# Could the British have held America ?



## Soren (Jul 22, 2008)

Could they or not? What were the final deciding factors ?

We have had nearly no discussions on this issue, except one VERY long ago (which was very interesting).


----------



## Njaco (Jul 22, 2008)

Nope, would have been a colonial version of Iraq.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 22, 2008)

With continued support from France, don't think the British could win. The French fleet at Yorktown helped seal Cornwallis' defeat.

TO


----------



## Oreo (Jul 22, 2008)

I think they COULD HAVE but they would have had to have maintained a constant reign of murder and destruction until they had everyone finally subjugated, and it would have taken a lot of effort. But Washington and his contemporaries were very close to losing the whole thing several times. I'm glad they didn't. . . .


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 23, 2008)

It would have been expensive, but with enough troops and a more enlightened colonial adminstration, they could have won.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2008)

I think what did the British in was the battle of Cowpens and Cornwallis' insistence in chasing down Daniel Morgan after that battle - in layman's terms he pissed away his advantage.

If Cowpens never happened I think the British could of eventually won.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 23, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> It would have been expensive, but with enough troops *and a more enlightened colonial adminstration*, they could have won.



I think that is the key, the British leadership was arrogant stubborn, killed any hope of winning.


----------



## Airfix (Jul 23, 2008)

Until february 1778 the colonists were loosing the war.
Then the french provided money, troops and transport.

The prussian Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben came 1777 after meeting the ambasador Benjamin Franklin in Paris. 
He started to form an army out of that desolate mob the rebels called militia.

Bernardo de Gálvez y Madrid, gouvenor of spanish-louisiana took the last british naval base apart from jamaica at the gulf of mexico on may 8th, 1781.
Florida was given back to the spanish.

Even the netherlands aided the colonists.

Without help the colonists would have stand no chance.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 23, 2008)

I don't think they had any chance. We knew our land a lot better then they did. The only real help they got were Hessians. The AMericans had the help of the french fleet toward the end.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 23, 2008)

A question that begs to be asked is whether the people pro independence were "terrorists" in todays sense of the word . They harrassed , burnt and killed people out of house and home that were not pro independence


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> A question that begs to be asked is whether the people pro independence were "terrorists" in todays sense of the word . They harrassed , burnt and killed people out of house and home that were not pro independence


They probably would be but that was common in that day and age. Loyalist did the same thing in the southern states during the period leading up to Cowpens.


----------



## hunter0f2 (Jul 23, 2008)

No !! As stated byAirfix--- French intervention on the side of the Colonists ensured a British victory was not possible. Plus the Logistics of the whole operation!!


----------



## timshatz (Jul 23, 2008)

If the British advance south from Canada had been supported from NYC instead of heading off to the Chesapeake and invading PA from the top of the Chesapeake, the Colonials would've lost. No two ways about it.

By coming down from Canada and across the middle of the state, the Brits essentially split the Colonies into two parts. The very active Northeast and the less active Middle Atlantic and Southern States. An olive branch is offered to the Middle Atlantic and Southern states (anybody who comes in and swears allegiance to the King gets amnesty). After that it is a question of chasing down the remenents of Washington's army while keeping the New England states cornered. 

With Washington's Army wiped out, the New England states get the same treatment that the Scots got back in 1745. Pretty much a burn an pillage deal. Show the Middle Atlantic and Southern States what they get if the step out of line again and breaks the back (hopefully) of the Rebellion up north. 

Whole plan is a Carrot and Stick deal. 

Would it have worked? Maybe at best. The Brits were trying to subdue a continent of 3 million people with an Army of 30,000 men. They had substantial help in the Loyalist poplulation, but also substantial resistence in the Patriots. Probably a third were for the Brits, a third were for the Patriots and third were trying stay out of it. With numbers that big running around, the Regular British Army just wasn't big enough to handle the area and numbers it was trying to control. 

More likely that this thing, even if the Brits win at Saratoga, becomes a long, smoldering, insurrection. A cross between Northern Ireland and the Gaza strip with certain Patriot groups control territory at the same time the King's Govt does and using the Revolution to settle old scores. 

It would've been long and ugly.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 23, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> A question that begs to be asked is whether the people pro independence were "terrorists" in todays sense of the word . They harrassed , burnt and killed people out of house and home that were not pro independence



It's hard to assign 21st century labels (and morals) to 18th century actions. Much different world. 

