revolutionaries panicked after getting battered at Camden. Of course this never came to fruition. I can only see this causing future issues though, firstly with Spain over New Orleans (no Louisiana purchase in this tl, it'd be pointless, the British would just ninja New Orleans as soon as Spain transferred it to France) and in the long term with the United States as Britain controls NO and has a stranglehold on much of the transport of trans-applachian American goods. In the long run the abolition of slavery is going to have real problems in the UK when you have the Georgian/South Carolinian plantation owners in alliance with the West Indians.

As already mentioned the French were hoping that the British would hold onto the Old North-West and this would cause future conflict. The British politicians in power were well aware of this issue and neatly sidestepped the potential for conflict by giving it up to the United States despite the fact that the USA had no real claim to it (depending on whether you want to believe colonial charters or the Quebec Act as law). Not only would it cause conflict but there was little point in holding it when Canada was barely populated outside of old Quebec and the new USA controlled the Eastern seaboard. Of course the British didn't exactly play fair and retained their forts in this region for another decade and a bit but the fact was that any sensible politician would have realised it's potential for trouble, outside of politicians attempting to score points on an unpopular cabinet.
 
Last edited:
Actually the French more or less proposed exactly that, there is even a line of thought that the French wanted such a conclusion so as to poison future relations between Britain and the US.

Giving up the old northwest also wasn't popular in Parliament. In order to get away with the treaty parliament was kept out of session by Shelburne and when parliament resumed the government fell over such a lenient treaty. It was voted against twice and even Edmund Burke who was essentially with the rebels decried the territorial concessions and abandonment of the loyalists.

In the end the US got it because they were willing to go behind the back of the country instrumental in creating their victory and the British were willing to be soft to try and normalise relations and concentrate on the French.

The United States had been bound by treaty with France to not make a separate peace with Britain, it was the French who decided to annul the agreement in the final stages of the war, so as not to have their gains from the war lumped together with the Americans' in negotiation.
 
What about smaller adjustments? A slightly smaller Maine, or parts of Wisconsin or the Michigan peninsula? Maybe no major impact on the OTL viability of the US or its westward expansion, but possibly may be a big change to Canada's pathway to development
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
a couple clarifications -

Sucrose:
The United States had been bound by treaty with France to not make a separate peace with Britain, it was the French who decided to annul the agreement in the final stages of the war, so as not to have their gains from the war lumped together with the Americans' in negotiation.

Just curious what you've been reading on the subject. I had never heard it explained this way. I had tended to hear about the US and British taking the most initiative to cut a side deal. My understanding was the GW's neutrality proclamation of 1793 or 1794 undercut the substance of the alliance, and the Franco-American convention of 1800 formally annulled the alliance by mutual consent. (it was not hard to ackowledge it was a dead letter since the Quasi-war had happened in the meantime.

...but I do say that I agree that continued British occupation of the west (and maybe Georgia and territories at its latitudes) would increase odds of future conflict. But how do you see each side faring? The obvious answer is "they both lose" but it would be interesting to see which side suffers more from continued conflict over the long run.

Faeelin:

I
f British keeps Georgia and the West, the American states will be a French protectorate or British dependant, which is fine with London.

I presume you meant to say that the American states being a British dependant would be fine with London, but surely not the states being a French protectorate. The latter it seems to me would be a big pain in the tush for Britain, especially as time went on.

Magneto:
As already mentioned the French were hoping that the British would hold onto the Old North-West and this would cause future conflict. The British politicians in power were well aware of this issue and neatly sidestepped the potential for conflict by giving it up to the United States despite the fact that the USA had no real claim to it (depending on whether you want to believe colonial charters or the Quebec Act as law). Not only would it cause conflict but there was little point in holding it when Canada was barely populated outside of old Quebec and the new USA controlled the Eastern seaboard. Of course the British didn't exactly play fair and retained their forts in this region for another decade and a bit but the fact was that any sensible politician would have realised it's potential for trouble, outside of politicians attempting to score points on an unpopular cabinet.


Indeed it seems to me that the British were perspicacious in being generous WRT the old Northwest, at least as far as their official and political apex was concerned. The various intrigues through local officials to try to block expansion, occupy forts and support Amerindian allies were tolerated, probably in part because there was a degree of sentimental support for those measures, but the British managed to keep their liability limited, refusing to spend much blood and treasure to thwart the U.S.

Now in a world with a where fighting France was less lengthy and exhausting for 20 years, Britain *might* have felt it could afford to be more obstructionist against America, but I am still not sure they would have invested much in the cause of impeding the US south of the great lakes. (and shortened or eased wars with France would have limited the maritime irritants to the US quite a bit).
 
Top