Sucessful supression of the War of Independence...what next?

Lets assume that the Brits won before the winter at Valley Forge and that George III got his way.

My feeling is that we would have an "Irish Solution" to the rebellion, i.e. everyone even vaguelly involved would be rounded up and after a breif trial hanged everyone.

Would this crush the rebellion or just move it underground only to resurface sporadically? Or would it so inflame the colonists that a fully supported revolution would come about?
 
Pretty much everything but Savannah, Charleston, and New York City.:confused: Washington couldn't take them without naval supremacy, though in the first two cases he tried. I think katchen meant 1776, after the New York City/New Jersey campaigns. Trenton and Princeton changed all that.

Thanks, I was a little baffled when katchen said 1781 and wondered if I was horribly misinformed somehow.
 
I don't think Washington was going to let Lafayette command very far from his own eye. I think (in frustration) that he was looking for a new officer to command whose loyalty he knew was absolute.

AIUI, Lee was basically pulling a "Monty Python & the Holy Grail" routine of "Charge!" and "Run Away!" In that kind of brutal heat, the worst orders I can think of. More fatalities from heat prostration than combat, IIRC.

I think so.

Von Steuben's true act of genius? Seeing through the problem about why so many other foreign officers hired to serve as senior officers failed? Because for European officers, you give an order and the men obey, period. Harvey Korman's old joke (on F Troop, playing a Prussian officer) was true: "Ven I orderz mein men to march off a cliff, zey march off a cliff!":eek: More or less.:p

He found with drilling the American Continentals (and later, even with the Rebel Virginian Militia) that as long as the Americans were explained WHY an order was necessary, they had no problems obeying it.:) Americans didn't have the Middle Ages in their cultural memory. No unquestioning obedience, no working class radicalism.

That worked so well it seems like it should have been common sense, but in context it was an amazingly insightful thing. Especially for someone who spoke (initially) bad English.

No history as a military people? Many colonials came to America to get away from Europe's wars.
Maybe.

Ohmigod. HEY EVERYBODY! DAN RATHER IS AN AH.COM MEMBER!:eek:

This is why I should reread my posts to make sure I typed what I intended better. :eek:

Thank God we didn't PAY him that much!:D Though he did fine in terms of land grants after the war.

Yeah. And he's one of those even popular history acknowledges, if cursorily - so that's something.

Agreed. Frederick was old by then. IDK how much he may have been told about a man who helped deal such a mortal blow to the First British Empire. The very same empire that had betrayed him twenty years earlier.:mad::p I hope he was told. Whatever he may have thought of a new republic on the opposite side of the Atlantic Ocean, based on his activities combating British recruitment of German mercenaries...

If he were told, He would have been very proud. Especially the little bit about Von Steuben being one of the three divisional commanders at Yorktown.:D

Yeah. Von Steuben earned that handsomely.

And he - with due respect to Lafayette - is my favorite of the foreign officers who actually provided useful services to the Revolution. I'm not entirely sure why, he just charms me.

The US was very fortunate to have both men (and their peers). It may not have decided the war in and of itself, but what they did was beyond all praise.

Pity some foreigners just came over for the hope of gain and never provided as much. The US was pretty enthusiastic about rewarding those foreigners who did serve with land grants.

Enemy Native American tribes posed a very real threat to colonies in the 17th and early 18th centuries, but by the 1770s things had become so one-sided that this was no longer true.

However, it might be much more apparent to us with the benefit of knowledge we have than it was to either London or the Americans of the time.

Well, I'd say this is one of those "just because you have to power doesn't mean you should use it" things. Actions speak louder than words. Pitt was strongly against directly taxing the colonies, and was against all of those resented intrusions into internal colonial government that other politicians enacted. Additionally, I think he simply would not have considered going to war against the colonies, and that means a lot. He was a direhard mercantilist, I'll give you that.

Do you mind providing a source covering that (Pitt's opposition to such intrusions)? I trust you and your research more than I trust mine, truthfully, but I'd like to read it myself.

Also, Pitt wasn't one of George III's men, George III hated him and typically wanted him away from power whenever it was feasible.

That's not in and of itself a flattering thing to either man.
 

Neirdak

Banned
I just wish to share one important information I found about Friedrich Wilhelm August Heinrich Ferdinand von Steuben, he was actually sent to North America by the French Minister of War (evil Frenchies ...).