Some (mostly in the South) call Sherman's march to the sea during the American Civil War an act of terror.

War is hell.

TO


----------



## JugBR (Jul 23, 2008)

they could win, but its a remote chance, because the americans was supported by foreign powers. 

i understand(my opinion), that the strugle for independence was also a strugle against monarchy. like the french revolution, isnt true ? 

i liked that comment by njaco:



njaco said:


> Nope, would have been a colonial version of Iraq.



make us think about many things, isnt ?


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 23, 2008)

Assuming a British military victory, it depends on the post-war policies initiated (can anybody say "versailles "). If they continued to be strong fisted and use American taxes to finance their wars then the Yanks would have continued to rebel and fight in one form or another.

If on the other hand, the British treated the Americans more like welcomed British subjects and treated the common man better, the steam woulda ran out of any revolution. There were plenty of pro-british in America. If the English played the American domestic policies smarter, there probably never woulda been a war. People just want to be left alone. They only fight when things get so bad they feel there is no choice.

If there was a British victory, I think there is zero chance they would have adopted a more enlightened and benevolent attitude. The resources of the North America would been sucked dry like the Spanish taking gold from Meso-America.

So No... eventually the Brits would have left. either by another war or through attrition.

Damn good thing there was war! That would suck being a North American nation that shares its identity with the UK!

 

.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 23, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> Damn good thing there was war! That would suck being a North American nation that shares its identity with the UK!
> 
> 
> 
> .



And instead of burger fries milkshake, fast food places would have Toad-in-the-hole and Bubble Squeak!  Yum!


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 23, 2008)

or have the Queen on our money!


----------



## Freebird (Jul 23, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> or have the Queen on our money!



Still might happen...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jul 23, 2008)

Definitely; I think a lot of people (particularly Americans) have no idea how many times we came close to losing the war. Valley Forge was probably the closest we came to just throwing in the towel and calling it a day; no food, no ammunition (well, very little anyway), no clothing, no real support, soldiers "defecting" left right, etc. The Continental Army did have the support of the Colonies for the most part, but there were still a lot of Colonists who were either on the fence (they didn't care who won the war, as long as they were more or less left alone to go about their business), or outright Loyalists who wanted to continue being a colony of His Majesty George III.

If Britain had changed her tactics to more suit the type of insurgency war she were fighting, I think she would've done much better, if not actually won the war. Unfortunately (or fortunately, if you're an American like me), Britain insisted on fighting a 17th century war in the late 18th century; the rest, as they say, is history.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 23, 2008)

Well was not washington himself cool to the idea of complete independance? There was a golden oppertunity to work out a compromise, but the chance was lost by the British. 

Would you consider this to be the first insurrection type "low intensity" war? The British were expecting for a short sharp clash of armies followed by surrender. The British did learn from this conflict it would seem, as Wellington used similar tactics in the Napoleonic "Peninsular War"


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 23, 2008)

I remember one historian saying that the Brits put in command the only general in the world that could lose to Gen. Washington.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2008)

I have to agree with syscom here. They could have with a different attitude toward the ruling power.

Eventually though the US would have ended up like Canada. A seperate state bowing down to the Queen...

Just kidding my Canadian friend!


----------



## red admiral (Jul 23, 2008)

Richard Holmes (Cranfield and Sandhurst, ex Brigadier) did a series on this question a few years back as well as giving a general history to the war. You really get the impression that the heart of the British leadership wasn't in the campaign and they made little effort to use their advantages. Fighting the French was a lot more pressing matter as well. A political settlement would be the best solution, with greater independence. An early move towards a Dominion like Canada or Australia with virtually complete independence. It would have solved a lot of problems down the line; no US civil war, probably no world wars...


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 23, 2008)

red admiral said:


> probably no world wars...



Please explain why if the US was another Canada or Australia, there would have been no world wars..


----------



## Freebird (Jul 23, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I have to agree with syscom here. They could have with a different attitude toward the ruling power.
> 
> Eventually though the US would have ended up like Canada. A seperate state bowing down to the Queen...
> 
> Just kidding my Canadian friend!



   Yes and perhaps you would be *Sir Adler, Duke of Alaska* by now!!! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2008)

freebird said:


> Yes and perhaps you would be *Sir Adler, Duke of Alaska* by now!!! 8)



I will take that title!


