you speak as if 100% of the population where dedicated to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and all that. There was a sizeable portion of loyalists, as well as people who would have gone which ever direction the wind blew
Exactly. But the longer the war went on. the more Patriot the population became. Particularly when Hessian-laden British troops came close by.
No, I do not think 100% of Americans were committed to those ideals. But I think you need far, far less than 100% to cause a great big deal of trouble. Also, as long as the causes of the revolution are not addressed, more and more people will become dissatisfied. Especially in the scenario of a "late" British victory, you can count on a huge number of very angry people. That means big trouble, eventually.
A late victory means a lot of bloodshed. Meaning a lot of
vendettas.
I wonder. Britain occupied much of the American south, but the loyalists and regulars couldn't win the partisan war there, and Britain was bleeding white. And this was the loyalist heartland!
Actually, not really. The shoreline was Patriot, as was the hinterland. It was the Midland regions that were the most Tory in the Colonies. Colonel Ferguson was a genius at inspiring their recruitment.
I have always considered the main reasons for the ARW are:
1) British government taxes on American colonists
2) The Navigation Acts (all goods carried to America shipped on English ships after England had taxed them)
3) Stifilying of American industry (particularly the iron and textile industries)
4) Land - how the colonies could expand west and the natives that lived there)
My personal feeling is that if the British had defeated Washington early into the ARW (1176
or 1777) that it would still be possible for a diplomatic solution to be worked out. I've always thought that Pitt the Elder would have made a good liasion between London and the colonies (but he dies in 1778 so a backup would be needed).
He was WAY too sick for years. As to a liaison? George III was the last British monarch to have real control over national affairs, and he wanted Submission, period. IDK, maybe he saw it as a "Rule of Law" thing.
The problem there was that it had been the loyalist heartland, but by the time Britain occupied it the loyalists had been left to fend for themselves for several years and so were in a pretty poor shape in terms of organisation, morale and fitness to fight.
New York which was taken much earlier was also very loyalist and didn't have the same issues.
Ask yourself this, though: Wouldn't it follow that the Patriots were ALSO "unsupported"? In fact, though, AIUI, in the South the Loyalists may have been suffering from the fact that there tended to be a lot fewer "Undecideds" than north of the Carolinas. Quebec Act, don't you know.
This still ignores that the loyalists were able to lose control so easily, even if we buy this argument as true. (Why were they in a worse shape to fight in 1779 than the Whigs whose country was under enemy occupation?) I agree this played a role, but I think you are overestimating its severity.
IMO it's telling that almost everywhere the British went, they were dismayed at how few loyalists there were.
New York acted as a magnet for loyalists after it was occupied, and the City's population was a fraction of what it was before the invasion, so I'm not sure how much that shows us.
New York City was safe from the war, there was $$$ to be made for Loyalist businessmen (and spies), and you didn't starve. Or freeze.
Loyalists had the problem that they would ONLY be killing their fellow Americans. Patriots would be killing MOSTLY only British forces. Big morale issue. When Loyalists and Rebel Militia fought one another, things tended to be pretty vicious. Though not to be confused with the ASB nonsense of a never-to-be-sufficiently-damned movie made and starring a certain ex-patriate Australian-American.
As I noted above, the Loyalists in the South were caught between two forces (East and West), while in the Mid-Atlantic States and New England they had been subjected to the tender mercies of a British Army manned by very lowly paid troops and leavened with German mercenaries many of whom had been literally kidnapped off the road back home and told to "Soldier or Die".
Of the some 30,000 German mercenaries who went to America, only 18,000 made it home. Many deserted. So many times I've read people posting "Why didn't the British just march out and destroy Washington? Why didn't they just fan out and sweep over the Colonies?" Because of they did fan out over the Colonies, the 50% German half of their army would have vanished the moment they got their chance.
The problem is that the guys leading Britain don't seem the type to think "Oh, we won. Time to back off."
Exactly. More of the type to say upon victory: "PIG OUT!" The only really accurate part of that "movie" was the meeting between the Tarleton rip-off and Cornwallis, where they are standing over a map gleefully carving up territories for their new "estates" in Ohio!
