WI: There was no Battle of Chesapeake

In the Battle of Chesapeake the French fleet destroyed an English fleet that was going to relieve Charles Cornwallis. This led to the ultimate defeat at Yorktown and the Treaty of Paris being signed, leading to independence for the 13 Colonies.

But WI, for some reason, the French Fleet commanded by Comte de Grasse didn't make it to stop the British Fleet, would this have led to a victory for the British at Yorktown and then possibly the War of Independence being won by the British?

Personally I believe that if this had happened then the Siege of Yorktown would've been won by the British, and ultimately cripple the Revolution, but the British would've then slackened the harshness of the Acts being enforced on the Colonies at the time.

Discuss.
 
I dont think that this idea, as proposed, is workable. It comes down to the dynamics of the Yorktown campaign. De grasse was in virginia long before the siege began (in fact, Graves was specifically hunting him in the movements prior to the Battle of the Chesapeake), and Washington did not arrive for nine days after the battle. So there is no way to simply remove the french fleet, as its presence in Virginia was what caused the entire yorktown campaign to happen. If de Grasse never goes to virginia, he probably makes for some French or American held port, and the stalemate around New York continues.
 
In the Battle of Chesapeake the French fleet destroyed an English fleet that was going to relieve Charles Cornwallis. This led to the ultimate defeat at Yorktown and the Treaty of Paris being signed, leading to independence for the 13 Colonies.

But WI, for some reason, the French Fleet commanded by Comte de Grasse didn't make it to stop the British Fleet, would this have led to a victory for the British at Yorktown and then possibly the War of Independence being won by the British?

Personally I believe that if this had happened then the Siege of Yorktown would've been won by the British, and ultimately cripple the Revolution, but the British would've then slackened the harshness of the Acts being enforced on the Colonies at the time.

Discuss.

Well, first of all, the French did not destroy the British fleet at the Battle of the Chesapeake. They basically damaged them enough that the British commander felt he had to withdraw to New York. As for the siege itself, the fact of no naval engagement at the Chesapeake would not "win" the siege for the British. Basically the British fleet would most likely have evacuated Cornwallis's men from Yorktown and transported them to the secure British base at New York. That was the plan, anyway.

As to whether that would have led to a British victory in the ARW, I don't think so. It's really already too late for that by this time.

--A withdrawal from Yorktown is likely to be seen, not as a victory, but as a defeat in the halls of Parliament...not as great a disaster as the surrender of Cornwallis's army was in OTL, but clearly an admission that the Southern campaign, in which the British had invested so much blood and treasure, was an abject failure, and the British were no closer to reconquering the colonies than they ever were. Given those fact, much the same pressure for a negotiated peace which existed in OTL is still going to exist, and Edmund Burke and company are still likely going to run Lord North out of office. Perhaps not quite at the same time...perhaps the end is delayed...but the end result is the same.

--The French, Spanish, and Dutch are still all at war with Britain, and Britain has to send most of it's forces to secure the real gems of it's empire...the Caribbean sugar islands and India. They simply don't have the resources left for another try at reconquering America.

At best, the effect of there being no Battle of the Chesapeake is that the end is delayed by a short time, and there may be other fighting in the region around New York before it's all over. And the French don't get so much credit for "winning the Revolution for the Americans" as they do now. That's about it.
 
Top