WI 'Northwest Territory' stayed British

There was an interesting thread started by Nugax, and another by myself to reexplore the idea, where we considered a slightly more southern border for Canada.
Can't find it right now but will have another look and post the links later.
 
How was the Northern border of Louisiana defined? I mean, if Britain was still in the Old North West, would Louisiana be assumed to extend as far North as it did?

If you see what I mean!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
How was the Northern border of Louisiana defined? I mean, if Britain was still in the Old North West, would Louisiana be assumed to extend as far North as it did?

If you see what I mean!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Yes, but further west.

The northern border was the "height of land" at the north end of the Mississippi Watershed, of course, no one knew exactly where that was, with the Mississippi River itself forming Louisiana's actual eastern border. At the time though the source of the Mississippi River was thought to be much farther west then it in fact is.
 
But then the Americans would probably have made a serious effort to take those lands in the War of 1812, or even at some point in between the two OTL conflicts' dates...

Increased conflict would be probable between the US and the BE, but New England would still be disinterested in war. A better British position in North America decreases New England's willingness to fight as long as its security is assured.
The US would still have the Louisiana purchase, which would give them access to Oregon country.

Also, this poses a huge problem with the US if 1812 breaks out now that Britain has direct access to the Mississippi River.
Increased British controlled territories directly bordering Louisiana in the event of war would result in the British sending some forces into the territory, at least the northern parts of it. As the territory would be at play during a war with France (most of it could be nominally occupied) then France could not sell, at least during the conflict itself. Due to American pressure I could see the US getting the Southern part, the British the Northern part plus river rights.

When I first saw this post I imagined Oregon, Washington and Idaho belonging to England and not as much as in the map. But I imagine if anything the British will invest more into making the Panama canal instead of the USA.
Possibly, the British enforced the Monroe Doctrine more then the Americans did
The US would have to be losing the American Revolution pretty badly to give up the Ohio territory. If the British did manage to keep it in the coming decades, I wonder if it would lead to all the Yankees who moved into the Northwest Territories OTL settling Missouri and Arkansas, dramatically changing their make-up.
Well it's not like it was truly occupied during the Revolution, and the US would still be getting Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama. I imagine that would keep enough Americans happy. At least for the in term.
Thing is, there never was any intention on the part of the British of "reclaiming the rebellious colonies". What there was was a few things: acceptance by military leaders that the colonies couldn't be held because of the vast requirements of controlling the interior, wide popular support among the non-voting classes back at home for the colonists' fight for their rights (note: not necessarily the same as "fight for their independence", and shouldn't be interpreted as a willingness to expand the revolution to the British Isles), and a bit of a cross between a petulant "have it your way and you'll be begging to come back in 10 years" and a depressive "well, we tried what we could for you, now we don't want anything more to do with you".

In short, once the colonies were gone, Parliament knew they were gone. There truly was zero interest in fighting to reconquer even a part of the colonies after the ARW had ended. Now, controlling the centre and west coast was a different story, but it also doesn't count as "reclaiming the rebellious colonies", since we are now talking about land that never was part of the 13 Colonies...
Agreed. One possible outcome of the war, if the NWT stayed British would be increased pressure back in GB for a increase of the franchise, sooner rather then later.
If you made the border from present day Toledo Ohio to Gary Indiana and then use 41 75N to the Pacific (pretty close to today's California-Oregon Border). The US may just go for it.
Never mind that the US would be claiming land belonging to France and Spain two of its co-belligerents or allies...
 
The British gave up the Northwest Territory because they knew keeping it would engineer a constant casus belli between Britain and the USA. The 13 colonies were the British manpower in North America. They weren't going to settle the Northwest Territory; only the USA would.

Keeping it would mean having to enforce their "control" of the region once American settlers pushed inland, which was only a matter of time. They'd either then need to back down, losing face, or fight yet another war - with even less advantages than they had in 1776.

We'd likely see a new war between the US and UK sometime between the French Revolution and 1812, possibly under Jefferson.
I agree that the 13 colonies were the British manpower in North America, but would question the conclusions you draw from that. Post Independence the US had a low migration rate because of more attractive land prospects in the Canadas. I believe that if it kept the Northwest Territory then there would be more loyalists that choose to go to lands still under the control of the Crown. There are two waves of loyalists those who genuinely wanted to remain under British rule and those that wanted land, and were mostly politically apathetic. With more British land opening up for settlement you would have more of both groups, possibly two thirds more. Especially when you start offering British and Hanoverian soldiers and there families land grants upon completion of their service. Admittedly that is still a lot less people then the 13 colonies had, but it would be enough to mount a more formidable resistance.

