Musings on Britain holding New England during the American Revolution.

[Gentleman Johnny]

So, I've been thinking lately on how the American Revolution could have gone differently and seen certain states be retained by Britain. Of course, Britain holding the south has been discussed many times, but rarely have I seen a TL or discussion on Britain holding New England. It makes sense since New England was the hotbed of the revolution. Without them it stands to reason the revolution may die out. However, I think it could have survived without New England. Sure, it makes things a lot harder, but not impossible. So, I put together a little idea on how things may have gone differently. Let me know if you think it's plausible, or if I'm completely nuts.


As colonial discontent rises, the Patriot movement, instead of centering in New England (more specifically Boston) centers more in the middle & southern colonies. Instead of a Boston Massacre, we have a New York Massacre when the Battle of Golden Hill goes worse than OTL. Meanwhile, the events leading to the Boston Massacre go slightly different, and see things diffused without violence.

Instead of the Boston Tea Party, we have a couple of different options. Tea parties occurred in other cities which could have replaced the Boston Tea Party. One scenario is a Charleston Tea Party. This was the 1st tea party, where colonists seized the tea and locked it up in the exchange. Perhaps we could push things and see the tea dumped in the harbor instead. Or we could go with the New York Tea Party which did almost occur. The colonists held the captain hostage and convinced him to simply leave with a massive shipment of tea. Perhaps he is more stubborn or a different captain is there is this TL and he insists on delivering the tea. Perhaps Governor Tyron hears of this and attempts to force the tea to land. Either way, a tea party orrurs and we see a (for example) New York Port Act instead of a Boston Port Act.

Meanwhile, Boston has seen major arrests. Samuel Adams (arrested after a failed Boston Tea Party attempt), Paul Revere (arrested for attempted Tea Party), and later John Hancock (caught smuggling) are all arrested, removing their influence in stirring up rebellion. Of course, this wouldn't remove all dissent, only move the ire of Britain to other colonies, allowing more room for conciliatory voices to be heard. Eventually, Thomas Gage is made governor of New York, removing Tryon. We can posit similar events occurring there as they did in Massachusetts OTL.

Eventually there'd be a battle similar to Lexington & Concord that would kick things off. Washington would plan an assault on NYC but, similar to OTL, would probably not take place as Gage would likely have to evacuate for similar reasons he evacuated Boston OTL. However, perhaps he would evacuate to Boston, with it being a good city to rally to with a nice port for the Royal Navy. Perhaps Boston could fulfill the role NYC did in OTL, as a Loyalist stronghold, with many loyalists rallying to the city, securing it for Britain. Many battles of the Revolution would take place throughout New England, with mixed results. The exact outcome of the war from here is up to interpretation, but we could perhaps see an independent USA minus some New England states.


Perhaps this is too simplistic, but a world where New England is held by Britain at the end of the war is one that interests me. Specifically, I imagine a scenario where the border rests, perhaps, at the Connecticut River, splitting Connecticut & Massachusetts in two. Anyway, let me know what you think and if this is plausible. If you think it isn't plausible, please let me know how you think New England could have been held by Britain.


Thanks.​

 

[Dan1988]

Honestly, for me, to pull that off means having a pre-Revolutionary POD more Puritan immigration to (most of) the other 13 colonies rather than just Massachusetts (including Maine as the Massachusetts Bay Colony held that at the time) and Connecticut. One of the reasons why the Revolution started in New England was because of how much it was a hotbed of Puritanism, which defined and marked out the regional culture at the time - which was also why during the English Civil War/Commonwealth/Protectorate, New England was consistently on the side of Oliver Cromwell and Parliament when the rest of England's American colonies were more sympathetic to the Cavaliers. It's possible, in that case, to have the early settlers of Virginia - to take one obvious example - overshadowed by the growth of Puritanism there and expand outwards, at an early stage of colonization.