Von Steuben traveled to Paris in the summer of 1777. As luck would have it, he was endorsed for service by the French Minister of War (Count de St. Germain) who fully realized the potential of an officer with Prussian General Staff training. Steuben was introduced to General Washington by means of a letter from Franklin as a "Lieutenant General in the King of Prussia's service," a certain exaggeration of his actual credentials.
From : http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/steuben.html
 
I am still ignorant about military tactics and strategies used by both sides during the ARW. I only know that the "Washingtonians" rarely used Indian tactics and guerrillas against the British. They still prefered to fight in open-fields and to shoot at each other closely.

Yes, but the militia were capable of using uerilla tactics, and did. When the first happened in New Jersey, WAhsington was astonished by it, but it caused the British real headaches, because it shut down their ability to forage in New Jersye.

A small Army which can't efficiently control such a gigantic territory as the Thirteen colonies and whose members need to feed their families.

Actually by 1781 the army was made of landless men without families, and a surprisingly high number of blacks.

The Continental Army of 1781-82 saw the greatest crisis on the American side in the war. Congress was bankrupt. Popular support for the war was at its all-time low. There were mutinies (Pennsylvania Line and New Jersey Line). Congress even voted to cut funding for the Army, but Washington managed nevertheless to secure important tactical victories which saved, not only his Commander-in-Chief position, but the Revolution.

I don't think this would have resulted in a victory. Holding onto the southern colonies, maybe; but even there, the British would have faced insurgencies which by the time of Yorktown had reduced their hold to essentially the coastal cities.

During most civil wars you can use the 1/3 rule : 1/3 of the population is made of rebels, 1/3 is neutral, the last 1/3 stays loyal.

I mean, come on. Can't we use actual numbers or estimates for this war?

Patriots were a minority in America.

What's your cite for this? Most studies make clear the patriots were a majority, as evidenced by their ability to control the country despite their numerical inferiority.

They chose to stay idle in the main cities waiting for a decisive battle, instead of pressuring the "Washingtonians" and worse the Continental Army was able to choose where and when the British forces fought ...

Well, they did try decisive battles. Washington refused to go along with it, and when Burgoyne tried to exercise political vision, he got captured.

After the war one "Irish Solution" to the rebellion would be the worst thing to do, just exile the rebellion leaders far away from America. Without french support and without leaders, the next rebellions will be smaller or won't exist.

Why wouldn't the next rebellion be the same size or larger, as the colonies increase?

He found with drilling the American Continentals (and later, even with the Rebel Virginian Militia) that as long as the Americans were explained WHY an order was necessary, they had no problems obeying it.:) Americans didn't have the Middle Ages in their cultural memory. No unquestioning obedience, no working class radicalism.

I'm reading a biography of Washington now, and there's a line after the evacuation of New York where a British officer says, "Americans: Nobody else can govern them, but somehow they can govern themselves."
Well, if by early US you mean post-ARW? Of course. But then, the USA was/is a NATION, not 13 squabbling colonies with no central authority except a 3000 miles distant foreign government more interested in enriching their own coffers and keeping the colonial borders quiet.
Well, even colonies could handle the Native Americans on their own; the Carolinas had a nasty little war which they won right before the Revolution, no?



I don't know how that happened, but its a pretty remarkable record - and the rest of the army coming up to that standard says everything on whether or not Americans could fight.

Well, Americans did stand up to regulars repeatedly, no? Bunker Hill, Brandywine, Monmouth, Saratoga....

Maybe. It would at least have been worth seeing if they'd be more willing to submit to the crap of being in the army on those terms - it would be a much-needed asset for the light infantry starved Brits.

This is a good example of British political failure; there was a source of light infantry the Brits could have turned to, and they toyed with it. But at the end of the day, they decided against relying on the slaves too much.

Pity some foreigners just came over for the hope of gain and never provided as much. The US was pretty enthusiastic about rewarding those foreigners who did serve with land grants.

Elfwine, this is an interesting question. Why did men like Lafayette, Kosczukio, etc. serve if the war was about taxes?
 

Neirdak

Banned
I don't think this would have resulted in a victory. Holding onto the southern colonies, maybe; but even there, the British would have faced insurgencies which by the time of Yorktown had reduced their hold to essentially the coastal cities.

