American Rev. WI: British forces enact "War to the Death"

Gian

Banned
Full info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_of_War_to_the_Death

Premise is what it says on the tin (inspired by the whole "1777 Boston Burning thread)

What if early on, the British forces in America decided to enact a "War to the Death" strategy (as well as scorched-earth tactics, no quarter to any rebel forces (a la Santa Anna) and Mongol-style slaughter (and Roman-style destruction a la Carthage) to any resisting city) during the Revolution? Would it have made a difference or would it have likely turned it into an escalating war of reprisals and counter-reprisals on both sides?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
So the POD is that everyone even vaguely involved in the decision-making processes of the British government suddenly turns batshit crazy...?

I'm sorry, but the entire premise is insane. In the timeframe we're looking at, his kind of decree is used by radical revolutionaries who have little or nothing to lose, or by totalitarian regimes that are perfectly content to commit genocide and re-populate an entire county. 1776 isn't ancient Rome, and George III is not Genghis Khan, either. Burning cities to the ground, butchering all cilivians and then pouring salt in the earth... that's not going to fly.

Britain was attempting to control what they saw as an escalating uprising by an angry minority. They didn't want to exterminate the Americans, they wanted to defeat the rebels and bring the population back into the fold. The strategy suggested here would have turned even the vast majority of loyalists into rebels. And the British government understood that all too well.
 
Full info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_of_War_to_the_Death

Premise is what it says on the tin (inspired by the whole "1777 Boston Burning thread)

What if early on, the British forces in America decided to enact a "War to the Death" strategy (as well as scorched-earth tactics, no quarter to any rebel forces (a la Santa Anna) and Mongol-style slaughter (and Roman-style destruction a la Carthage) to any resisting city) during the Revolution? Would it have made a difference or would it have likely turned it into an escalating war of reprisals and counter-reprisals on both sides?

... wouldn't that defeat the entire point of trying to reconquer the American Colonies in the first place IE revenues and markets? Piles of ash and corpses tend not to pay much in taxes or end up producing many raw materials. Plus, what better way to alienate wavering populations who are told "the tyrannical king is oppressing you!" then... well, acting like a tyrannical despot who's gone beyond the pale of British civility?
 
What would be the goal of HMG for them to adopt a policy like that? At that time the British imported quite a bit of ag products (wheat, tobacco, etc.) from the 13 colonies and exported a lot of manufactured goods to them. Following a policy like this would be shooting themselves in the foot.

If they did follow that policy, the Americans might reciprocate with attacks of the same nature in Canada, Nova Scota, Quebec, etc. And would the British public support such violent actions against of British citizens (and the Americans were still British citizens) even if they were fighting for their freedom? It might bring more allies for the American side for humanitarian reasons.

Thank you,
MrBill
 
Honestly, even if we get past the problems with turning British policy on it's head and the massive blowback with the British public (many of whom were sympathetic to American cause as is) I just don't see the strategic advantages. Closest is if France is in it from the outset, which was pretty necessary for the Brits to feel anything but optimistic about being able to dictate the course of the war and might threaten Continental considerations. In that event they might be persuaded to act contrary to their own interests and turn their colonial interests to dust. But, really, the Brits really really needed Colonial revenue to recoup at least some of their costs from the F & I/7Y war, so scorched earth is pretty suicidal when the alternative, ie winning, seemed so much more doable and profitable.
 
So the POD is that everyone even vaguely involved in the decision-making processes of the British government suddenly turns batshit crazy...?

I'm sorry, but the entire premise is insane. In the timeframe we're looking at, his kind of decree is used by radical revolutionaries who have little or nothing to lose, or by totalitarian regimes that are perfectly content to commit genocide and re-populate an entire county. 1776 isn't ancient Rome, and George III is not Genghis Khan, either. Burning cities to the ground, butchering all cilivians and then pouring salt in the earth... that's not going to fly.

Britain was attempting to control what they saw as an escalating uprising by an angry minority. They didn't want to exterminate the Americans, they wanted to defeat the rebels and bring the population back into the fold. The strategy suggested here would have turned even the vast majority of loyalists into rebels. And the British government understood that all too well.
They were perfectly willing to do so to Ireland just two decades later....under the same king--who literally did turn batshit crazy lol!
 
there is the whole Enlightenment thing

and even after the defeat of Bonnie Prince Charles the Crown didn't kill ALL of the Highlanders, just some of them

The requires the British to not be British
 
There was a large body of public opinion in Britain which was sympathetic to the rebels. Going around butchering civilians, burning cities and sowing the fields with salt wouldn't just have turned the entire American population against the British, it would almost certainly have turned British public opinion decisively against the Crown as well.

They were perfectly willing to do so to Ireland just two decades later....under the same king--who literally did turn batshit crazy lol!

Nothing the British did in the '98 rebellion even approached what is being proposed here.
 
They were perfectly willing to do so to Ireland just two decades later....under the same king--who literally did turn batshit crazy lol!

Actually, it wasen't batshit crazy. It was purple-shit crazy. But that's irrelevant considering Parliament would have to be consulted to cover the cost of this looting and burning and the most likely result is...

"They say, the price of my war's not a price that they're willing to pay."
 
Top