The Redcoats Won

[Zor]

This is a comparitivly Simple thread with two major points to it...

1-Could and how the British Forces have sucsessfully quelled the American Revolution?
2-How would America Evolve under the British Empire and what would the world be like without the USA?

Zor

[Akhlut]

1 - Well, if the slogans were of any indication, they could have either stopped taxing the Americas or they could have started representing the Americas. More seriously, seeing as the American colonies were composed mainly of European immigrants, as opposed to being composed of mostly natives with British governors and armies present, I think Britain could have quelled the Revolution via offering the American colonies a larger degree of autonomy while remaining loyal to the Crown. Being sadly ignorant of Canadian history, I imagine something resembling their earlier history (minus all the French influence) would have been mostly repeated by the Americans. If I'm horribly wrong about all this, then someone please correct me.

2 - I'm not as well-versed in American/British relations prior to the Revolution as I'd like to be and I don't feel qualified to answer it. I imagine we'd be out Alaska, Texas, California, and possibly all of the Lousiana Purchase, though.

[Surlethe]

This is a comparitivly Simple thread with two major points to it...

1-Could and how the British Forces have sucsessfully quelled the American Revolution?

Get a fucking propaganda presence in the colonies.

[Centurian99]

This is a comparitivly Simple thread with two major points to it...

1-Could and how the British Forces have sucsessfully quelled the American Revolution?

Easily. The British high command was basically incompetent.

2-How would America Evolve under the British Empire and what would the world be like without the USA?
Zor

At a guess, there'd probably be multiple nations in what is now the US. Doubt that the French would have sold Louisiana to the Brits...

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

1-Could and how the British Forces have sucsessfully quelled the American Revolution?

Not having to fight the French around the world at the same time and not having the French supply the Americans with ungodly numbers of supplies could have helped. The French were extremly important to the American war effort both behind the scenes, in europe/asia, as well as in terms of boots (later on).

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: Most military benefit indirectly came in the aid of the French Navy holding off the might of the British Navy. THey were also warring with the French around the globe at the time, in which they were acting as a major distraction force. Had the French not been such a pain in the ass, the British would have been able to deploy more and better troos to the N. American front as well as superior generals. Many texts I have seen seem to concurr, that the war was largely won, although not fully, outside of N. America's borders.


Are we talking militarily or diplomatically, though?

[fgalkin]

Alt-hist. threads go to OT.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Surlethe]

Nice to see it finally made it here ...

This is a comparitivly Simple thread with two major points to it...

1-Could and how the British Forces have sucsessfully quelled the American Revolution?

Get a fucking propaganda presence in the colonies.

To elaborate on this point, the British were out of touch with the colonial sentiment; a strong propaganda machine would have gone a long way toward swaying the 1/3 who didn't give a shit about patriotism and freedom toward the Loyalist cause.

[Lord Zentei]

2-How would America Evolve under the British Empire and what would the world be like without the USA?
Zor

At a guess, there'd probably be multiple nations in what is now the US. Doubt that the French would have sold Louisiana to the Brits...

The Brits would have taken Louisiana in 1812.

[Flagg]

The revolution could probably have been delayed for decades by simply giving the Americans more autonomy, and treating them with a bit more respect. However, a revolution over the slavery issue would most likely have occured some decades later.

[Glocksman]

The revolution could probably have been delayed for decades by simply giving the Americans more autonomy, and treating them with a bit more respect. However, a revolution over the slavery issue would most likely have occured some decades later.

Possibly, but other slaveholding areas of the Empire freed the slaves without bursting into full scale rebellion.

If the Crown did it wisely with some kind of compensation plan to pay the former owners, there would have been discontent, but not the kind of conflict we saw IRL 1861-1865.
We also don't know how differently the South would have evolved economically if we had stayed with the Empire.
Perhaps slavery wouldn't have been such a vital component of the economy?