During the line Pennsylvania Line Mutiny which began January 1, 1781, the 2,400 men of the Pennsylvania Line decided to stop following orders. Officers led the remaining orderly regiments to quell the uprising, but after a few warning shots from the mutineers, the rest of the regiments fell into line with them. Captain Adam Bitting, commander of Company D, 4th Pennsylvania Regiment, was fatally shot by a mutineer who was trying to kill a lieutenant colonel. General Wayne himself was almost shot during the mutiny.

On January 7, an emissary from General Sir Henry Clinton, British commander in New York City came to the encampement at Jockey Hollow, New Jersey near Morristown. The agent brought a letter from Clinton offering the Pennsylvanians their back pay from British coffers if they gave up the rebel cause and turn their coats. Fortunately the mutineers refused to serve the British. Only several weeks later, a substantial portion of the New Jersey Line mutinied near Pompton.

Can you see a potential PODs here ?

The 1st January 1781 is before the arrival of the Expédition Particulière (5000 french men) which arrived in July. So Washington's troops could have lost 2400 men or even more if New Jersey Line or other troops chose to follow the British with them. Anthony Wayne could also die or get wounded. All that with the New York British Army nearby, Jockey Hollow is 30 miles from New York ...

What's your cite for this? Most studies make clear the patriots were a majority, as evidenced by their ability to control the country despite their numerical inferiority.

I quoted one number given by John Adams himself.

Why wouldn't the next rebellion be the same size or larger, as the colonies increase?

This rebellion wouldn't be helped, paid and trained by a foreign country.

Elfwine, this is an interesting question. Why did men like Lafayette, Kosczukio, etc. serve if the war was about taxes?

They were paid by France and the French Minister of War. In all the French spent 1.3 billion livres to support the Americans directly, in addition to the money it spent fighting Britain on land and sea outside the U.S. Without France which began to help since 1771, USA would never have been born. Lafayette himself was sent to America by the chief of the Secret du Roi (Count of Broglie) to negociate one future french involvement with the Insurgents. By the way Lafayette was odd as he was overly rich (one of the richest man in France).

The sad thing about the foreign heroes of ARW is that many of them were considered as "failures" in Europe, even Von Steuben or Puliaski :(
 
Last edited:
Well, Americans did stand up to regulars repeatedly, no? Bunker Hill, Brandywine, Monmouth, Saratoga....

Bunker Hill I'll grant you (losing by running out of ammunition more than anything else), Brandywine is mixed, Monmouth is post-Steuebn.

My point is, "the army" in general was rather mixed. Some good units, some units that peformed well, and then there are the militia that added nothing (acknowledging the issue of them in New Jersey and such - but the Americans needed both a standing force and something able to do that for best results).

So I'd say its fair to say that - for whatever reasons - the American troops in the Revolution generally performed better than they had performed in the Seven Years War.

Elfwine, this is an interesting question. Why did men like Lafayette, Kosczukio, etc. serve if the war was about taxes?

I can think of a variety of reasons. Some of which aren't even cynical.

Just because the war was about taxes doesn't mean that people who believed in liberty or other loftier things didn't identify the American cause with it - after all, the American rebels did a good job presenting it as if it was a matter of liberty.
 
Pontiac's Rebellion was suppressed, no? And colonial militia could perform well, as they did at Louisbourg in the 1740s.

It did take 3yrs, and was fought with regulars. It also showed Gage being a decent officer, (like Burgoyne in Spain) and should make every one happy that Amherst declined command.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
I mean, come on. Can't we use actual numbers or estimates for this war?

Estimating the number of loyalists in the population is hard, for several reasons. First, do you include enslaved population in any such estimate, which leaned overwhelmingly in the "loyalist" direction? Second, how do you account for declining loyalists sentiment with waning British fortunes over time? Third, the Patriot Committees of Public Safety were damn effective as suppressing loyalists throughout the country. While they obviously had no small amount of public sympathy, the fact that they found no shortage of people to tar and feather and run out of towns. My personal estimate is that in 1775, the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3rd rule of thumb was probably true, with a continual increase towards the patriot side each year thereafter. Although, even by war's end, judging by the numbers of people who left the county, at least 1/5th of the country was probably bitterly defeated loyalists. Indeed, one of the untold stories of the revolution is probably the amazing speed (within a generation) with which disafected loyalist and victorious patriots reconciled themselves. By 1800, everyone in America had been patriot, even those loyalists who'd filtered back in from the Carribean and Canada. But I think that was something of a convenient fiction, although the Revolutionary Generation and its children -- on boths sides of the affair - does deserve applause for embracing it so thoroughly. (There's few examples of returning exiles in the years after the revolution being pilloried by their communities for having sided with the British.)
 