----------



## timshatz (Jul 23, 2008)

Have also heard that the Brits really weren't in it when it came to fighting in the Colonies. It was far away, expensive, big and they lost the ideology war before the first shot was every fired. 

There were plenty of Brits (in the Whig party) who were openly siding with the Colonials. Not a huge number, but enough to make life difficult for the Torries. 

If I had to choose a side, I'd much rather be on the side of the rebels. The situation is much simpler. Stay in the game until the Brits just get fed up and quit. Win when you can, but don't get cornered. Trade land for time and just show up the next day. 

For the Brits, it was a strategic nightmare. You can never a corner an Army in a place so vast. Especially with only 30K guys. Conquer a town, and the Rebels pack up and move 100 miles away, set up shop and you have to do it all over again. Brit Regulars have to come from England, Rebel troops can pop up from just about anywhere. Your supply lines are tied to water, the rebels seem to get it from just about anywhere they are at any given time. They have no lines of communication to cut (but the Brits do). 

No easy answers.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 23, 2008)

beside, who wants to name their beer a large wooly mammal.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> Could they or not? What were the final deciding factors ?
> 
> We have had nearly no discussions on this issue, except one VERY long ago (which was very interesting).



The question is the right one. The British could have 'won' but I do not believe they could prevail and held America.

They could have defeated the first rebellion, but short of extermination and recolonization I doubt that they could sustain the forces necessary to keep rebellion from occurring again while dealing with the French and prevailing there also.

No question where King George's priorities were at that time


----------



## drgondog (Jul 25, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> I remember one historian saying that the Brits put in command the only general in the world that could lose to Gen. Washington.



Probably a Brit Historian?


----------



## Airfix (Jul 25, 2008)

Let´s take a look at the world at the end of the 18th century.

Since 1718, transportation to the American colonies had been a penalty for various criminal offences in Britain, with approximately one thousand convicts transported per year across the Atlantic...
1774 Goethe's Sorrows of Young Werther
1775 Colonists in america start to rebell against his majesty. The penalty for doing so is hanging.
1778 France joins America in war, Mozart's Paris Symphony
1779 Spain joins American war. Riots against machinery
1781 Kant's Critique of pure reason
1782 Watt patents rotary steam engine
1783 Treaty of Versaille. Russian annexation of Crimea. Hot air balloon
1789 French revolution

Travelling from A to B means walking.
Transport means Ox-cart. 
Mass transport means a ship. You need a river or an ocean to do so.
Fast travel means on horse-back.
Fast communication means: How fast can you ride for days or weeks.

The lack of fast communication and the lack of fast travelling would have prevented an effective guerilla war.

Money comes from India, Africa, the Caribbean islands and China.
Military power is centered in europe.
Science, philosophy and the arts are centered in europe.
The American colonies, which provided tobacco, cotton, and rice in the south and naval materiel and furs in the north, were less financially successful than those of the Caribbean.
America, the place we ship convicts to.
The war in the american colonies was too expensive.
Even successful rebells posed no threat to the British Empire.
So the efforts were half-hearted.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 25, 2008)

The big question is, who will win the next revolution?


----------



## drgondog (Jul 25, 2008)

Airfix said:


> Let´s take a look at the world at the end of the 18th century.
> 
> Since 1718, transportation to the American colonies had been a penalty for various criminal offences in Britain, with approximately one thousand convicts transported per year across the Atlantic...
> 1774 Goethe's Sorrows of Young Werther
> ...



Excellent summary. 

Europe had no reason to take America into consideration for any reason other than as a 'backwater' trade partner until it was noted that the North and South collectively put 3,900,000 soldiers on the battlefield in the War Between the States, starting from approximately 1,108 officers and 15,529 (combined)Regular Army/Navy soldiers in 1860.

As a possible interesting note approximately 289,000 soldiers and militia served in the Revolutionary war


----------



## timshatz (Jul 25, 2008)

drgondog said:


> As a possible interesting note approximately 289,000 soldiers and militia served in the Revolutionary war



DD, is that double counting (local militia called to arms, fights, goes home, gets called out a year or two later, both incidents being counted as seperate callouts but involving the same troops)? Seems like an enormous number. Or, does it include Loyalist and Colonist troops?


----------



## drgondog (Jul 25, 2008)

timshatz said:


> DD, is that double counting (local militia called to arms, fights, goes home, gets called out a year or two later, both incidents being counted as seperate callouts but involving the same troops)? Seems like an enormous number. Or, does it include Loyalist and Colonist troops?



