British victory in ARW. How many concessions would the British make in peace?

During what stage of the ARW, in lieu of British victory, would Westminister be willing to give the Americans what they wanted(bar indepenance)? Or at least most of it.
 
During what stage of the ARW, in lieu of British victory, would Westminister be willing to give the Americans what they wanted(bar indepenance)? Or at least most of it.

They offered such when French intervention was almost certain, the Rebels of course wouldn't take it.

Improve the British position and they would likely offer less and improve the rebel situation and they will want more.
 

Jasen777

Donor
I don't see the Americans accepting the hanging of people like Washington.

It's hard to say about concessions because the British didn't see they need to make them until the Americans weren't wiling to take them anymore. Later offers that were made might have been accepted if they were offered before the Declaration of Independence was announced.
 
Offer the conditions that they offered after Saratoga in early 1776. At that time, fighting had been going on for almost a year, but a majority of delegates in colonial legislatures and the Continental Congress were still opposed to declaring outright independence. Effective autonomy in domestic affairs at that point would have satisfied the majority.
 
Offer the conditions that they offered after Saratoga in early 1776. At that time, fighting had been going on for almost a year, but a majority of delegates in colonial legislatures and the Continental Congress were still opposed to declaring outright independence. Effective autonomy in domestic affairs at that point would have satisfied the majority.

Saratoga was fought in late 1777, not early 1776.
 
Saratoga was fought in late 1777, not early 1776.

I know - I'm saying that if the British had offered the relatively favorable terms that they offered after Saratoga 2 years earlier, they would have been acceptable to the majority of Americans, even a majority of those in arms against the British.
 
Improve the British position and they would likely offer less and improve the rebel situation and they will want more.

In general, this maxim makes sense, but if it holds true of the British, then they're never likely to offer terms the Americans will accept willingly. It seems that you'd have to see somekind of change in leadership away from Lord North and the Tories in Parliament. With such a change, I think it's very likely that Britain starts offering terms.

As many have said, Saratoga is likely a crucial turning point since once France intervenes, the rebels are doubly treasonous and they're fairly tied to republican independence which has proved its worth on the battlefield (finally).

If the British stumble into this policy, I'd imagine its success is likely to hinge one whether they can use it to break the unity of the colonies and turn the Rebellion into one localized to New England. If Cornwallis holds off on the Southern campaign or on freeing slaves in that campaign, then the British may be able to get the Carolinas on-board. Once they do, then maybe the Loyalist strongholds like New York and Delaware might be induced to come over. This probably entails turning the war into much more of a civil war in the colonies, with competing colonial/state legislatures.

In such a scenario, I think the British would concede quite a bit. In For Want of a Nail they effectively concede a Home Rule so large that it means effective Independence from the get-go (the CNA is more independent in 1790 than Canada was in 1914). I've always thought that going whole-hog and offering some kind of colonial representation at Westminster would actually be quite cunning: the distance involved will likely hamper the effectiveness of colonial representation (and the ability of the colonies to block for example, any of the taxes that were imposed before the Revolution) while removing a huge point for dissent. This might also be likely to the extent to which it doesn't require Parliament to concede direct authority for the colonial legislatures (this probably still leaves a problem, but not enough to mitigate the effect of the settlement).
 
Last edited:
In general, this maxim makes sense, but if it holds true of the British, then they're never likely to offer terms the Americans will accept willingly.

Indeed, a peace dictated to a defeated enemy is likely to be the only one the British are going to willingly put forward.

It seems that you'd have to see somekind of change in leadership away from Lord North and the Tories in Parliament. With such a change, I think it's very likely that Britain starts offering terms.

Such a change is unlikely to happen without he rebels being in an advantaged position or the war having dragged on so long the rebel cause has collapsed.

If Cornwallis holds off on the Southern campaign or on freeing slaves in that campaign, then the British may be able to get the Carolinas on-board.

The colonies had essentially been taken over by the radicals (in such cases moderates had literally been disposed by military force), I can't see any of them coming in from the cold unless the British are certain of victory, at the very least in their local area.

Once they do, then maybe the Loyalist strongholds like New York and Delaware might be induced to come over.

The problem here is that unprotected loyalists are going to get destroyed, eastern Maryland for example had a mini count revolution early on which led to troops form the other colonies going in and establishing Whig rule.
The same happened in New York in varying areas (it actually failed din some areas such as queens country IIRC), the Mohawk valley was essentially ethnically cleansed of loyalists (anybody not seeing a loyalty oath was imprisoned, had their property sold off and had their families kidnapped and spirited away to Albany, where they were actually used as hostages in some instances).

Those willing to side with the crown aren't going to stick their heads up with solid guarantees which means the radicals are running the show.

This probably entails turning the war into much more of a civil war in the colonies, with competing colonial/state legislatures.

It already was a civil war, however the whigs had been building an intimidation network and partisan forces for years whilst the Tories mainly believed in the forces of law and order.

In such a scenario, I think the British would concede quite a bit. In For Want of a Nail they effectively concede a Home Rule so large that it means effective Independence from the get-go (the CNA is more independent in 1790 than Canada was in 1914).

Why fight the war in that case?

It was a war about Parliamentary sovereignty and that is what the British are going to want to see confirmed.

I've always thought that going whole-hog and offering some kind of colonial representation at Westminster would actually be quite cunning: the distance involved will likely hamper the effectiveness of colonial representation (and the ability of the colonies to block for example, any of the taxes that were imposed before the Revolution) while removing a huge point for dissent.

Of course those fomenting rebellion had spotted this coming and already complained about the Britsih parliament being unredeemably corrupt.

In reality "taxation without representation" is a smokescreen.

A more accurate slogan would have been "We want power and you guys can keep subsidising if you wish".

This might also be likely to the extent to which it doesn't require Parliament to concede direct authority for the colonial legislatures (this probably still leaves a problem, but not enough to mitigate the effect of the settlement).

The problem is that it opens up the can of worms over Parliamentary reforms and thus isn't likely to gain any traction.
 
Have Washington move up the fortification of Dorchester heights a week or so. The British take the bait as in OTL and attack the heights leaving a weakened garrison in Boston which Washington then storms. A decisive victory in early 1776 leads to moderates convincing congress to wait for England's response.
 
Top