[Rogue 9]

1 - Well, if the slogans were of any indication, they could have either stopped taxing the Americas or they could have started representing the Americas. More seriously, seeing as the American colonies were composed mainly of European immigrants, as opposed to being composed of mostly natives with British governors and armies present, I think Britain could have quelled the Revolution via offering the American colonies a larger degree of autonomy while remaining loyal to the Crown. Being sadly ignorant of Canadian history, I imagine something resembling their earlier history (minus all the French influence) would have been mostly repeated by the Americans. If I'm horribly wrong about all this, then someone please correct me.

Depends at which point they did all this. By 1775 it was too late.

Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!

After Lexington and Concord, it was "Live Free or Die" for too many people for the British to appease.

[Flagg]

The revolution could probably have been delayed for decades by simply giving the Americans more autonomy, and treating them with a bit more respect. However, a revolution over the slavery issue would most likely have occured some decades later.

Possibly, but other slaveholding areas of the Empire freed the slaves without bursting into full scale rebellion.

If the Crown did it wisely with some kind of compensation plan to pay the former owners, there would have been discontent, but not the kind of conflict we saw IRL 1861-1865.
We also don't know how differently the South would have evolved economically if we had stayed with the Empire.
Perhaps slavery wouldn't have been such a vital component of the economy?

That's true. Still, the south depended on them so heavily even at the turn of the 19th century that I have a hard time imagining them giving up their slaves without a fight.

[Typhonis 1]

Actually the No axation slogan WAS a slogan....Ben Franklin was told by the continental Congrss that they didn`t want representation in England......

Give America a bit more home rule and allow them to raise a locally trained military so they CAN defend themselves without bleeding Englands coffers.......

[Patrick Degan]

If Lord Howe had been more aggressive in prosecuting the campaign in New York in 1776, as Sir Henry Clinton pressed for, Washington's army would have been bagged by September and the Revolution would likely have died with a negotiated settlement along the lines proposed by Howe and his peace commission. The whole thing would have ended before France could ever have gotten involved --which might have saved the monarchy in that country (supporting the Americans was what drove France into bankruptcy and revolutionary chaos) for a few more decades and preempted the rise of Napoleon.

As for America, it likely would have gained dominion status within the Empire. The slavery question would have been settled the British way by the 1840s. Britain might have taken Louisiana from Spain, but Texas, the Southwest, and California, would have been part of an independent Mexico.

[Centurian99]

If Lord Howe had been more aggressive in prosecuting the campaign in New York in 1776, as Sir Henry Clinton pressed for, Washington's army would have been bagged by September and the Revolution would likely have died with a negotiated settlement along the lines proposed by Howe and his peace commission. The whole thing would have ended before France could ever have gotten involved --which might have saved the monarchy in that country (supporting the Americans was what drove France into bankruptcy and revolutionary chaos) for a few more decades and preempted the rise of Napoleon.

"more agressive." Try "competent." Howe screwed up big time...but Lord George Germaine (head of the War Office in London) was equally to blame.

The end result was that a substantial british force was trapped in American territory and forced to surrender. This brought the French, and eventually Spanish and Dutch in on the side of the Americans. This in turn led to the entrapment of British forces at Yorktown.

[Vendetta]

In the end, no matter the outcome of the War of Independence, America is too big and too far away to hang on to for long. Like most of the rest of the Empire, Independence would have come sooner or later by political means.

This would, of course, mean that we would have had time to finish dragging you lot up into something resembling civilisation.

[acesand8s]

I don't see Gen. Howe as that incompetant. True, he was too cautious at Long Island and New York. His strategy, however, was rather good; adopting a concilatory attitude towards the colonials offered the best chance of bringing them back into the empire with the least amount of bloodshed. Without Trenton, it likely would have succeeded; the people of New Jersey seemed to accept British control in the winter if 1776-77, at least until Howe's troops started plundering their homes.