Every category named in your first question, including 2/3 that served 3months or less - no loyalists or Colonist troops.

The number for 1812-1815 was 527,000+ with about 2/3 also serving less than three months - only 66,000 served the entie 3 years

Reference - Bureau of Statistics and Census - presented in tables A-V,
"twenty Years of congress 1861-1881" Volume II by James G. Blaine,PhD (a Yankee) 1884 and published by Henry Hill Publishing Company - Norwich, CT

By far the best 1300 page book on the root causes of the War Between the States from the formation of the Continental Congress through the Reconstruction.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 25, 2008)

timshatz said:


> If I had to choose a side, I'd much rather be on the side of the rebels. The situation is much simpler. *Stay in the game until the* {other side}* just get fed up and quit.* Win when you can, but don't get cornered. Trade land for time and just show up the next day.
> 
> No easy answers.



Hmm, does that sound similar to something more current? Say in the Middle East?


----------



## drgondog (Jul 25, 2008)

freebird said:


> Hmm, does that sound similar to something more current? Say in the Middle East?



Viet Nam would be close


----------



## Freebird (Jul 25, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Viet Nam would be close




Yes that would certainly fit...


Hey Bill, can you think of any mainly "Guerrilla campaign" prior to the US war of Independance? Or was it about the first one?


----------



## Airfix (Jul 27, 2008)

@drgondog
Thank you.

First general using guerrilla tactics...
Could be Quintus Fabius Maximus, Second Punic War (218-202 BC)

See an exellent article on guerrilla warfare at wikipedia:
Guerrilla warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit:
Beeing the rebell is not always fun.
You are on the military inferior side.
The majority of people want to live their lives without hassle.
You have to threaten (at the best of times) your own people for supporting the other side.
Guerilla warfare is a nasty buiseness at best.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 27, 2008)

It will break out, probably next year. The next revolution. In my calculated opinion. And it will be very much a guerilla war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2008)

Oreo said:


> It will break out, probably next year. The next revolution. In my calculated opinion. And it will be very much a guerilla war.



Uh?

Where in the United States do you see this happening? 

If it ever happens again, I don't see it happening for years and years to come, probably not in our lifetime.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 27, 2008)

Oreo said:


> It will break out, probably next year. The next revolution. In my calculated opinion. And it will be very much a guerilla war.



The question was "Could the British have held America?

You lost me.  

TO


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> The question was "Could the British have held America?
> 
> You lost me.
> 
> TO


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 27, 2008)

TO


----------



## Oreo (Jul 27, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Uh?
> 
> Where in the United States do you see this happening?
> 
> If it ever happens again, I don't see it happening for years and years to come, probably not in our lifetime.



Sorry, it was a little off-topic. If I say anything more about that, I'll put it in the politics part of the site. But I live in South Carolina, for the record, and there is a lot of talk of revolution here.


----------



## renrich (Jul 27, 2008)

I think the Seven Years War exhausted the English treasury and they never really could muscle up and do what was necessary to win in America. All Washington had to do was keep his army intact and eventually the British were going to get tired and go home. I don't believe that public opinion at home in England wholeheartedly supported the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Sorry, it was a little off-topic. If I say anything more about that, I'll put it in the politics part of the site. But I live in South Carolina, for the record, and there is a lot of talk of revolution here.



Really I lived for many years in Columbia, South Carolina and Hendersonville, North Carolina and my sister still lives in Columbia, South Carolina. I never heard any talk like that.

I find it rather hard to believe. I am sure there are small groups that talk that kind of stuff, but I don think there is a lot of talk like that.

I do agree though, that this does not belong in this thread.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 29, 2008)

freebird said:


> Yes that would certainly fit...
> 
> 
> Hey Bill, can you think of any mainly "Guerrilla campaign" prior to the US war of Independance? Or was it about the first one?



Sorry to get back so late FB. Roger's Rangers during the French Indian Wars as well as teams of American Indiand fighting with French would be examples of early Special Ops but not Guerilla Campaigns per se.

The Revolutionary War had many more examples to fit the definition with indigenous citizens filtering in and out of combat or 'terror' attacks against individual or small groups of Brit soldiers, then slipping away.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 29, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Sorry, it was a little off-topic. If I say anything more about that, I'll put it in the politics part of the site. But I live in South Carolina, for the record, and there is a lot of talk of revolution here.



I'm not going to hijack this thread but I sense the same undercurrent that you do. In my pre-retirement former life as a technology exec this was only a tendril of random firing neurons as recently as the early 1990's. Never heard it in Army but saw little facets in the riots of the 60's

Ruby Ridge and Waco and Oklahoma City, combined with serious attempts by hard core, dedicated groups and Congress to first eliminate everything except single shot and double barrel shotguns - later watered down in 1995 GCA got a LOT of campfire and country coffee shop discussions that I had never heard before.

The extreme hatred by the 'other groups' (whichever they may be, but similar to daily Kos and Moveon.org) against political beliefs that don't align with their own, the incredible rise of gang membership and violence, the situation in the inner cities in which the turf wars are increasing every day and are racially polarized.

External threats in the form of dedicated teams of killers, and citizen agents 'of change' are growing in my opinion, left and right. Obama's friend Bill Ayeres comes to mind as a potentially 'unreformed' type to think about as we look at associations.

We can take this somewhere else, but "I ain't dismissing your words, Son" and the observations and awareness of a storm brewing actually made our decision when we picked a pretty self sufficient ranch in way SW Oregon - where the family trees are pretty much a straight line. Texas is only place I would go back to - and NEVER in a city anywhere, anymore.

Am I convinced? No.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 29, 2008)

Thanks, drgondog. It'll be Alaska for me, soon as I can afford to move.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Thanks, drgondog. It'll be Alaska for me, soon as I can afford to move.



Where in Alaska do you plan to move to. Me and my wife are moving to Alaska next summer.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 29, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Where in Alaska do you plan to move to. Me and my wife are moving to Alaska next summer.



Probably will start out in or near Anchorage with a goal of eventually starting farming near Talkeetna or Willow, or along the banks of the Susitna River. I have other friends who are planning to move up there within the next few years, too. And some who already have.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Probably will start out in or near Anchorage with a goal of eventually starting farming near Talkeetna or Willow, or along the banks of the Susitna River. I have other friends who are planning to move up there within the next few years, too. And some who already have.



Alaska is very very beautiful. I spent some time up there, and me and my wife are wanting to build a timber home near Anchorage (probably Wasilla). She is a Biologist and hoping to do something with animals up there.

I am doing my research right now on what Aviation companies are in the area that I might want to try and work for. Preferably Helos such as search and rescue or something like that.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 29, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Alaska is very very beautiful. I spent some time up there, and me and my wife are wanting to build a timber home near Anchorage (probably Wasilla). She is a Biologist and hoping to do something with animals up there.
> 
> I am doing my research right now on what Aviation companies are in the area that I might want to try and work for. Preferably Helos such as search and rescue or something like that.



These signs should be posted widely in Alaska also - If I moved there I think Kenai, Kodiak and over that range to Katmai through Brooks range - cold as hell in the winter, and as noted below you have to be on the lookout for the sound of bells.

Chris - have you looked hard at the FBO's at all the significant airports?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2008)

Yeah I am going to check out the FBOs. I really want to work for a larger company though such as Evergreen or something like that. 

We will see, I am keeping my options open. I am hoping to get my Aviation Maint. Management degree finished before we move, so that I can use that on my resumes as well.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 29, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Alaska is very very beautiful. I spent some time up there, and me and my wife are wanting to build a timber home near Anchorage (probably Wasilla). She is a Biologist and hoping to do something with animals up there.
> 
> I am doing my research right now on what Aviation companies are in the area that I might want to try and work for. Preferably Helos such as search and rescue or something like that.



Wasilla is within an hour of the areas I am interested in. Wasilla is a little over an hour from Anchorage, where aviation jobs greatly abound. Of course if you get a plane, you can fly back and forth to Anchorage in 20 minutes or less.

Unfortunately the only aviation credentials I have are that I worked at an FBO here in SC for 3 months, in which time I learned it is impossible to raise a family off $8 an hour single income. I liked the work, but it really stressed me out and the pay was worse than lousy.

