America wins ARW in 1777

[Darkling]

IIRC American Naval Forces are sitting in the Bahamas.

The Americans administered the Bahamas for a fortnight in March 76.

 

[danwild6]

And yet he did accept it in the end, and did not abdicate.

Exactly King George doesn't have any real power at this stage in history. He can kick and scream all he wants, but if the Tory government falls after the twins disaster at Brandywine and Saratoga and is replaced by a Whig government favoring a negotiated peace(American independence)then he just has to accept it.

Why did they want that? Or was it just that they didn't want the Spanish to get it? I assume here, however, that there is no need for the British to lose Florida at all.

True enough, though I don't think its out of the realm of possibility. As the British were quite generous at the peace conference regarding American territorial demands.

What, the US trades the Bahamas for East Florida? Okay, I guess that would be likely...

Thats what the Spanish did, of course it all depends on if the Americans actually hold the Bahamas at this time.

Hmmm...this was before Benedict Arnold turned, right?

Yes it is.

Chummyish US/UK, eh?

Many on both sides wanted this. Perhaps in addition to Britain's generous territorial sacrifices she also sees it as her duty to protect American commerce.

Not necessarily. The lack of shared struggle might make for less cohesion of the independent states than we saw OTL.

True its possible though I don't see any real threat to national unity due to an less painful though painful enough war.

Why again?

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_America

 

[danwild6]

It never stopped being "British" it merely stopped having the same government, but I digress.

Still aren't over us I see. Give it time I'm sure you'll find other peoples to subjugate.

I fail to see why removing Washington would not be a good thing. A more competent commander could have avoided some of the disasters that befell the Whig Army.

We may have gotten a better general but ended up with a much lesser leader.

but not well. Washington was simply lucky not to have been destroyed on that day, and most of that luck was in having a fairly competent commander on the right flank

He was more prepared than he was at Long Island but yes we were quite lucky.

 

[WCDouglas]

Why?

THe original POD called for "destruction" of the Howe's army. Don't see that happening, regardless of how well Washington tactically runs the battle. The British regulars are just too good, Howe isn't going to make a major mistake or be over-confident (i.e. Cornwallis or Gentleman Johnie,") and it would take a major, major POD to make the Contintenals that good.

But, they were becoming a good defensive army, so stopping Howe and forcing him into a bloody campaign isn't out the range and/or harass a long march to Annapolis.

Why not mid 1778?

I'm allowing for the "pace" of communications, governement, et. al. Even if the "New" British government, the King were willing, it would take time. Confidence the public, spin it right, figure out how to deal with the American and the French. Also can image combat operations petering out in America just like after Yorktown.

Why is that? I'm not arguing against it, just asking? The Americans are having a bit more luck in battle compared to OTL. Especially if you still drag it out as long as you do, why wouldn't they demand and get the Western territories?

It depends on whether Washington still sends George Clark to the Northwest and if so how successfull and quick he can be before a cease fire or peace.

Maybe...probably.

My thought here is no southern campaign, no "Breast Tarleton ..." nor offers to the slaves, no loyalist rangers in the south, no march thru the Carolinas and Virginia, and no occupation of Philadelphia with the result Loyalist revenge during the British presence.

Probably. I could see Benedict Arnold being considered a great American and having a significant political career (though he doesn't seem to have been that popular with the Continental Congress, I suppose...).

I hit on Arnold, while thinking about the differences a short war would make (see above) and realized no occuption of Philadelphia means no Military Governor, or plotting loyalists (at least not that actively plotting with a bitter Brig General as their target)

 

[67th Tigers]

Still aren't over us I see. Give it time I'm sure you'll find other peoples to subjugate.

A schism between the Cromwellian English (Those living to the west of the Atlantic) and the Democratic English (those to the east)? I'm not sure the world has gotten over it.....

 

[Glen]

It never stopped being "British" it merely stopped having the same government, but I digress.

