what if New England was under British empire after American RevolutionSubmitted by Consistent-Bat9690 t3_11e2npw in massachusetts
iwanttobehappy2022 t1_jac4u0r wrote
New York is not New England and it definitely was bigger than what’s shown in this map at the time of the revolution. Canada was part of the Uk. Britain would definitely not give up full access of the Hudson and Great Lakes. Massachusetts Plymouth and Maine would be one state. All of cure Vermont would be part of Uk New England. They declared separate independence but the other 13 colonies and the Uk did not recognize them as such. No idea why Maine would be called New Ireland. It’s nothing like Ireland. UK hated Irish people, the population of the colonies was not very friendly to Catholics. So I don’t understand why Maine would be called that. It wouldn’t even be an independent colony. It had like no population. It was forest and moose.
matt_cb t1_jackrff wrote
I think maybe OP called Maine “New Ireland” because in the War of 1812 the Brits tried to set up a new colony in Maine called New Ireland.
However the name would only really make sense if we got stuck with the Brits again by losing the War of 1812 and not the Revolution like with this post.
heresdevking t1_jade361 wrote
We did lose the war of 1812?
matt_cb t1_jae2u6t wrote
By lost I meant got conquered. I know there’s the debate over whether or not we won or if it was a tie, but we definitely didn’t get conquered.
heresdevking t1_jaeavms wrote
Yes, I was thinking more of, "we declared a war and got our butts kicked and all we got for it was a bad poem for a national anthem".
wittgensteins-boat t1_jae4iu6 wrote
No.
Consistent-Bat9690 OP t1_jac53yv wrote
I tried to make it realistic and yeah I think I made it dumb
iwanttobehappy2022 t1_jac5g5s wrote
The reality is it would basically be the same to how it is now plus New York. Capitals might be in different cities on navigable waterways due to needing to communicate and trade with London. I could see New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine’s boarders changing amongst themselves and with Canada.
sihtydaernacuoytihsy t1_jact390 wrote
This criticism is strong and well-reasoned. One exception: New Ireland was a thing. (It was dumb in real life, too.)
Fun fact: Nova Scotia is so called because it reminded the British of old Scotland. They didn't know about plate tectonics, but science would later confirm that the Scotia had once been contiguous, back before they drifted apart.
Yestattooshurt t1_jacj3ze wrote
Actually Vermont was it’s own country at the time, didn’t join the US until later, and in this scenario, it may never have.
iwanttobehappy2022 t1_jacsj9i wrote
Vermont was never recognized as an independent country by both the UK, the 13 colonies, or any world power. You can’t be an independent nation if no one recognizes you as such. They claimed to be independent but were never recognized as independent and ended up asking to join the union.
Yestattooshurt t1_jads87v wrote
Well it also wasn’t one of the 13 colonies, so whether or not it was recognized, it also was not part of New England at the time of the revolution
wittgensteins-boat t1_jae4uo8 wrote
It was considered part of New Hampshire and New York, and there was a dispute between the two colonies as to who had control of the lands of Vermont..
Yestattooshurt t1_jaf211t wrote
That I actually didn’t know. I had just always assumed there was a Vermont shaped hole up there until 1791.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments