WI: The 1782 French proposal for the Treaty of Paris is accepted

For the purposes of this scenario, let's suppose that the United States is in a troublesome position at this point in the American Revolutionary War (how it comes to be in this position is up to discussion). The Thirteen Colonies are under such stress that they are willing to accept any treaty that grants them independence. So, they readily accept France's 1782 peace proposal instead of negotiating a more generous treaty from the British.

The territorial changes outlined by France are pictured below:
800px-Map_of_North_America%2C_1782_%28Life_of_William%2C_Earl_of_Shelburne%29_%28edited%29.jpg


How would these borders effect overall American history? Western expansion would surely be more difficult, although not entirely impossible. How would the weakening of the United States on the international stage affect world history?
 
the Northwest Territory - Illinois/Indiana/Michigan plus Ohio - are going to be part of the Indian Territories. This will effectively block US migration westward for quite a while. This will diminish friction between US and Spain over Mississippi River navigation which largely stemmed from the NW territory. This, in turn, may affect the Louisiana Purchase.
 
I will add this - with a British backed Indian Territory, the natives will be able to play one 'white' power against the other. The US won't have such a free hand in pushing the natives around. They can try to push the natives from the south into the NW, but Britain will back these tribes and US will have a tougher time.
 
Yeah this is a huge win for the Native Americans, whereby they are very close to full on recognized sovereignty. Although the key states that the tribes within Indian territory are split between American and Spanish "protection" - read that as annexation - there is the giant refuge of the Old Northwest which is British Territory and thus cannot be infringed by American settlers without punishment therein.


Also, with such a small United States at the founding I project that slavery will end with the ratification of the Constitution or whatever similar document might arise.
 
Also, with such a small United States at the founding I project that slavery will end with the ratification of the Constitution or whatever similar document might arise.
With this ATL, USA has less territory, but the land they don't have here is mostly unsettled by whites. USA still has all the core, populated area, that it had OTL. The politics are going to be similar. The circumstances that led to a less fortunate treaty may lead to a different political situation, but in a vacuum, simply losing the NW territory isn't going to change the fortunes of slavery.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The British can promote both settlement of the area by British and reserve 1/2 the land for natives. That and the presence of British soldiers would provide a combination of deterrent and making sure American settlers are supportive of British claims.
 
This means American westward settlement is focused on the cotton belt. This America is going to become effectively the CSA.
 
The British can promote both settlement of the area by British and reserve 1/2 the land for natives. That and the presence of British soldiers would provide a combination of deterrent and making sure American settlers are supportive of British claims.
load up Ohio/southern Illinois with loyalists, and leave Michigan/Indiana/northern Illinois for the natives.
 

Deleted member 109224

This means American westward settlement is focused on the cotton belt. This America is going to become effectively the CSA.

Alternatively, there's more pressure to keep slavery out of the southwest lands.

Jefferson's proposal to ban slavery from the southwest territories in 1784 failed by just one vote.

TTN and KY being slave states isn't guaranteed. Looking at that map, the bits of TN and KY that are best for slavery are Spanish too. Odds are more northerners will end up in KY and TN TTL if they want to go west but not go to British territory.


A problem there is where do you drive the natives to if the Louisiana Purchase doesn't happen?

No Louisiana Purchase could just mean a different expansion west. Holding OTL history constant, the Spanish are still going to have trouble when Napoleon comes knocking and the Americans might just march west. TTL's 1812 would probably be against Spain, not Britain.

If Jefferson and Americans generally thought taking Canada was just going to be a simple matter of walking, why wouldn't they have the same opinion of the Spanish? And without the Northwest, there won't be the tensions over British forts in American territory.



Alternatively, why wouldn't the Indian lands east of the Mississippi just be considered part of Louisiana when France hands the place over to the Americans?
 

Lusitania

Donor
The thing is does Napoleon hand over Louisiana? Do they still loose Haiti? If not does Napoleon still dream of a settler colony? If do he not sell it.
 
IF Louisiana is not part of the US, the US will have a problem relocating the natives. For the most part, native lands were taken via treaty. Crooked treaty, maybe, but still treaty. The natives aren't signing over their lands with nothing in return, and the US is in need of someplace to promise them. They can't simply march the natives to the border and say, so long. And, as bad as the natives were treated, overt sanctioned genocide was not on the table.

Naked aggression against a weaker neighbor, though, is up for discussion. Dunno if US has the gall to do it without a real causus belli this early in their existence. Plus, no OTL war of 1812 means the US military is reliant on militia, which typically is averse to traveling too far from home base (in other words, good for defense, not so good for conquest).
 
I don't see how the states are going to approve this. Keep in mind, most of them believed to own significant land in the west (often conflicting), and are going to see this as a massive concession.

Nor do I see how the British are able to enforce their territorial claims. Migration massively sped up to the US in the decades after 1783 from Northwest Europe in particular and most of that was because of push rather than pull factors. You are still going to see an unmitigated flow of settlement westwards, and the British Army is not going to be able to stop that.

But more immediately, there were already American settlements west of that line, and had been fighting a war of survival against attempts by the Shawnee and Creek to exterminate them during the War of Independence. For this treaty to be enforced, I am guessing either they will be forcefully moved east, or more likely, they will be supported by Virginia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania in the years to come.

I suppose it would be easier for this treaty to happen if Sevier's and Boone's groups were massacred a few years before, which almost happened.
 
Do the settlements west of the line saw themselves as Americans though? If supported by the British army they will welcome Britain with open arms and to hell with the easterners.
 
Do the settlements west of the line saw themselves as Americans though? If supported by the British army they will welcome Britain with open arms and to hell with the easterners.
The ones in the far northwest territory, no. They are mostly settlements that are trading posts near or in British forts (Fort Detroit, Fort Mackinac, Kaskaskia, etc.). But those areas would be part of the British territory awarded in the treaty. The same would go for the Metis and French contingents in the Canadian Praries.

The ones in Indian Country, or west of the Proclamation Line but east of the big river boundaries, undoubtedly yes. They mobilized during Cornwallis's invasion of the South and annihilated one of his subordinates at King's Mountain, and the ones in modern day Kentucky had named settlements after American victories and generals already, as well as fought against the Shawnee and British contingent in the Ohio Valley. Loyalists over the mountains on the frontier were not really a thing seeing as the settlements were basically illegal outposts that defied King George's Proclamation according to the British. The exception to this may have been some Georgia loyalists who early in the war fled to Savannah whose settlements might have been on the wrong side of the line.
 
You are still going to see an unmitigated flow of settlement westwards, and the British Army is not going to be able to stop that.

I see this going two ways :

A.) The immigrants assimilate into Canada

or

B.) The immigrants rebel, leading to either the rebellion being crushed, or the United States intervening causing an alternate War of 1812 (which will probably not lead to anything, considering the diminished state of the US in this alternate timeline)
 
I see this going two ways :

A.) The immigrants assimilate into Canada

or

B.) The immigrants rebel, leading to either the rebellion being crushed, or the United States intervening causing an alternate War of 1812 (which will probably not lead to anything, considering the diminished state of the US in this alternate timeline)

Or (C) all of the above, which is what happened IOTL.
 
Top