British War Plans for 1782 with no Yorktwon

I'm looking for pointers to fill in gaps in my knowledge.

I'm trying to figure out what the British would be doing in 1782 if the Battle of the Chesapeake ended with a British strategic victory and Cornwallis was able to extricate himself from Yorktown before being bottled up by the arrival of Washington's main army.

For purposes of discussion assume that the British ended the open ocean manoeuvering early and got back to the mouth of the Chesapeake before the French did.

As I understand it, Lord North was preparing for a parliamentary vote on the military budget for 1782 when the news of Yorktown arrived.

Can anybody tell me what were the British war plans for 1782 before the news of Yorktown?

Had the North Ministry decided that the American Theatre was effectively lost and were they prepared to just sit still in North America? Was Cornwallis going to continue to march around the South causing destruction? Was there any plans to pull his forces from the field and redeploy them elsewhere?

Thanks in advance,

David
 
I'm looking for pointers to fill in gaps in my

Can anybody tell me what were the British war plans for 1782 before the news of Yorktown?

Had the North Ministry decided that the American Theatre was effectively lost and were they prepared to just sit still in North America? Was Cornwallis going to continue to march around the South causing destruction? Was there any plans to pull his forces from the field and redeploy them elsewhere?


David

I believe he was expected to return to New York. The loss of so many valuable Caribbean island may have ended the war by similar timing.

Note the French army sitting off of New York would affect strategy too.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
I believe he was expected to return to New York. The loss of so many valuable Caribbean island may have ended the war by similar timing.

Note the French army sitting off of New York would affect strategy too.

Indeed, many, like Washington, expected the deciding battle to be over New York, not some silly backwater in Southern Virginia.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
Parliament was already pissed about the lack of true decisive progress in America and might have pulled the plug without a major victory before spring in 1782.

Clinton's strategy was decisively passive, and the Caribbean theatre, with Spain's introduction into the war, was going poorly.

Had Cornwallis simply evacuated to NYC or Charleston, Washington would have returned to the Hudson Highlands, frustrated as ever, with potentially serious issues about how he was going to keep his army going (the previous two winters were horrible for his army's morale, despite the growing professionalism and tactical skill in comparison to the British; the Light Infantry units of the Continental Army were truly elite by this point), which likely would have been covered by good ol' Sugar Daddy France.

However, had Cornwallis gone North, or to the Caribbean, Greene would have gone about his business similar to OTL and wrenched South Carolina from British Control, although maybe short of taking Charleston. If Cornwallis goes to Charleston, Greene likely slowly takes back the backcountry but has to resort to harassment in range of the coast.

In either case, attacking New York is still out of the question. The French Fleet needs to be in control of New York Harbor for this even to be a start, and a defeat in the Chesapeake or Caribbean means this is unlikely to happen. The Hudson was just as fortified, however, and I doubt Clinton could make much progress attacking north into the teeth of the Franco-American force.

Essentially, what you would have is more stalemate. While the American political situation was poor, and the nation destitute, it could keep going for quite some time, and the question of accepting anything less than independence was not a question at all by this point, nor had it been one since the Declaration was ratified.

The British, on the other hand, with a pissed off opposition, commitments elsewhere in the world, and a dispiriting sense of negativity about the whole venture, would still probably make moves for peace.
 
Without Yorktown, North and his ministry would struggle on. An analogue of the the Battle of the Saintes could possibly brighten up the picture for the British allowing a bit more strategic movement and allowing them to roll back some of the losses in the Caribbean, given that they now have Cornwallis' army in New York.

Peace would still be one defeat away so I suspect North would be looking for a negotiated settlement - possibly an enlarged Canada and a loose association with the United States.

After Yorktown North said

‘Peace with America seems necessary even if it can be obtained on no better terms than some federal alliance, or perhaps even in a less eligible mode.’

Exactly what this means is anyone's guess. If the French and allies tired of the war too - which there were signs that they were, especially the Dutch - then America could be left undefeated but not yet victorious. Perhaps a recognition of the de facto independence of some (most) of the colonies as republics and a number of smaller "dominions" attached to the Empire.

Financial pressures without the support of the French and Spanish could also have forced America to the negotiating table. However, I doubt whether even without Yorktown the British could end up with more than retaining Florida, New York and some parts of the Carolinas. Even New York might not be feasible politically.
 
Top