Gentleman Johnny
New member
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.
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.