They did invade Charleston in '76 and it was a disaster.
Now the Chesapeake, weakening Virginia and Maryland would be interesting for knock-on effects.
they secure Virginia in 1776 (not impossible) and their plan to detach the southern colonies from the northern colonies (which they didn't actually institute until later) might just work out.
This Chesapeake concept for 1776 is an interesting one.
In an optimistic scenario for the British, the more southerly base of the British in North America both strengthens Loyalist sympathies in the Carolinas and Georgia, while also functioning as a stronger deterrent to French and Spanish intervention. Through alot of battles and knock-ons in diplomacy, the rebellion is crushed or settled by some arrangement short of independence.
In the pessimistic scenario for the British, the Chesapeake campaign isno more successful than their Mid-Atlantic campaigns, France and Spain intervene, and the British lose more or less on schedule. However, the heavy fighting in Virginia and Maryland, much heavier and more contested than in OTL, weakens slavery in those colonies, as the British liberate more slaves and Continentals need to offer more slaves freedom for serving the Continental side? But perhaps, if there is little fighting in New York and New Jersey, slavery remains a bit stronger there?
New York was the main (in fact really the only one outside of Canada) military base in the Americas until the troubles started in Massachusetts, and the British concentrated all available troops in Boston as a show of force, abandoning New York and the rest of the colonies.
Really the problem the British had is that, with the exception of the aforementioned invasion of New York itself, everything they tried to do was done in this ridiculous half-assed way. They never got close to 34,000 troops for their other campaigns. And even the attack on New York was done really leisurely.
The British perceived, actually quite rightly, that the rebellion was a New England led thing and if they could just deal with New England the other colonies would fall into line. The strategic implication of this is to just through everything into New England, including the additional reinforcements finally provided in 1776. If you win there, you win, and if you lose at least the war will be short. This is probably what Napoleon would have done if he had faced this situation, but we are dealing with North and St. Germain here.
@Galba- This is a really interesting idea I had not heard before. The early and all-out New England campaign.
Assuming an optimistic scenario for the British effort, where the British smash the continentals, how would the rebellion wind down and on what terms.
Assuming a pessimistic scenario where the British lose in New England [a "Saratoga" in interior New England] or are stalemated and the British decide to quit and concede early, can they do so before France gets to declare war and profit? Perhaps, even if France joins in the war, if Britain becomes ready to write off North America at the same time, Britain can do better against the French in the Caribbean, making gains there?
What if Britain controlled the south before everyone got the idea that independence is a possibility. the North is isolated, and disheartened. France and Spain stay out because there is no major British defeat. it's game over for the rebels.
Had the British put more effort into "liberating" the South early on, they'd probably would have been able to rally more support over the bottom three/four states and maintain better control and from there they could slowly move North.
These ideas are most in line with my OP:
The advantages I see are that Britain centers its power closer to the Caribbean, possibly deterring effective French and Spanish intervention, even if this means the blockade of the rebellious northeastern ports is a little weaker. Theoretically, the British and Loyalists could spread their "inkblot" north over time.
On the other hand, by massing troops early in the south, the British may merely alienate the southern population sooner. Like Englishmen elsewhere, southerners may wonder why the troops are needed in the area where good loyal folk live. The act of stationing and quartering troops in Boston became one of the original grievances of the Bostonians pre-rebellion after all.
I honestly have an easier time imagining the end result being similar, American independence, but with the operational details being different along the way, than seeing a successful British reincorporation even in this scenario. Perhaps if almost the entire war is fought in the south, slavery is weakened even there as the level of escapes and manumussions for service go up.
Thoughts?