I hope to find some sort of construction job at first, in the summers, and settle for something worse during the winters until we can get the farm started.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 30, 2008)

its nice to remember the most glorious period of bitish empire was later of american revolution, when usa already was independent.

also, besides usa been independent still a english speaker nation, and thanks to the american media(cinema, tv, music...) the english is now almost a worldwide language. thats good for britons and commonwealth too.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 30, 2008)

Bill, I just got that pic in an email - freaking hilarious!!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Wasilla is within an hour of the areas I am interested in. Wasilla is a little over an hour from Anchorage, where aviation jobs greatly abound. Of course if you get a plane, you can fly back and forth to Anchorage in 20 minutes or less.
> 
> Unfortunately the only aviation credentials I have are that I worked at an FBO here in SC for 3 months, in which time I learned it is impossible to raise a family off $8 an hour single income. I liked the work, but it really stressed me out and the pay was worse than lousy.
> 
> I hope to find some sort of construction job at first, in the summers, and settle for something worse during the winters until we can get the farm started.



Yeah I know what you mean. Fortunatly aircraft mechanics make more than $8 an hour, or I would not be moving to Alaska.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 30, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I'm not going to hijack this thread but I sense the same undercurrent that you do. In my pre-retirement former life as a technology exec this was only a tendril of random firing neurons as recently as the early 1990's. Never heard it in Army but saw little facets in the riots of the 60's
> 
> Ruby Ridge and Waco and Oklahoma City, combined with serious attempts by hard core, dedicated groups and Congress to first eliminate everything except single shot and double barrel shotguns - later watered down in 1995 GCA got a LOT of campfire and country coffee shop discussions that I had never heard before.
> 
> ...




It's wierd but I heard about this too. And I'm not very politically active. Heard people were watching the Supreme Court and the way it voted on the Gun Law in DC. It caught me off guard. I knew there were (and are) plenty of people who are unhappy with the way the US is going. Both from a political lean and fiscal irresponsibility perspective. 

Sorry to hijack the thread again but it seems there were parts of this country who were considering a different vote on the gun law as the last straw. Not to say civil war or anything like that. But not shiny, happy people either.


----------



## Soren (Jul 31, 2008)

A nice little doc about the British in Canada: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDRFHScDgGU_


----------



## drgondog (Aug 1, 2008)

timshatz said:


> It's wierd but I heard about this too. And I'm not very politically active. Heard people were watching the Supreme Court and the way it voted on the Gun Law in DC. It caught me off guard. I knew there were (and are) plenty of people who are unhappy with the way the US is going. Both from a political lean and fiscal irresponsibility perspective.
> 
> Sorry to hijack the thread again but it seems there were parts of this country who were considering a different vote on the gun law as the last straw. Not to say civil war or anything like that. But not shiny, happy people either.



Soren - the foundation of this country - "God given right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". From our Declaration of Independence.

When Government restricts your right to self defense, then declares it does not have the resources to guard every home, street and neighborhood - then people ask 'what are you good for?"

I sense you are correct in your 'sense'. Freedom has not Increased in the US for the last 80 years... but decreases with every new law. 

The elimination of the 2nd Amendment would have in my opinion been the last straw for 10's of thousands (not millions) to conceive, the actually form new types of cell structured militia/terrorist types groups, but conservative types - not left wing types.

It would have been no less provocative to approximately 1/3 of the population of the US to eliminate the First Amendment.


----------



## echo21 (Aug 1, 2008)

Actually the British lost. I know this because all the history books said so. Without going into a history lesson, we are the United States of America! Do your


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2008)

echo21 said:


> Actually the British lost. I know this because all the history books said so. Without going into a history lesson, we are the United States of America! Do your



Go read the title.

And then come back with a fancy retort.


----------



## echo21 (Aug 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> Could they or not? What were the final deciding factors ?
> 
> We have had nearly no discussions on this issue, except one VERY long ago (which was very interesting).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The British were hamstrung from the beginning. They didn’t have enough troops or money. The only place they occupied for the entire war was New York. Case in point is New Jersey. As soon as General Howe occupied North and central New Jersey he and most of his army went into winter quarters in New York City. Howe left a series of strong point as far south as Trenton. Washington with a ragtag army crosses Delaware River, attacks Trenton capture Hessian garrison, and re-crosses the Delaware. Howe sends General Cornwallis to Trenton to deal with Washington. Washington crosses Delaware and occupies Trenton again fends off an attack by Cornwallis for one day and slips away at night and attacks Cornwallis rear guard and Princeton then slips away again to winter quarters in Morristown with British prisoners from the Princeton battle. The two Washington attacks inspire partisan warfare in north and central New Jersey. Howe loses control of New Jersey. Even though Washington loses most of the battles of the revolutionary (the Americans called it the Glorious Cause) war. The British cannot afford to occupy any one place for long.

