White settlement west of the Appalachians if Britain won the American Revolutionary War?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
#1
How much less widespread would White settlement west of the Appalachians (as in, west of the Proclamation Line of 1763) have been had Britain won the American Revolutionary War?

Also, what about White settlement in Louisiana Territory, Oregon Country, Texas, New Mexico, and Alta California in this scenario?
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,250
US
#2
How much less widespread would White settlement west of the Appalachians (as in, west of the Proclamation Line of 1763) have been had Britain won the American Revolutionary War?

Also, what about White settlement in Louisiana Territory, Oregon Country, Texas, New Mexico, and Alta California in this scenario?
As for west of the Alleghenies, it may have been more. There were already ample settlers in what is now places like western Pennsylvania prior to the war. Most were Scotch-Irish, notoriously independent and anti-British, followed by (probably) Germans then English. Regardless, in those days movement away from the coast was freedom from the powers that be. If that would have been Britain, then I see more wanting to out from under their control.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
#3
As for west of the Alleghenies, it may have been more. There were already ample settlers in what is now places like western Pennsylvania prior to the war. Most were Scotch-Irish, notoriously independent and anti-British, followed by (probably) Germans then English. Regardless, in those days movement away from the coast was freedom from the powers that be. If that would have been Britain, then I see more wanting to out from under their control.
The Brits controlled the interior of North America up to the Mississippi River starting from 1763, though. Thus, moving inland isn't going to result in escaping British rule unless one moves west of the Mississippi River.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,250
US
#4
The Brits controlled the interior of North America up to the Mississippi River starting from 1763, though. Thus, moving inland isn't going to result in escaping British rule unless one moves west of the Mississippi River.
Not really. The interior really was void of much government control. The forts were understaffed and far apart ( every 20 miles or so). To venture out, assess a settlement and return to the fort by nightfall was a real challenge. Outside of Pittsburgh, you only had villages and post offices, typically taverns or outposts on the few main roads (all dirt by the way). There weren't many soldiers marching into the hinterlands (unless you had a major revolt, like the Whiskey Rebellion) and sure wasn't any politician or government official leaving the comfort of Philadelphia to traverse across the Alleghenies in the 1760s or 1770s to "check on" the frontier settlers. No, you were really a free man in that territory.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
#5
Not really. The interior really was void of much government control. The forts were understaffed and far apart ( every 20 miles or so). There weren't many soldiers marching into the hinterlands (unless you had a major revolt, like the Whiskey Rebellion) and sure wasn't any politician or government official leaving the comfort of Philadelphia to traverse across the Alleghenies in the 1760s or 1770s to "check on" the frontier settlers. No, you were really a free man in that territory.
Very interesting.

Also, was this also true for the early American Republic? Specifically, did early Americans often move West in order to escape government control?
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,250
US
#6
Very interesting.

Also, was this also true for the early American Republic? Specifically, did early Americans often move West in order to escape government control?
Some moved for land, some for adventure, some to get away from the coastal society, which included the government. Remember, these people had traversed the Atlantic. They were fearless. Many Revolutionary War soldiers were paid with land west of the Alleghenies (my great great great grandfather was given land east of Pittsburgh as payment for his service. He was Scotch-Irish). The Scotch Irish settled on the frontier, where the British and others weren't. Western PA,West Virginia, and western VA come to mind. The Germans came for farmland, which was plentiful west of the Alleghenies and cheap I might add.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
#7
Some moved for land, some for adventure, some to get away from the coastal society, which included the government. Remember, these people had traversed the Atlantic. They were fearless. Many Revolutionary War soldiers were paid with land west of the Alleghenies (my great great great grandfather was given land east of Pittsburgh as payment for his service. He was Scotch-Irish). The Scotch Irish settled on the frontier, where the British and others weren't. Western PA,West Virginia, and western VA come to mind. The Germans came for farmland, which was plentiful west of the Alleghenies and cheap I might add.
Very interesting information, Rodger! :)

BTW, I guess that this explains why there's a lot of English ancestry in the Northeastern U.S. but less of it in the interior U.S.:

 
Jun 2017
2,509
Connecticut
#8
How much less widespread would White settlement west of the Appalachians (as in, west of the Proclamation Line of 1763) have been had Britain won the American Revolutionary War?

Also, what about White settlement in Louisiana Territory, Oregon Country, Texas, New Mexico, and Alta California in this scenario?
Hard to say I do think the people who think the line wouldn't have held for certain are putting their biases into the narrative of us ripping off native americans, think it's tough to say. Unlike later on the Iroquois were seen as a nation for example and there would be no immediate reason to go past the Proclamation line, after all the main profit of the colonies came from the coastal region and the British were more like Portugal or the Netherlands than the mighty British empire at this point(part of why winning the Seven Years War was so taxing on them despite the French having treated the America's as a sideshow). The colonists and in our timeline the United States were the ones who wanted to go further.

I do think the Five Civilized Tribes would certainly exist, even in our timeline they are just an Andrew Jackson dying away from being major factions in American society. America might still be dominated by Native peoples and history might have went very different. I do not see the British waging a war of expansion especially if they had won the Revolution, they would have seen the Natives as an asset to help them keep control of the colonies, given the distance and the numbers and they would be more useful as puppets.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
#9
Hard to say I do think the people who think the line wouldn't have held for certain are putting their biases into the narrative of us ripping off native americans, think it's tough to say. Unlike later on the Iroquois were seen as a nation for example and there would be no immediate reason to go past the Proclamation line, after all the main profit of the colonies came from the coastal region and the British were more like Portugal or the Netherlands than the mighty British empire at this point(part of why winning the Seven Years War was so taxing on them despite the French having treated the America's as a sideshow). The colonists and in our timeline the United States were the ones who wanted to go further.

I do think the Five Civilized Tribes would certainly exist, even in our timeline they are just an Andrew Jackson dying away from being major factions in American society. America might still be dominated by Native peoples and history might have went very different. I do not see the British waging a war of expansion especially if they had won the Revolution, they would have seen the Natives as an asset to help them keep control of the colonies, given the distance and the numbers and they would be more useful as puppets.
Could we eventually see a war between Britain/Native Americans and the colonists from the 13 Colonies in this scenario? I mean, even if Britain wins the American Revolutionary War, colonists could still try to illegally move beyond the Proclamation Line of 1763. In such cases, these colonists are going to need to be physically removed from the North American interior, and who else to do it but the British and Native Americans?
 
Jun 2017
2,509
Connecticut
#10
Could we eventually see a war between Britain/Native Americans and the colonists from the 13 Colonies in this scenario? I mean, even if Britain wins the American Revolutionary War, colonists could still try to illegally move beyond the Proclamation Line of 1763. In such cases, these colonists are going to need to be physically removed from the North American interior, and who else to do it but the British and Native Americans?
Actually yeah that's probably the most likely outcome. We had the War of 1812 anyway. In 1812 we'd have a fair chance of getting independence given the Napoleonic Wars but we also wouldn't have Louisiana another massive shift for the Natives further west.