I would agree with you that the British parliment was badly out of touch (in the main) with what the Americans where thinking. However Lorth North did back the Conciliation Plan of 1775 even if he did botch how to get the message to the Americans.
If it looked as if Britain would have to fight the Spanish / French over the colonies, as well as the Dutch and the other nations that formed the First League of Armed Neutrality they may seem reason.
No question, another war pushed along by poor communications. IIRC, an American ship with negotiators arrived in London at the worst possible time, following Lexington and Concord. All moderation in London vanished with the news.
There was no way France was going to jump into war with Britain that early. Vergennes was determined that THIS war would take place at France's time and choosing. Namely, when the French Navy was fully built up and had already sortied. OTL was really the only possible timeline for that. And Holland was too politically divided to be a full ally of the Colonies. Which is why they got their butts kicked in the 4th Anglo-Dutch War.
OTL there was a brief period where the British thought the Russians were about to enter the war on the side of France, America, Spain, and Holland. North was terrified. As far as he was concerned, if that happened, the best Britain could hope for was survival as a minor trade power. He ordered preparation for a peace offer recognizing full American independence, with a number of concessions to Britain's other enemies. Fortunately for history, his intelligence about Russia was wrong.
And vice versa, too, don't forget that. Many Americans at the time, and all too many Americans today, have ignored the fact that Britain had legitimate interests of its own to consider: The British government didn't exist for the primary purpose of strengthening the colonies...
And vice-vice-versa.
The problem was, your average British citizen may have paid taxes that may have been heavier, but he had more say in his destiny, and lived in a country that wasn't being economically proscribed.
Sure. and as long as the Americans are treated as colonial subjects, they will rise and rise again.
Yep. Each time to emerge stronger. What does Britain do when its time to bring its army home to fight the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars and finds out it can't without "losing" the previous war?
It seems to me that if the red coats had defeated the Congressional Army and Washington and his officers were dead or captured (presumably soon to be dead!) that there may be a space for mature reflection about the colonies from both sides.
The Brits would have seen the possibilities of a war with most of Europe (who were looking at taking the new power down a peg or two after the Seven Year War) and there was sympathy for the American cause in Parliment (even if the King was not for reconciliation).
Prehapse Charles Fox could be appointed as British Pelipotentary to broker a deal that kept the colonies in the Empire.
The problem is that the policy of Subjugation will have been vindicated, and North and his cronies will emerge politically triumphant. These were not men know for mature reflection. Especially with Mad King George egging them on.
Charles Fox, along with the rest of the Loyal Opposition in the ARW, were the finest Opposition that Britain ever knew, IMVHO. Not surprising, considering the dreck that was sitting on the Government Bench!
So they should have been treated fully as 'British' subjects instead? Fine. That would be _<snip>
This was a time of rotten boroughs. "Reform" was a four letter word in Parliament back then. Just forget it.
We're talking 57 years from the Reform Act of 1832, 98 years from the Reform Act of 1867!
Simreeve said:
What all too many of the colonists seem to have wanted -- and I've seen people in this forum effectively arguing that they should have been given -- was the best of both worlds: All of the benefits of British nationality, in terms of trading rights and protection against enemies (even against ones whose hostility they themselves had stirred up), and the use of British forces to open up new lands for their settlement, but no requirement at all to pay anything towards the costs of those policies... which in my opinion seems at least as unreasonable as the British government's own policies.
Britain would have been better off simply telling them "There's the door" as soon as the disagreements began.
Well, after the Seven Years War was over, that would probably have been for the best. Except that nobody but a crank named Samuel Adams in Boston wanted that in 1763. Besides, what do you think all those British merchants would have said to that idea with the loss of all those American trade monopolies?
Yeah, I thought so too.
You can't enforce "anti-smuggling laws" with a sovereign nation (or nations), now can you? How would Britain feel about the former Colonies suddenly building their own factories and textile mills? Yeah, I thought so too.
Britain's suppression of the American Rebellion wasn't anymore about avenging British honor and enforcing the Rule of Law than the USA's invasion of the CSA was about avenging Fort Sumter!