During the line Pennsylvania Line Mutiny which began January 1, 1781, the 2,400 men of the Pennsylvania Line decided to stop following orders. Officers led the remaining orderly regiments to quell the uprising, but after a few warning shots from the mutineers, the rest of the regiments fell into line with them. Captain Adam Bitting, commander of Company D, 4th Pennsylvania Regiment, was fatally shot by a mutineer who was trying to kill a lieutenant colonel. General Wayne himself was almost shot during the mutiny.

On January 7, an emissary from General Sir Henry Clinton, British commander in New York City came to the encampement at Jockey Hollow, New Jersey near Morristown. The agent brought a letter from Clinton offering the Pennsylvanians their back pay from British coffers if they gave up the rebel cause and turn their coats. Fortunately the mutineers refused to serve the British. Only several weeks later, a substantial portion of the New Jersey Line mutinied near Pompton.

Can you see a potential PODs here ?

I was under the impression that the British had essentially given up on reconquering New England by 1778, and had decided to focus most of their energy on the Southern colonies. I think the Continental army could fall into disarray, but it's likely to reform to some extent as soon as the British come marching. Don't get me wrong, this disarray and dissolution could have very severe consequences for Washington's army, but the former colonies weren't just going to fall to the British like a house of cards because of it.

They were paid by France and the French Minister of War. In all the French spent 1.3 billion livres to support the Americans directly, in addition to the money it spent fighting Britain on land and sea outside the U.S. Without France which began to help since 1771, USA would never have been born. Lafayette himself was sent to America by the chief of the Secret du Roi (Count of Broglie) to negociate one future french involvement with the Insurgents. By the way Lafayette was odd as he was overly rich (one of the richest man in France).

1771? What's your source for that?

I agree with the bolded, for one thing because the Americans would have had no way to break the British blockade without outside help.

Just because the war was about taxes...

Do you really think the war was about taxes?
 
Bunker Hill I'll grant you (losing by running out of ammunition more than anything else), Brandywine is mixed, Monmouth is post-Steuben.

My point is, "the army" in general was rather mixed. Some good units, some units that peformed well, and then there are the militia that added nothing (acknowledging the issue of them in New Jersey and such - but the Americans needed both a standing force and something able to do that for best results).

So I'd say its fair to say that - for whatever reasons - the American troops in the Revolution generally performed better than they had performed in the Seven Years War.

And Saratoga wasn't a field battle, it was a siege. A siege set up by an American victory at Bennington using Indian-style tactics of infiltration and surprise against isolated Hessian mercenaries who'd on the whole would have much rather been somewhere else.:rolleyes:

The militia had it's place, and could act VERY effectively under a combination of good leadership and a commander who knew how to use them properly. After all, the only true open field defeat suffered by the British Regulars in the ARW included the use of large numbers of militia employed with great effect and skill. Cowpens. Also, in siege circumstances where American victory appeared possible, there was a "cascade effect" on local militia recruitment.

Frex,
1) Oriskany, Lake Champlain, Bennington, Saratoga
2) Kings Mountain, Cowpens, Guilford Courthouse
3) Washington's march, DeGrasse's arrival in the Chesapeake, Virginia Capes, Yorktown
 
Do you really think the war was about taxes?

I think the disruption that started things was about taxes. I think by 1775 it was about the Americans being convinced the British were out to oppress them and the British being convinced the Americans were incorrigible rebels.

In between we see a lot of bungling attempts at dealing with Americans causing trouble and Americans not paying taxes.

So, "Not exactly."

But I do not think that it was about The Forces of Liberty vs. the Forces of Oppression. It was about men who didn't want to pay taxes vs. men who didn't know how to govern steadily escalating things until shooting was inevitable.

Usertron: Yeah. But given a choice, give me von Steuben's trained Continentals over Morgan's militia.

But that said, I'm impressed as all hell at how well he pulled that off. That took a lot of leadership and good sense.

Two qualities that seem to have been required for any of the battles the Americans won to be victories. Even with steadier units than the average militia, the American wins are all about the generalship factor except for Yorktown (not to fault it there, but everywhere else better leaders were the only possible trump card for American arms).
 
Last edited:
Top