could the American Revolution have failed in 1781?

so I just finished Andrew Jackson O'Shaughnessy's great book "The Men Who Lost America" and in talking about 1781 he brought up that the Congress was totally broke in 1781, as were the states, that their paper money was viewed as worth less than "oak leafs" (i.e. toilet paper) Virginia was so broke it couldn't raise an army to fight off Cornwallis' invasion, rumors flew that the French and Spanish were only willing to fight for one more year, the French admiral at Yorktown, the comte de Grasse had strict orders to leave North America by October 15th 1781

so I guess my question is, if Cornwallis never goes north, stays in Georgia and South Carolina could Washington and Rochambeau have as successfully besieged New York as they did Yorktown? given that the comte de Grasse was defeated by the Naval commander, Admiral Rodney, at the Battle of the Saintes 6 months after Yorktown

and if Washington and Rochambeau fail in getting a major (or even minor) victory in 1781, what happens? even after Yorktown, King George III and Lord George Germain (Secretary of State for the Americas) were fully for fighting on and the North Government staggered on for months afterward, so the British will was there, would the American will be broken by bankruptcy? would the French and Spanish bow out as was rumored they would?
 
Decisive battle might well still have been fought against Cornwallis in the south: he'd done a bang-up job of turning the countryside against him, and Greene might not have had much trouble rustling up a horde of militia if he sought such a strategy. I'd say this is stretching plausibility, but there is a remote chance.

I can't speak for Spain, but I think the will would still be there for France at least another year and probably longer. They'd had a good run of success in the West Indies and might see fruits ahead should they soldier on. Perhaps Paris could give a loan to Congress? Then again, they'd already thrown far too much cash at the fire.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I think that if the revolution goes bankrupt, then the easiest way to end the Revolution would be for the British to offer amnesty for colonial soldiers, excluding the leadership. The thing is that the Continentals were continually printing money, now I don't k

I don't know about besieging New York. The British have the advantage of being able to bring in troops, and supplies, by sea - until such point as Washington and Rochambeau set up decent emplacements to threaten shipping.

I think that assuming no Yorktown-style defeat, then Britain can probably win the war. No major defeat to kill political pressure at home, and later the British defeated the French in the West Indies, ending the threat in that theatre. I'm assuming that would still happen.

After that, if the USA aren't able to get a big victory by the end of 1782, France is likely to bow out in exchange for some of their Caribbean colonies being returned, considering their dire financial situation - if they don't then the Revolution may happen a few years early. If France bows out, the Spanish are likely to follow.

Britain can keep their colonies, and likely capture a number of French and Dutch territories would be taken in the Caribbean, either that or Indian territories, that would be down to negotiations - I would wager the French would prefer to keep their Caribbean possessions. I doubt the Spanish can really be too badly hurt, that way they can slide quietly out of the war - maybe surrendering Puerto Rico?

However, it isn't a total Brit-love-fest. Britain would likely have to accept American demands to representation - and as such an American Parliament. I'd expect that it would be set up so that whilst it lacks the debt of the Colonial Congress, it takes some of the debt of the Seven and Revolutionary Wars from Britain. I expect that trade with other countries may be allowed, as long as there were preferential tariffs with Britain, which would drastically help with resolving the war debts of Britain and the Thirteen Colonies.

Though I agree, it does all rely on a surviving New York, and Cornwallis denying the Continentals a major victory.

Although, TFSmith may end up having details on the ground war itself.
 
Both the Colonies and Britain are pretty much staggering on their last legs in 1781 (Britain not so much financially, but morale-wise). In order to win an outright victory, the British would need a big win in the South and then still need to fight their way through

Britain has already offered the colonies virtually anything short of independence in 1778 (though with the Lord Germain explicitly saying that Britain would demand better terms should their war situation turn around) and I suspect that if the war went on long enough it would stalemate out,
with the US not getting independence but the Continental Congress more or less retaining control. (It's worth noting that OTL one of the American commissioners to France had started secretly communicating with the British along these terms; if the war dragged on with no American victory in sight I suspect he'd start pulling other politicians into the plot.)

I think the war would go on for at least two but no more than four more years before coming to some sort of conclusion.
 
I think the issue would be states making or trying to make separate peaces from the rest of the united States, at the time there were rumors that Ethan Allen was on the edge of declaring Vermont for the British and Allen and other leading Vermonters were meeting on that very subject with Quebec governor Frederick Haldimand between 1780 and 1783 no doubt American victory at Yorktown was very chilling to those talks, failure in an attack on New York in late 1781 rather than victory at Yorktown likely leads to Vermont going British in late 1781 or early 1782 from there, I imagine states would start meeting in a low key way with British go betweens about separate peace.
 
Decisive battle might well still have been fought against Cornwallis in the south: he'd done a bang-up job of turning the countryside against him, and Greene might not have had much trouble rustling up a horde of militia if he sought such a strategy.