Representation in Parliament, probably initially at a rate of 2 MPs per colony to match the 2 MPs per English Borough or County. Negotiation might get them a better ratio, just as the Act of Union had guaranteed Scotland a minimum ratio despite any potential changes in the relative sizes of the English & Scottish populations, but how many "suitable" candidates (ones who could be trusted by them to do the job properly and who would be willing to leave their homes & businesses for -- although a few short visists home might be available -- up to 10 years at a time) would they actually be able to find and how much would the absence of those people on this duty harm the colonies?
No more separate colonial assemblies, just the parliament at Westminster, because no parts of Britain had separate assemblies like that.
Taxation at significantly higher rates than those to which they were already objecting.
Problem: Even at the time, people could see the potential for American growth, and it doesn't solve the problem of American settlement in the west. The concept of the baby python swallowing its own mother one day was obvious.
Faeelin said:
Who do these people think they are, Australians or the East India Company? (1)
The colonists did pay taxes, and were prepared to discuss paying more. (I should note post-revolution taxes were significantly higher than prewar, and did not lead to a violent revolution). (2)
The colonists were also paying a heavy tax burden and suffering from debt due to the 7 years war, something which is not usually noted by pro-Tories in this discussion. (3)
But again, the revolution didn't really kick off until Britain placed a colony under military government, closed a port, and began seizing the colonies' weaponry. Oops. (4)
George III basically called the shots and had widespread support for a harsh line in 1775-1777, and he hated Fox. After Saratoga a peace commission was sent, but it didn't end well. (5)
1)
2) The suddenly strictly enforced anti-smuggling laws (ignored for 150 years because the free trade helped everyone concerned at the time) in 1763 caused a massive trade imbalance between the Colonies and Britain, with hordes of $$$ flowing into London's coffers. Problem was, it was the coffers of British business interests, not Parliament. So with Whitehall demanding "prompt payment for the American war debt, while the Colonies were in the depths of an economic depression (by 1765), its no wonder people in Boston stopped treating Sam Adams as a crank and he started to get some real followers.
3) The debts were mostly locally accrued, so they didn't show up on London's ledgers.
4) Having the troops THERE in the first place to face a now nonexistent French invasion threat was bad enough. No one was fooled by the real reason for their being there. The taxes they were being hit with gained the perception of being "protection money".
5) After the Declaration of Independence, Re-Union had become impossible short of absolute military defeat for the Colonies. After Saratoga, French entry was inevitable, making negotiation pointless. Except as a means to scare the French into action.
That's not usually mentioned in British history books, admittedly. I'd actually be interested in more details, and in a comparison of those tax & debt burdens to the levels applying to Britain itself at the time, too, especially if the source can also plausibly relate those relative burdens to the relative advantages that the two factions each obtained through that war.
Well, the whole merchantile idea that the Colonies existed solely for the economic benefit for the Mother Country was unshakable for far too many British politicians of the time.
Simreeve said:
You mean the two heavy cannon (of French origin, IIRC) that one branch of the Massachusetts colonial militia had hidden away, which would have been of little use in the operations along or beyond the colony's borders for which that militia supposedly existed but that would have been useful for attacking fortifications and/or anchored fleets... at a time when the only fortifications and/or anchored fleets likely to exist around there belonged to Britain? Cannon whose most plausible potential purpose was therefore for employment in rebellious acts? For comparison, how happy do you think the modern US government would be about any badly-regulated 'militia' owning anti-tank &/or anti-aircraft missile systems?
Two guns? That's it? That's the excuse to justify a full fledged military expedition that resulted in 300 British dead
and wounded and God knows how many Americans?
*face-palm* And the comparison doesn't hold, as the two guns in question would be quite useless indeed. The guns of the British fleet in Boston would have silenced both guns in moments, assuming the untrained militia had ever been able to hit anything. By the way, didn't that little expedition prove to the Americans that they really needed those guns? And the guns of Fort Ticonderoga too? Now, if the militia had taken the guns of Ticonderoga before the Battle of Lexington, then you'd be absolutely right.
But just two anti-aircraft or anti-tank missiles in a militia compound? That's a constabulary or National Guard matter. You don't send in the 82nd Airborne and a couple of F-22 squadrons. Which is more or less what the British did!