I agree there may be a war sooner then 1812, but it would depend on politics on both sides, as per usual
It's important to ask yourself and others if a change is actually plausible and can be done before starting a thread or map, and challenge yourself to see a change that can make it happen.

You'd have to come up with a solid reason for us to be happy with losing even Ohio to the west, or we'd be totally outsettling that turf like we did in Texas and Oregon.
The land was never the US's to loose in the first place.

I definitely think Ohio is a step too far but I personally think the OTL path of not really supporting the Indian Confederacy properly was less likely. It's completely obvious to have a convenient break on US expansion Westward and Tecmush could have provided it. Not least because it could be a solution for Britain's own Indian problem. Deporting all the Ontario and "Canadian" natives into the Confederacy and having it act as a heaven for Natives pissed off with the US and pretty soon you could have a sustainable and useful ally, that coincidentally would help Britain get a bigger share of the Great Plains.
Interesting idea, but support would be balanced with settlement goals
that would keep the Americans out of the old northwest. do you think it would improve the later histories of the planes indians?.
It might also lead with an earlier war with Mexico.
I think a earlier US war with Mexico is probable, as would the US taking more land
This is very plausible, I think. Some of the peace proposals envisioned in 1779 and 1780 saw the northwest staying in British hands along with the southern colonies.

I think that the cause of an earlier Mexican War would be the changed migration patterns of the settlers into the northern part of the Empire of Mexico.
Sound assumption, but is the land there better then what the British would be opening up for settlement?
 
I think there would have been an earlier war with Mexico with more land taken. I also think that within 20 years of that war the US would have split into two if not three countries with the northern states lead by New England leaving the country. The balance of power would have shifted to the south and any area taken from Mexico would have entered the country as slave states.
 
I think there would have been an earlier war with Mexico with more land taken. I also think that within 20 years of that war the US would have split into two if not three countries with the northern states lead by New England leaving the country. The balance of power would have shifted to the south and any area taken from Mexico would have entered the country as slave states.


Possible complication. If the Northwest Territory stays British, then Americans unwilling to come back under George III may go to Kentucky and Tennessee instead. This means that these states get a large influx of New Englanders and other northerners. Is it conceivable that they abolish slavery - in which case Missouri (if acquired) probably becomes a free stae as well?
 
This would be one of the driving factors of the war with mexico, the south wanting to remain on the top of the heep.
 
Possible complication. If the Northwest Territory stays British, then Americans unwilling to come back under George III may go to Kentucky and Tennessee instead. This means that these states get a large influx of New Englanders and other northerners. Is it conceivable that they abolish slavery - in which case Missouri (if acquired) probably becomes a free stae as well?
I think enough New Englanders would care more about getting good, cheap land then the political system. That said the balance in some states could tip towards the Union if it came to a civil war on 'state rights'.

This a is a follow up map with a few changes. British North America would expand due to treaties with France (Napoleonic Wars), Spain (money and for support during conflicts in Europe) and Russia (end of Crimean War), the US would expand through immigrate and take over (Texas), war (parts of Mexico), and a treaty with France (Southern Louisiana Territory). BE expansion to the Gulf would not occur due to US pressure on the BE and to a lesser extent France. One British treaty requirement on US expansion would be it receiving River Rights along the rivers to the Gulf

nawhatife.png

Pink= British North America;
Green (New England), Gray (Union), and Yellow (Confederacy) represent possible division of the US;
Purple= Mexico
 
Last edited:
I think enough New Englanders would care more about getting good, cheap land then the political system. That said the balance in some states could tip towards the Union if it came to a civil war on 'state rights'.

Agreed. Many Americans settled in Upper Canada (Ontario) at far too late a date to count as ARW Loyalists, and afaik gave Britain no trouble during the Wo1812.

What I envisage is a sort of "filtering" process, with the more anti-British types settling south of the Ohio, while the less fussy ones migrated west across the political boundary.
 
If the Green/gray colour is meant to the US, it seems really unrealistic. Of course, if it includes the yellow, well, looks good to me.
 
If the Green/gray colour is meant to the US, it seems really unrealistic. Of course, if it includes the yellow, well, looks good to me.
Green/ Gray/ Yellow are the United States and represent possible divisions.
Green= New England (may leave the Union)
Gray= the Union (could include New England)
Yellow= potential Confederate States (could leave the Union)

One thought on the map, Utah could go either way either BNA or USA
 
Last edited:
I like the map an the possible division. I think that the southern border would stay the same whether or not New England stayed in the Union or not. As to the self filtering for immigrent, this happened on the OTL between New England and the Maritimes but from Canada to the South. I have at least one great grandfather whose family left New England at the end of the AMR and returned in the 1880's.
 