The French didn’t come into the war until the British army under general Burgoyne was defeated and captured at Saratoga in 1777. While this was happening, Gen. Howe defeated Washington at Brandywine then Germantown and then captures Philadelphia, while British Gen. Clinton continued to occupy New York. The French came into the war in 1778. Howe is relieved of his command, the British Army under Clinton abandon Philadelphia. Washington chases Clinton back to New York as they fight to a draw at Monmouth. The rebels reoccupy Philadelphia! 

It the same through out the war for American Independence. The only reason the war lasted as long as it did was the British Navy. With the navy, they could go where ever and when ever they wanted. The Americans didn’t have a navy that could come close to standing up against the British! That all changes in 1781 with the help of the French Fleet.

I hope this helps


----------



## echo21 (Aug 1, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think what did the British in was the battle of Cowpens and Cornwallis' insistence in chasing down Daniel Morgan after that battle - in layman's terms he pissed away his advantage.
> 
> If Cowpens never happened I think the British could of eventually won.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m sorry, but that’s partly incorrect. Cornwallis wasn’t chasing Brigadier Gen. Daniel Morgan, he was chasing Major Gen. Nathanael Greene. It was Lt. Colonel Banastre Tarleton who was chasing Morgan and ran right into Morgan’s trap at Cowpens. Cornwallis lost his entire screening (and light cavalry) force under Tarleton. Although Tarleton and a few of his riders were never captured. Morgan was out numbered 1100 to 1000. In the American eyes, it was a major victory because Tarleton butchered Americans who were trying to surrender in the battle of Camden. It was called Tarleton’s quarter! Greene would try the very same tactics that Morgan had used at Guilford Court House but failed, even though he out numbered Cornwallis 4400 to 1900 men! However, Cornwallis was wearing his force out chasing Greene all over North Carolina, and eventually he would have to retire to Yorktown. Cowpens or not Cornwallis would’ve still wore out his command trying to destroy Greene’s Army. Greene had learned from Washington that winning battles was not as important as keeping his army intact.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2008)

echo21 said:


> Actually the British lost. I know this because all the history books said so. Without going into a history lesson, we are the United States of America! Do your



You should obviously go back to  and learn how to read. As syscom pointed out, if you had done so you would not have jumped into this thread with such a post. 

Way to go!


----------



## echo21 (Aug 1, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You should obviously go back to  and learn how to read. As syscom pointed out, if you had done so you would not have jumped into this thread with such a post.
> 
> Way to go!


-------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, you're right. I thought I did better with the next two replys!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2008)

echo21 said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sorry, you're right. I thought I did better with the next two replys!



No worries, I just had to bust your chops.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 2, 2008)

Ohhh, I am so embarrassed! We sometimes can do better than that!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2008)

echo21 said:


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> I’m sorry, but that’s partly incorrect. Cornwallis wasn’t chasing Brigadier Gen. Daniel Morgan, he was chasing Major Gen. Nathanael Greene. It was Lt. Colonel Banastre Tarleton who was chasing Morgan and ran right into Morgan’s trap at Cowpens.



*And Tarleton was under whose command???!!!!*

_"The Battle of Cowpens was fought on January 17, 1781, during the Southern campaign of the American Revolutionary War and was an overwhelming victory by American Revolutionary forces *under Brigadier General Daniel Morgan.* It was a turning point in the reconquest of South Carolina from the British, and went down in history as the great American tactical masterpiece of the war."_







Next time read the whole thread and don't try to nit-pick something that isn't there. Now please refer to the photo below and sit down!


----------



## Oreo (Aug 2, 2008)

For anyone who wants to continue the off-topic-- uh-- topic-- I started, I have now started a new thread under "politics" about it. Just thought I'd let you know!


----------



## echo21 (Aug 2, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *And Tarleton was under whose command???!!!!*
> 
> _"The Battle of Cowpens was fought on January 17, 1781, during the Southern campaign of the American Revolutionary War and was an overwhelming victory by American Revolutionary forces *under Brigadier General Daniel Morgan.* It was a turning point in the reconquest of South Carolina from the British, and went down in history as the great American tactical masterpiece of the war."_
> 
> ...


