Best British Strategy to Win the Revolutionary War: 1778

The only value the American colonies had was that they were not French. With Nouvelle France conquered why would Britain want a money pit like the American colonies? At least Canada balanced its books.

Hmm, I think you've got these two backwards.
 
usertron2020 said:
Meh. With that wife of his, she'd convince him to sell out for an even BIGGER price. Remember that it took 150 years to learn that Charles Lee was paid to sabotage Monmouth before Washington got on the field and fired him.

I've always thought the influence she had was overstated. Arnold only betrayed the Revolutionaries after getting snubbed repeatedly year after year.

usertron2020 said:
I think it was just confusion. These are 1775 numbers.

That makes a lot more sense then :eek:. Still, neutrals and patriots were consistently harder than loyalists (although I guess it depends on how you define Loyalists. Give me Britain or give me death? Leaning towards Britain but willing to live with either so long as they aren't bothered?)

The best strategy would have been for Britain to have ditched the American colonies years before. They cost money and used up badly needed troops and naval forces just to defend them. The only value the American colonies had was that they were not French. With Nouvelle France conquered why would Britain want a money pit like the American colonies? At least Canada balanced its books. There was always Australia if you wanted somewhere else to send convicts. Given the period concerns Americans had for personal liberty I suspect that the convicts could have been sold to the Americans as indentured labourers anyway.

I agree with funnyhat. Strange comment.
 
The best strategy would have been for Britain to have ditched the American colonies years before. They cost money and used up badly needed troops and naval forces just to defend them. The only value the American colonies had was that they were not French. With Nouvelle France conquered why would Britain want a money pit like the American colonies?

Yeah. Why indeed keep it? After all, once you get past the eastern shoreline, there's just nothing out there but 3000 miles of Sahara desert-like sands until you reach that worthless pesthole California.:p

At least Canada balanced its books.

Most of present day Canada was Native territory then. What wasn't was dirt poor and administered by London. !690 America basically. What books?

There was always Australia if you wanted somewhere else to send convicts.

Not an effective place to send them that far back in time. How about Sussex?:p Permanent exile of convicts guilty of nothing more than debts? And you suggest British convicts be sold to Americans? Oh yeah. Wonderful. And who has the $$$ AND will to do it?:rolleyes:

Given the period concerns Americans had for personal liberty I suspect that the convicts could have been sold to the Americans as indentured labourers anyway.

Who taught you American History?:rolleyes: Abolition of Indentured Servitude was the biggest item on the agenda for a Free America. NOBODY in the USA argued otherwise.

I've always thought the influence she had was overstated. Arnold only betrayed the Revolutionaries after getting snubbed repeatedly year after year.

Yes, but it was only after his marriage into a rich prominent family of Loyalists that feelers started to be extended. And according to the private letters of Mrs. Arnold discovered in the early 1930s, she appears to be very much the Cleopatra to Benedict's Marc Antony.:mad:

The irony is, had she been caught redhanded at the time, she probably would have walked anyway, considering the mores of the time regarding married women of society. That didn't really change until the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the execution of Mary Surratt. You can argue her complicity one way or the other, but there's no doubt in my mind whatsoever that she paid the price for the countless hundreds of unhung and unpunished Southern lady spies responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Union soldiers, thanks to the Confederates always knowing what the Union armies were going to do before they did it.

That makes a lot more sense then :eek:. Still, neutrals and patriots were consistently harder than loyalists (although I guess it depends on how you define Loyalists. Give me Britain or give me death? Leaning towards Britain but willing to live with either so long as they aren't bothered?)

Exactly. The Patriots had to Fight or Die. Loyalists had...other alternatives.



I agree with funnyhat too. Strange comment.
 
Top