If such a thing resorted from the Peace of Paris, could this actually force an earlier union in the United States under a constitution?

We could even perhaps have the Legion of the United States end up being expanded and moreso permanent, unlike Jefferson who believed that standing armies were unnecessary, he could actively support the growth of an army mainly because of his anti-British bias
 
Last edited:
Is any of this a possibility.
This is merely a rough draft. Nothing serious – yet. And I am aware of the glaring errors in understanding the American Revolution, but it does define the concepts of this thread…
Also posted here
Clashes of Liberty



1776-1783: American War of Independence fought between the Thirteen American colonies and Great Britain. Although the war lasts seven years, the American colonies, with assistance from France, Spain and the Dutch succeed in hammering down the British, but only after considerable sacrifice on the Americans part.

1778:
POD: In an attempt to neutralize the British alliance and influence among the Native American tribes the Americans, commanded by Colonel George Rogers Clark, invade the Ohio and Illinois Countries. The colonel succeeds in taking several British forts in southern Ohio, but in his attempts to take the forts in Illinois he is repulsed as the forts there have been reinforced by British and French-Canadian militia. Nevertheless Clark succeeds in capturing Fort Sackville. Henry Hamilton, the British General of Detroit upon hearing of Fort Sackville’s capture assumes command of a token force to retake the fort. He unfortunately has to march 600 miles from Detroit to Fort Sackville, which leaves his flanks and rear exposed allowing a flow of American militia to settle in the north-eastern Ohio regions. Hamilton nevertheless succeeds in recruiting some few hundred Native American allies on his march, and recaptures the fort.
Colonel Clark, upon hearing the forts capture returns with his own force of American militia, mixed with few regulars and some few American natives. Yet his attempt to assault the fort only ends in disaster, as the fort had been strengthened by significant reinforcements. This results in Colonel Clark’s death and the American militia retreats back across the Ohio river into Kentucky.
For the remainder of the war the British and their Indian allies would control the southern Ohio regions, including Illinois country, fortifying it and ensuring that the Americans would not mount another significant attack on the region.

1783: Treaty of Paris.
The aim of the Treaty of Paris was to create the territorial spheres of influence between the Colonials and the British. Although most of the articles had been agreed upon, the British insisted that the Ohio River would become their most southern border. The colonials though would hear none of this, pertaining that the British had foregone their right to claims on the land the moment they surrendered all territory which was encompassed within the United States – that of the Thirteen Colonies. The British diplomats merely retorted that the Northwest Territory was never apart of the Thirteen Colonies, but was acquiesced as apart of Quebec. This only served to rifle up indignation among their American counterparts who threatened a resumption of hostilities and probable conquest of the territory, knowing full well that the British feared a return to war against the combined might of France, Spain, Holland and the former colonies.
Between the three American negotiators, it is Benjamin Franklin who stood out far beyond his companions. Although John Jay and John Adams were crucial to creating the boundaries of the future United States, and would be just as significant in the future, it was Franklin who would be remembered as the architect.
It was rumored that during the negotiations that Franklin took the British diplomat, David Hartley off alone to the side of the room and placed before him a deal - that the British and Americans would divide the Northwest Territory between them. Supposedly Franklin demanded half, but Hartley refused that, apparently in order to no appear ‘too generous’, and to also curry favor with his constituents. Yet he agreed to take the offer to the King. Needless to say the British diplomat would return later that night as the three diplomats were preparing for bed. The terms were agreed upon. The eastern portions of the Northwest Territory would be given to the Americans, but the western districts would be forfeited to the Native tribes of the area – with British supervision and protection – naturally. Jay and Adams were prepared to protest, but were silenced by Franklin, who agreed. When asked later why he agreed to such a proposal, Franklin is said to have replied that “Common sense sometimes prevails over all other necessities”, and that, even in due time, he knew the Americans would fight over the lost territory…

1783-1790:
Thousands of loyalists flee the newly independent colonies. Most of those from New York to Massachusetts would immigrate north into Canada, whereas those loyalists in the southern states would immigrate mostly to the Illinois regions. Many others would either return to Britain or flee into the Caribbean islands.
Indian Territory could also be created earlier if necessary out of Illinois country, under British protection, which is obvious by immigration from the colonies/United States

1783-1789
Here I am having a bit of difficulty, but I am actually wondering if the Articles of Confederation or constitution of OTL would follow the same route, or if there would be a stronger central/federal government practically earlier.
As in the constitutional convention happens earlier and George Washington is inaugurated a couple of years earlier, perhaps 1785, mostly out of fear of the British surrounding them.
 
Top