Cornwallis moved north precisely because he couldn't control the south, remember. It will be rather messy. I suspect you see a peace treaty based on "utis posseditis" rather than an actual reconquest of the USA; the southern colonies and perhaps Vermont stay with Britain, which is confident it's swallowed up an enfeebled USA. There was a widespread feeling that New England was a drag on the British in any case, so why keep it?

This probably means round 2 in the 1790s is guarantees, mind.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Comes back to the reality, however, that

and if Washington and Rochambeau fail in getting a major (or even minor) victory in 1781, what happens? even after Yorktown, King George III and Lord George Germain (Secretary of State for the Americas) were fully for fighting on and the North Government staggered on for months afterward, so the British will was there, would the American will be broken by bankruptcy? would the French and Spanish bow out as was rumored they would?

Comes back to the reality, however, that a North American dominion ends up dominating the UK at some point in the Nineteenth Century, which was foreseable...

And given the British had offered what amounted to that in 1778 and been turned down (too much blood shed, and an American victory was in the air after Saratoga) it really gets to the point that there are too many Americans and they are too far away for London to make a go of power-sharing.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Comes back to the reality, however, that a North American dominion ends up dominating the UK at some point in the Eighteenth Century, which was foreseable...

And given the British had offered what amounted to that in 1778 and been turned down (too much blood shed, and an American victory was in the air after Saratoga) it really gets to the point that there are too many Americans and they are too far away for London to make a go of power-sharing.

Best,

I agree that by 1781-83 its basically too late for all the States to fold back into becoming colonies in any way, that said, some could be, Georgia for example, South Carolina maybe, Vermont for sure, and for sure the British could hold onto the Ohio and Mid-western area

now if they could talk large states, like Virginia or Pennsylvania to make their own peace, and independence, more recalcitrant states, in New England or New York could be brought down by military force
 
Comes back to the reality, however, that a North American dominion ends up dominating the UK at some point in the Eighteenth Century, which was foreseable...

No, not the 18th century at all, and as patriotic as I am, nor much of the 19th - giving into the fact Britain wouldn't be able to control a dominion as big as *North America by then either.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
How, though? It's not like the Great Wall of the

I agree that by 1781-83 its basically too late for all the States to fold back into becoming colonies in any way, that said, some could be, Georgia for example, South Carolina maybe, Vermont for sure, and for sure the British could hold onto the Ohio and Mid-western area ... now if they could talk large states, like Virginia or Pennsylvania to make their own peace, and independence, more recalcitrant states, in New England or New York could be brought down by military force

How, though? It's not like the Great Wall of the Alleghanies is going to hold back the flood...

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yeah, typo ... meant the Nineteenth.

No, not the 18th century at all, and as patriotic as I am, nor much of the 19th - giving into the fact Britain wouldn't be able to control a dominion as big as *North America by then either.

Yeah, typo ... meant the Nineteenth.

Historically, the UK had 27 million people in 1851, while the US had more than 23 million in 1850, with 2.4 million in what was then BNA; by 1860, the US had 31 million, while the UK had 29 million. BNA was 3 million in 1860, which makes things even more out of balance.

In 1870, just for fun, it was 38.6 million in the US (even after the losses of the Civil War); Canada was 4.7; the population of the UK was 31.6.

The idea of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales (or the last three and - essentially - the heptarchy) being states in a federal union governed from New York, Philadelphia, or Chicago is entertaining, but puts it into perspective.

The British would have been farther ahead in 1776 to say "Great! Good luck! Want to buy some stuff?"

Best,
 
In 1870, just for fun, it was 38.6 million in the US (even after the losses of the Civil War); Canada was 4.7; the population of the UK was 31.6.

The idea of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales (or the last three and - essentially - the heptarchy) being states in a federal union governed from New York, Philadelphia, or Chicago is entertaining, but puts it into perspective.

Is it possible to get cultural changes that make the residents of the British Isles more willing to be ruled from North America as it grows, under the umbrella of "We're all British people anyway"?
 
Is it possible to get cultural changes that make the residents of the British Isles more willing to be ruled from North America as it grows, under the umbrella of "We're all British people anyway"?

Going from ruling a significant fraction of the world to being ruled by your own jumped-up colonials is not going to happen, barring some kind of plague depopulating England. If there was some kind of formalized union between the *USA and *Britain to resolve the demands for independence, it'd just result in the *USA splitting off with well wishes and a firm alliance two generations down the line.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Is it possible to get cultural changes that make the residents of the British Isles more willing to be ruled from North America as it grows, under the umbrella of "We're all British people anyway"?

Well, as long as the Colonials are appeased after the war, there wouldn't be the massive cultural shift that they engineered after the war. The nearest analogue I guess would be Brazil-Portugal, but I still think that is insufficient, because to appease the states would require their own parliament - sure forcibly created in a way that they didn't want - but in the end, they get taxation, representation, and local powers - all the things they did want. The only thing up for question there is whether the colonies retain their original boundaries, or are remade. Considering they have these powers, and probably have at least a representative within the Privy Council, short of the Homeland-British doing something catastrophically bad, I see no reason for them to rebel, especially as economic liberalism develops.
 
Top