I fail to see why removing Washington would not be a good thing. A more competent commander could have avoided some of the disasters that befell the Whig Army.

And how would you remove him? The how would have as much AH ramification as the battle.

but not well. Washington was simply lucky not to have been destroyed on that day, and most of that luck was in having a fairly competent commander on the right flank

Okay....

 

[Glen]

Militarily, you might have a point (though there are plenty of worse ways to run a grand strategy than to try and keep your fragile army alive). But politically, I disagree. Another officer, for example, might not have turned down and chastised an offer for kingship by his army.

True enough. As I said before, removing Washington (and how its done) has as many ramifications for changes in history as the battle itself.

 

[Glen]

Well, I would say that if the Revolution ends earlier and with a very easy war from the colonists' stand point, then we may be left with 13 independent polities after the revolution, without even the AoC.

Possibly, possibly.

Also, the enormous national debt will have been lessened.

True, but they paid that off fairly handily.

Valley Forge will not have instilled in the Continental Army and Washington the need for a powerful central government. Without this, we don't get to the Constitution of 1787 as we know it.

Maybe. However, I find it a bit of hyperbole to think that it was only the longer war that made the Constitition possible. I've always thought it was the self-evident failure of the Articles of Confederation that gave birth to the Constitution.

 

[Glen]

The Americans administered the Bahamas for a fortnight in March 76.

Oh well, so much for a Bahamas bargaining chip...

 

[Glen]

Exactly King George doesn't have any real power at this stage in history. He can kick and scream all he wants, but if the Tory government falls after the twins disaster at Brandywine and Saratoga and is replaced by a Whig government favoring a negotiated peace(American independence)then he just has to accept it.

Quite possibly.

True enough, though I don't think its out of the realm of possibility. As the British were quite generous at the peace conference regarding American territorial demands.

I suppose the real question is why they were so generous...

Thats what the Spanish did, of course it all depends on if the Americans actually hold the Bahamas at this time.

Seems unlikely.

Yes it is.

Many on both sides wanted this. Perhaps in addition to Britain's generous territorial sacrifices she also sees it as her duty to protect American commerce.

That seems a bit much....

True its possible though I don't see any real threat to national unity due to an less painful though painful enough war.

I think its more a question of the duration rather than the intensity of the war.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_America

Thanks for the link.

 

[Glen]

THe original POD called for "destruction" of the Howe's army. Don't see that happening, regardless of how well Washington tactically runs the battle. The British regulars are just too good, Howe isn't going to make a major mistake or be over-confident (i.e. Cornwallis or Gentleman Johnie,") and it would take a major, major POD to make the Contintenals that good.

Don't forget the heat!

But, they were becoming a good defensive army, so stopping Howe and forcing him into a bloody campaign isn't out the range and/or harass a long march to Annapolis.

Yes, good question is how much they could do.

I'm allowing for the "pace" of communications, governement, et. al. Even if the "New" British government, the King were willing, it would take time. Confidence the public, spin it right, figure out how to deal with the American and the French. Also can image combat operations petering out in America just like after Yorktown.

True enough.

It depends on whether Washington still sends George Clark to the Northwest and if so how successfull and quick he can be before a cease fire or peace.

Hmmm...yes, forgot about that bit. Good point. Without a success in the Northwest, they probably wouldn't have as a good a position at the bargaining table.

My thought here is no southern campaign, no "Breast Tarleton ..." nor offers to the slaves, no loyalist rangers in the south, no march thru the Carolinas and Virginia, and no occupation of Philadelphia with the result Loyalist revenge during the British presence.

Okay.

I hit on Arnold, while thinking about the differences a short war would make (see above) and realized no occuption of Philadelphia means no Military Governor, or plotting loyalists (at least not that actively plotting with a bitter Brig General as their target)

Yeah. But what would be the fate of Arnold in a shorter war timeline?