In that case, by having Puritans become the numerical majority, the culture is a lot more uniform than OTL - failing that, having the center of gravity of Puritanism shift outside of New England and have it repopulated by other people could work (well, with the exception of Rhode Island - it was always going to dissent with the rest of the Puritan universe, or even a completely different New England, for all sorts of things, and its reputation for tolerance and being outside of The Norm (R) meant that, among other things, it would take a leading role in both rum production and the global slave trade, for example). Failing that, another possibility (one which would be far more challenging and requires a lot of creativity, but paradoxically could be easier in terms of not having to change a lot around in terms of demographics) could revolve around the creation of the centralized Dominion of New England. In exchange for giving up political autonomy (as the New England colonies saw it, which by that point was becoming outdated as a theory once Parliament established itself as the supreme authority - which New England supported!), England could potentially soften up on the Navigation Acts within the Dominion of New England only and hence possibly regulate "smuggling" as a legal profession that was licensed. Hence meeting New England somewhat halfway in terms of its economic arrangements by de facto legalizing them. Granted, it goes against the spirit of mercantilism (as well as the whole reason why the Dominion was formed in the first place), but at the time if England wanted to buy loyalty for when the Revolution would inevitably come, it's easier to make compromises that bridge the gaps. For me, that would mean guaranteeing some form of economic autonomy - and probably a better governance arrangement for the Dominion that, while still formally a colony that falls under Parliamentary sovereignty (a Dominion then, Royal Provinces elsewhere which later became the Crown colony), would still bear some hallmark of distinctiveness and serve as a compromise between the centralization James II desired and the political autonomy the colonizers were accustomed to. Perhaps a new, single colonial charter as a basis for the Dominion's existence?

 

[Gentleman Johnny]

Honestly, for me, to pull that off means having a pre-Revolutionary POD more Puritan immigration to (most of) the other 13 colonies rather than just Massachusetts (including Maine as the Massachusetts Bay Colony held that at the time) and Connecticut. One of the reasons why the Revolution started in New England was because of how much it was a hotbed of Puritanism, which defined and marked out the regional culture at the time - which was also why during the English Civil War/Commonwealth/Protectorate, New England was consistently on the side of Oliver Cromwell and Parliament when the rest of England's American colonies were more sympathetic to the Cavaliers. It's possible, in that case, to have the early settlers of Virginia - to take one obvious example - overshadowed by the growth of Puritanism there and expand outwards, at an early stage of colonization.

In that case, by having Puritans become the numerical majority, the culture is a lot more uniform than OTL - failing that, having the center of gravity of Puritanism shift outside of New England and have it repopulated by other people could work (well, with the exception of Rhode Island - it was always going to dissent with the rest of the Puritan universe, or even a completely different New England, for all sorts of things, and its reputation for tolerance and being outside of The Norm (R) meant that, among other things, it would take a leading role in both rum production and the global slave trade, for example). Failing that, another possibility (one which would be far more challenging and requires a lot of creativity, but paradoxically could be easier in terms of not having to change a lot around in terms of demographics) could revolve around the creation of the centralized Dominion of New England. In exchange for giving up political autonomy (as the New England colonies saw it, which by that point was becoming outdated as a theory once Parliament established itself as the supreme authority - which New England supported!), England could potentially soften up on the Navigation Acts within the Dominion of New England only and hence possibly regulate "smuggling" as a legal profession that was licensed. Hence meeting New England somewhat halfway in terms of its economic arrangements by de facto legalizing them. Granted, it goes against the spirit of mercantilism (as well as the whole reason why the Dominion was formed in the first place), but at the time if England wanted to buy loyalty for when the Revolution would inevitably come, it's easier to make compromises that bridge the gaps. For me, that would mean guaranteeing some form of economic autonomy - and probably a better governance arrangement for the Dominion that, while still formally a colony that falls under Parliamentary sovereignty (a Dominion then, Royal Provinces elsewhere which later became the Crown colony), would still bear some hallmark of distinctiveness and serve as a compromise between the centralization James II desired and the political autonomy the colonizers were accustomed to. Perhaps a new, single colonial charter as a basis for the Dominion's existence?

Thanks for the response! I didn't want to go with a PoD that's too far back because then the entire revolution can be butterflied to be basically whatever you want. I wanted to think of some PoDs to be as close the actual event as possible.

If you think my ideas simply are too far fetched, would it just make more sense to have the British simply conquer New England militarily while losing the rest of the colonies? Maybe have a successful version of the Saratoga Campaign where New England is cut off and eventually conquered while the rest of the colonies manage to continue the war?

