I'll dodge the question of statehood for Bermuda, & accompanying discussion. Nuetral here I really am... I do see a stratgic effect over a century later if Bermuda remains a US territory. When the US declared its western Atlantic Nuetral or Exclusion Zone early in WWII Bermuda as a US territory would provide a excuse for extending the Exclusion Zone further east further interfering with German submarine and surface raider operations.
What happens to Bermuda and the Bahamas in the United States?
- Thread starter JJohnson
- Start date
Hm. I don't really know, to be honest. That depends on the impending argument the Founders were likely to have over Bahamian/Bermudan statehood, maybe? Don't know. Not too studied up on the prospect of additional states following the 1783 Treaty of Paris. I'd expect, however, that if Bermuda joined the war under the perceived belief that they'd be accepted as a state in the Union following its conclusion, that this would probably be afforded regardless of population or landmass requirements.
Oh, doesn't it? Really? In what town do I live, I wonder.
Given that it's less than 3,000 people, as you stated...errrr...yeah.
" . . .millions of butterflies suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."
Tallest Skil
Banned
You have that backward.
Also, there's only one town in the US with fewer than 3,000 people?
You have that backward.
Also, there's only one town in the US with fewer than 3,000 people?
Errrr...you're either trying to confuse me on purpose or you are trying...to...defeat yourself? I don't really understand your argument.
Oh, doesn't it? Really? In what town do I live, I wonder.
Why does that matter, I wonder. Neither did Delaware.
Thank you for displaying ignorance yet again when I had to correct you re: Maryland and now self-government.
My entire point is this. Bermuda is small. That's plainly obvious. But it had its own government, had it since its colonization, and would not merely join itself into another state or accept lesser status.
The entire reason I mentioned PEI earlier, and the various New England states joining into one big one, and Delaware is because those subdivisions ARE small in area and population compared to many other states or provinces, yet their being a separate government has given that place a status they will not give up for the hell of it upon joining their countries' unions. What of that do you not get?
Tallest Skil
Banned
You misunderstood me. I corrected you. That's all that happened here.
Your point being what? Answer the question.
You're certain? They'd have more control than ever before. They wouldn't accept that?
The part where your cutoff point is ludicrously unrealistic and mine is not, since it's OTL.
Er...doesn't that kind of, you know, go against the whole premise of what this website is essentially designed to discuss?
I just did. As its own government it's entitled, should it be won in the revolution or join it - that is, to be colonials that have ended up being part of the rebellion against Britain - to enter in as a state with its own senators and yes, representative. Just like any of the OTL states.
And incidentally, your ignorance of a small state that joined in OTL shows how little knowledge you have of the subject. I'm prickly on the subject precisely because if I happened to be part of a small area that DID have its own self-government, I wouldn't want to just be made a territory suddenly under centralized control of a federal government.
That they'd have more control than ever before, as a state? I agree. You are purposely ignoring the point I'm making here.
The Articles of Confederation and thence Constitution are ludicrously unrealistic with regards to the timeframe of the smaller states that joined the USA?
Also, what MN.Gruber06 said above me.
Tallest Skil
Banned
No. There's realism and then there's ASB. This isn't in the latter, so "ludicrously unrealistic" can probably be discounted.
So any area of any size that decided it wanted state-level representation after the war was over should have received it, you're saying.
So how does that relate? How am I the only person to see there is a vast difference between Delaware and Bermuda becoming states?
It wouldn't be; it would be part of a state. No way would I want it to just be a territory.
As part of a state, yes.
Like Vermont did, and the State of Franklin almost did - and neither had expansive boundaries. As did Kentucky, in fact, even though they had to wait until after the Constitution was developed.
Would you deny Vermont and Kentucky statehood? And considering Franklin was Tennessee's forerunner, I suppose the same. Especially with just the borders Franklin had.
Not just that. Rhode Island or any New England state. Bermuda had its own existing government you are intending to wipe out or ignore completely. But I suppose you shall just refer to it as an 'area', as per above.
Ah. So if they didn't want to be part of any particular state you'd force it upon them, then. Delightful.
On the matter of Bermuda as a state or not, why not meet in the middle?
Sure, Bermuda is tiny and had (and still has) a small population, however you must also recognise that Bermuda has the pride of being the oldest English speaking settlement in the New World (I believe), and has a history of being its own colony, so won't give that up.
Thus, why not enter it as a state in its own right with the islands it controlled at the time - the Turks and Caicos Islands? While their population is still very small, area-wise the islands would add another 193 square miles to the Bermudan state.
Now I assume that, unless the Bahamas kicked up a stink, the Bermudans would be happy with this - the small population of the islands guarantees Bermuda's dominance for the time being, whilst making them seem more legitimate as a state.
Sure, Bermuda is tiny and had (and still has) a small population, however you must also recognise that Bermuda has the pride of being the oldest English speaking settlement in the New World (I believe), and has a history of being its own colony, so won't give that up.
Thus, why not enter it as a state in its own right with the islands it controlled at the time - the Turks and Caicos Islands? While their population is still very small, area-wise the islands would add another 193 square miles to the Bermudan state.
Now I assume that, unless the Bahamas kicked up a stink, the Bermudans would be happy with this - the small population of the islands guarantees Bermuda's dominance for the time being, whilst making them seem more legitimate as a state.
Tallest Skil
Banned
Are you honestly suggesting that Kentucky and a 20 square mile piece of rock are the same thing.
They're welcome to be a territory or part of the federal district in this case. I'm pretty sure they'd take state-level representation over that, given your own statements.
Distance.
JJohnson
Banned
I wasn't aware of Bermuda having controlled Turks and Caicos; that would be an interesting thing to see in the Treaty negotiations. If the Americas do claim sovereignty over Bermuda, would they then see the British claim right to the Turks and Caicos, and turn that into their naval fortress in the Caribbean?