If the Americans do return to the monarchical control, slavery is going to be a bit of pickle in the 19th century. Freeing 300,000 slaves in the West Indies is going to be a very different prospect from freeing 4 million-odd slaves in the American south. If the Americans get some sort of dominion status prior to compensated emancipation (which is very likely considering the attitudes of the colonists in 1776), they might be able to get around abolition.

[Centurian99]

I don't see Gen. Howe as that incompetant. True, he was too cautious at Long Island and New York. His strategy, however, was rather good; adopting a concilatory attitude towards the colonials offered the best chance of bringing them back into the empire with the least amount of bloodshed. Without Trenton, it likely would have succeeded; the people of New Jersey seemed to accept British control in the winter if 1776-77, at least until Howe's troops started plundering their homes.

1777. Saratoga. Burgoyne came up with the plan to split the colonies in two. He would lead 8000 troops from Canada, while Howe was to lead his own considerable forces north from New York. The only troops able to oppose them were ill-trained militia. Had Howe followed the plan, the planned link-up would have cut off New England from the rest of the Colonies.

However, Howe was completely focused on taking Philidelphia, and decided to march the bulk of his troops there. This was a ridiculous decision, because while Philadelphia was the capital of the colonies, taking it would not have knocked the Americans out of the war, since they were only a loose confederation of Colonies, each with its own military forces and supplies.

Only a small token force (2000 men) acting without orders from Howe, moved to support Burgoyne. They proved insufficient, ran into stiff opposition, and retreated to New York. Burgoyne advanced into American territory, he found himself surrounded and vastly outnumbered.

No ifs and or buts about it...Howe was simply incompetent. The defeat of the British at Saratoga was the turning point of the American revolution.

[weemadando]

Why not have America continue on as part of the Commonwealth - its not that unlikely... And hell, it would mean that we'd finally have some competition at the Commonwealth Games.

[acesand8s]

No ifs and or buts about it...Howe was simply incompetent. The defeat of the British at Saratoga was the turning point of the American revolution.

Howe's decision to attack Philadelphia rather than support the Saratoga campaign was clearly the wrong one and most of the blame for the failure of the offensive can be laid at Howe's feat. Saying he is incompetent, however, is a gross exaggeration. The failure at Philadelphia was Howe letting his emotions get away, desiring to repair the stain on his honor from Trenton and Princeton.

His actions at the Battle of Brandywine in the same campaign show that he had at least some talent as a military officer. Rather than repeating his mistake at Bunker Hill and making a frontal assault on the rebel lines, he sent the Hessians under Knyfenhausen (sp) to make a diversion while the remainder of the army flanked Washington. I believe it was Howe himself that noticed a hole in the rebel lines and ordered an assault that sent them from the field In the end, the battle didn't turn out as well as he hoped (Washington managed to extract his army), but what battle plan ever does?

So, yes, Howe made mistakes, a number of them in fact (at Bunker Hill, Long Island, and Philadelphia). Still, his battlefield record in both the Seven Years War/French and Indian War and the American Revolution show him to be more skilled than you give him credit for.

[Centurian99]

So, yes, Howe made mistakes, a number of them in fact (at Bunker Hill, Long Island, and Philadelphia). Still, his battlefield record in both the Seven Years War/French and Indian War and the American Revolution show him to be more skilled than you give him credit for.

I wasn't talking about his career...I was talking about actions in relation to the Battle of Saratoga. Which were, in a word, truly incompetent.

MacArthur was a great General, but his actions in Korea showed both genius (Inchon) and severe incompetence (approaching the Yalu river).

[acesand8s]

I wasn't talking about his career...I was talking about actions in relation to the Battle of Saratoga. Which were, in a word, truly incompetent.

MacArthur was a great General, but his actions in Korea showed both genius (Inchon) and severe incompetence (approaching the Yalu river).

If that's what you are saying then I'm in agreement. Howe let his emotions get in the way and ignored the militarily obvious course of action (support the attack from Canada) and for all intents and purposes cost Britain the war.