Thanks again for the response.​

 

[Gentleman Johnny]

Any other thoughts about this? I've seen a couple maps that have a Loyalist New England and even an awesome wikibox series about it, but I've never seen an in depth discussion on how to exactly pull it off.​

 

[kotchium]

One idea i had is that maybe France retains Canada and the Maritimes somehow, and it would make New England feel more under threat, but i doubt it, mainly because even OTL the New Englanders were afraid of the French Canadians and they still led the revolution.

Maybe the British simply conquer New England during the revolution? That might just end the revolution entirely though, or they may give it back seeing as in the peace they wanted to maintain good relations with America. I think this is very difficult without changing the very nature of the revolution.

 

[Hastings]

Yeah, this is very hard to have happen. New England was the hotbed OTL of the Revolution and was an insane manpower generator for the cause. A Britain that can subdue New England can subdue all the colonies, which is something I've increasingly come to believe is near-impossible to achieve militarily. 1770s are really probably too late to change things. Things happening in New England was as much an effect as a cause of patriotism. Issue is you probably really need to go a ways back, because the Puritan roots mentioned. Conversely the Revolution was weaker in plantation territories, which were more tied to England in terms of imports and class. New York being fairly loyalist is probably connected how it for a long time was the most 'southern' northern state.

 

[raharris1973]

Could we be satisfied with a partial?

Continued British ownership, by reconquest alone, of *northern* New England, seems doable, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, simply because of its lower population, proximity to Lower Canada and the Maritimes. Maybe it pairs well with a permanent occupation of Upstate New York, or an Iroquois buffer states

 

[Brak]

Maybe have a successful version of the Saratoga Campaign where New England is cut off and eventually conquered while the rest of the colonies manage to continue the war?​

No. This will never happen:

And in all seriousness, the Saratoga Campaign was one of the first instances in the whole war when the advantages of the Americans really came together in one place. British attrition, surrounding the enemy far from their coastal supply lines, concentrating militia from hundreds of miles around, a favorable terrain ect.

 

[kotchium]

Could we be satisfied with a partial?

Continued British ownership, by reconquest alone, of *northern* New England, seems doable, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, simply because of its lower population, proximity to Lower Canada and the Maritimes. Maybe it pairs well with a permanent occupation of Upstate New York, or an Iroquois buffer states

Possible, Britain did set up the Colony of New Ireland in Maine that was intended to be a colony for loyalists. In fact it did that twice, once in the War of Independence and once in the War of 1812

 

[SWS]

And in all seriousness, the Saratoga Campaign was one of the first instances in the whole war when the advantages of the Americans really came together in one place. British attrition, surrounding the enemy far from their coastal supply lines, concentrating militia from hundreds of miles around, a favorable terrain ect.

I think it remarkably comparable to the Civil War's Red River campaign.

 

[Belisarius II]

One idea i had is that maybe France retains Canada and the Maritimes somehow, and it would make New England feel more under threat, but i doubt it, mainly because even OTL the New Englanders were afraid of the French Canadians and they still led the revolution.

Maybe the British simply conquer New England during the revolution? That might just end the revolution entirely though, or they may give it back seeing as in the peace they wanted to maintain good relations with America. I think this is very difficult without changing the very nature of the revolution.

If the French still hold Canada, the ARW would've almost certainly not have happened. The UK felt safe in alienating the Colonies because they no longer saw them as defenders of the Empire but as a cash cow to be squeezed for all it's worth. For their part the Colonials looked to Britain for their defense against France and Spain.

 

[Belisarius II]

Could we be satisfied with a partial?

Continued British ownership, by reconquest alone, of *northern* New England, seems doable, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, simply because of its lower population, proximity to Lower Canada and the Maritimes. Maybe it pairs well with a permanent occupation of Upstate New York, or an Iroquois buffer states

After the American victory at Saratoga that was not a viable option. The Patriot militias on the northern frontier were just too strong. The Sullivan Expedition of 1779 destroyed the power of the Iroquois confederacy. After 1777-78 there was no power in the north that could do what you're suggesting.