 

[Glen]

A schism between the Cromwellian English (Those living to the west of the Atlantic) and the Democratic English (those to the east)? I'm not sure the world has gotten over it.....

What? How do you figure that?

 

[Fatstalin]

Maybe. However, I find it a bit of hyperbole to think that it was only the longer war that made the Constitition possible. I've always thought it was the self-evident failure of the Articles of Confederation that gave birth to the Constitution.

Well partially, but the only reason those failures were ever really brought to the fore-front of national issues was due to Shay's Rebellion which was an extension of the massive debts incurred by Massachusetts during the war. With a shorter war, these debts will likely be smaller meaning the likelihood of a rebellion is significantly less, thus potentially postponing the creation of the Constitution.

 

[DuQuense]

George Washington's Sleeping Habits

All those little historical places with a -George Washington Sleep here-
He got his Nickname -Father of his Country- by doing a lot more than just sleeping in those beds.

While some of the States [mostly the smaller-Non Tariff] were paying off their Continentals at 5 cents on the Dollar, most was held by Speculators. in 1789 they were pushing for a National Body capable of paying them at full Value.
Most of these Speculators where proto- Federalists, and where Patrons of Hamilton.
Hamilton came thru for his Patrons when the new Federal Government accepted the principle of paying the Debt at face value, and Hamilton arranged the whole federal bonds deal.

I knew that the US had taken the Bahamas, did realize it was for just two weeks.

I was thinking that if Britain still held Florida, it would be included in the peace treaty, as there were less than 20,000 British settlers in the Territory, and most of them were 2nd+ generation Americans.

Following the War Britain informed the Barbary Emirs that they would no longer pay the tribute/tolls to protect American Ships.
The new Federal government started paying this in 1791, and had no trouble till 1804 when the Emirs Doubled the price.
This lead to the Barbary wars of 1806.
If whe have a less united Government, due to the shorter war, I could see various states sending their Navies/Militias, on filibustering Expeditions to North Africa. ?American Algiers, or Tripoli in the early 1800's?

Maybe. However, I find it a bit of hyperbole to think that it was only the longer war that made the Constitution possible. I've always thought it was the self-evident failure of the Articles of Confederation that gave birth to the Constitution.

Except it wasn't self evident, There were several proposed Amendments that could have solved most problems.

 

[Glen]

All those little historical places with a -George Washington Sleep here-
He got his Nickname -Father of his Country- by doing a lot more than just sleeping in those beds.

While some of the States [mostly the smaller-Non Tariff] were paying off their Continentals at 5 cents on the Dollar, most was held by Speculators. in 1789 they were pushing for a National Body capable of paying them at full Value.
Most of these Speculators where proto- Federalists, and where Patrons of Hamilton.
Hamilton came thru for his Patrons when the new Federal Government accepted the principle of paying the Debt at face value, and Hamilton arranged the whole federal bonds deal.

I knew that the US had taken the Bahamas, did realize it was for just two weeks.

I was thinking that if Britain still held Florida, it would be included in the peace treaty, as there were less than 20,000 British settlers in the Territory, and most of them were 2nd+ generation Americans.

Following the War Britain informed the Barbary Emirs that they would no longer pay the tribute/tolls to protect American Ships.
The new Federal government started paying this in 1791, and had no trouble till 1804 when the Emirs Doubled the price.
This lead to the Barbary wars of 1806.
If whe have a less united Government, due to the shorter war, I could see various states sending their Navies/Militias, on filibustering Expeditions to North Africa. ?American Algiers, or Tripoli in the early 1800's?

Interesting idea, though I'm not certain that, since the US navy didn't set up shop there that the individual State navies would have the wherewithal to do so.

Except it wasn't self evident, There were several proposed Amendments that could have solved most problems.

If it takes several amendments to fix, its obviously broken. You can do an overhaul as you mention, or a replacement as actually happened. Its still a sign its broken, though.