Or, if this is a timeline in which we see Canada joining in the revolution, perhaps Quebec cedes some of its territory in return for Bermuda, which then becomes a northern Loyalist stronghold - either east of Lac St. Jean or west of the Ottawa River perhaps.
Keeping it just to the Bahamas and Bermuda...given that they both had claims to the Turks and Caicos, that would be an interesting state fight to see.
The French OTL landed forces on the island in 1783, which Captain Nelson couldn't remove; maybe the French expect access to the salt there which the Americans, after the French Revolution, say 'no' causing the Quasi-war to go a little hotter this timeline.
As for statehood; if Bermuda's in as a state, then I can see them arguing for Turks and Caicos as state territory given their history of resource usage, now that I've seen what history was like OTL.
After statehood, do you think these two states will see architecture that looks like shanty shacks, sheets of corrugated steel, or actual houses in the colonial/federal style, and eventually modern houses?
Or, if this is a timeline in which we see Canada joining in the revolution, perhaps Quebec cedes some of its territory in return for Bermuda, which then becomes a northern Loyalist stronghold - either east of Lac St. Jean or west of the Ottawa River perhaps.
Keeping it just to the Bahamas and Bermuda...given that they both had claims to the Turks and Caicos, that would be an interesting state fight to see.
The French OTL landed forces on the island in 1783, which Captain Nelson couldn't remove; maybe the French expect access to the salt there which the Americans, after the French Revolution, say 'no' causing the Quasi-war to go a little hotter this timeline.
As for statehood; if Bermuda's in as a state, then I can see them arguing for Turks and Caicos as state territory given their history of resource usage, now that I've seen what history was like OTL.
After statehood, do you think these two states will see architecture that looks like shanty shacks, sheets of corrugated steel, or actual houses in the colonial/federal style, and eventually modern houses?
I think the argument that Bermuda couldn't be a state is flawed by modern attitudes about what it means to be a state.
Statehood wasn't awarded by the federal government to territories until the Northwest Ordinance. There simply wasn't an idea that the centralized government managed the states until much later. The Continental Congress during the Revolution was simply delegates from the political entities involved with the Revolution, and as such would welcome delegates from any entity that signed up. IIRC, one of the Canadian colonies sent a delegate or two.
So yes, if Bermuda, or any other island territory with a pre-existing government involved themselves in the Revolution, they would be considered states. This would cause huge butterflies in the formation of Congress, the Electoral College, and the development of the government's relationships with the states as new states emerge.
More short-term, the question is where would the Loyalists who went to Bermuda and the Bahamas OTL go? What would the effects of this altered exodus go? Is there any developing settler colony that the British could cement control over with the Loyalist emigrants?
Statehood wasn't awarded by the federal government to territories until the Northwest Ordinance. There simply wasn't an idea that the centralized government managed the states until much later. The Continental Congress during the Revolution was simply delegates from the political entities involved with the Revolution, and as such would welcome delegates from any entity that signed up. IIRC, one of the Canadian colonies sent a delegate or two.
So yes, if Bermuda, or any other island territory with a pre-existing government involved themselves in the Revolution, they would be considered states. This would cause huge butterflies in the formation of Congress, the Electoral College, and the development of the government's relationships with the states as new states emerge.
More short-term, the question is where would the Loyalists who went to Bermuda and the Bahamas OTL go? What would the effects of this altered exodus go? Is there any developing settler colony that the British could cement control over with the Loyalist emigrants?
I descend in part from South Carolina loyalists who came to the Bahamas in 1785. So in this TL I've been butterflied away, for all intents and purposes. The loyalists would have gone to Canada, and to islands in the West Indies, if the Bahamas was US territory. [Some of my family members did settle in Nova Scotia] I don't know how many loyalists went to Bermuda in OTL. I do think the population issues might have prevented both from being states. I'm not going to dig out one of my history books at this ungodly hour, but I'm pretty sure the Bahamas population was less than 10K before the loyalist influx. Size wise, we are big enough, being larger than RI, andd I believe, DE. [we have about 4,400 sq. miles, half that on Andros] Bermuda clearly is too small. So it probably goes to NC or VA. Since FL is not yet a state, or even US territory at this point, the Bahamas has to either be granted statehood, or, if its tiny population makes it impractical, perhaps it goes to GA? Today, with our pop. at about 350K, it might be enough for statehood, but maybe not. BTW, someone mentioned architecture. Few Bahamians live in shacks. The poor often live in substandard housing, like many in Appalachia do, [we are not allowed to own mobile homes, because of hurricanes] but the only ones who live in shacks are illegal Haitian immigrants.
Tallest Skil
Banned
I don't think you can use OTL numbers or situations with a POD this far back. I imagine the Bahamas would have maybe twice the population (and certainly far less poverty) in a US-held Revolution scenario.
I think both would become states. While small, I agree with the notion that, because they had their own governments, they would be entitled to become states in the Union once the war is over. However, just because they are small does not mean the USA is obligated to make more small states.
How many post-Revolution states are as small as Rhode Island, for example? None. Same here. Bermuda would stand as an anomaly.
Anyways, I am interested in who would get Turks and Caicos. Bermuda and the Bahamas fought over it and would likely be a territorial dispute that the feds would need to get involved with, just like it dealt with border issues in the west.
How many post-Revolution states are as small as Rhode Island, for example? None. Same here. Bermuda would stand as an anomaly.
Anyways, I am interested in who would get Turks and Caicos. Bermuda and the Bahamas fought over it and would likely be a territorial dispute that the feds would need to get involved with, just like it dealt with border issues in the west.