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Flyboy,
And Brigadier Gen. Daniel Morgan was under whose command???!!!!!
Major Gen. Nathanael Greene
The last time I served in the military Brig. Gen is outranked by a Major Gen.
But since neither Cornwallis nor Greene were at the battle of Cowpens, then it was Morgan against Tarleton. Greene was Morgans commanding officer. Morgan commanded Greene's rearguard.
While Cowpens was a tactical masterpiece, it was small scale and couldn't be duplicated on a large scale, nor was Cowpens the turning point in the southern campaign. Cornwallis wore his army out trying to destroy Greene's army not Morgans army!!!!! I wasn't trying to knitpick your reply. The two main players were were Morgan Tarleton. I didn't know if you knew that. 

By the way, Morgan left the war after Cowpens and went home suffering from hemorrhoids. So Cornwallis pissed away his advantage chasing Greene. I read the whole thread and most of it was off topic. And was I supposed to be intimidated by the bold letters in your reply. I thought this was a discussion? So take Morgan's Hemorrhoids and your dunce cap and sit on them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow this is fun huh?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2008)

echo21 said:


> So take Morgan's Hemorrhoids and your dunce cap and sit on them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow this is fun huh?


It was fun - now as I said go sit in the corner....


----------



## Oreo (Aug 3, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It was fun - now as I said go sit in the corner....


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Aug 9, 2008)

echo21 said:


> The French didn’t come into the war until the British army under general Burgoyne was defeated and captured at Saratoga in 1777. ................................The French came into the war in 1778.



Well, I'm late to this discussion as I'm in between grueling business trips, and all my books are still packed away since the house was remodeled, so i'll keep it brief as I'm exhausted. 

The French had been providing secret aid to the Colonials for quite some time before actually making an official entry into the AWI. Money, muskets, and gunpowder were all covertly sent to the Colonists thanks to the efforts of people like Benjamin Franklin and Silas Deane. In all of the 13 Colonies, there was only one or two makers of gunpowder supllying the Continental Army and the various militias, only a fraction of what Washington needed. There is strong evidence indicating many of the American forces at Saratoga were using the French powders, and also many of them carried French muskets, which in turn helped to dispense the various muskets of different calibers being used beforehand. 

Needless to say, the money France sent was invaluable in more than one way, since Washington's army could shrink or swell in numbers on any given day. He had to keep his army together and promising land west of the Appalachains wasn't going to motivate many of them to fight. I think it's important to remember, that many of the colonials at the time, especially those in the cities and towns were still for the most part, pro-Tory. In fact. even Washington and many of his generals still felt allegiance to the British crown even well after the rebellion began. I think the notion that the AWI was a widespread and popular rebellion from the onset is something of a school text book myth. I think that only after Saratoga, did the people begin to learn of the details and exploits of Colonial armies and support the revolution. It was then that the actions of the men and generals become famous and thus the many legends were born.

There were several mistakes the British made during the AWI, but in my opinion, the worse was their offer of freedom to the slaves in the South, a decision that turned an otherwise indifferent and even pro-Tory population dead-set against them. This set off all kinds of pro-tory and pro-independence militia actions in isolated areas of the south, most often with intense brutality and savagery. Some of the stuff I've read makes the Hatfield and McCoy battles look like Sunday picnics. I think had the British left the South alone, the war would have been fought almost entirely in the North. By opening a front in the South, everything began to unravel and the British soon lost control of the fighting. This was favorable to Washington dictating where battles would be fought in the future.

Most interesting to me is that when France entered the fray, there were battles between French and British forces in various locations around the world. One could conclude that the AWI was in fact a world war, the first of it's kind. And what if the British had won? Would there have been a "Commonwealth of America", or one very large Canada? I don't think the word "United" would have been allowed, given it has an independent connotation. What would have been the name of this new and large British colony? Had the continent remained British, would the South have given up it's slaves when the UK outlawed it? Maybe it isn't too far fetched to think that there could have been a war of independence between the Independence-minded South and the Commonwealth North. 

One thing is certain: whether it was France or any other nation capable of sending large amounts of weapons and monies, the AWI would have been lost without this kind of foreign aid.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2008)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> Well, I'm late to this discussion as I'm in between grueling business trips, and all my books are still packed away since the house was remodeled, so i'll keep it brief as I'm exhausted.
> 
> The French had been providing secret aid to the Colonials for quite some time before actually making an official entry into the AWI. Money, muskets, and gunpowder were all covertly sent to the Colonists thanks to the efforts of people like Benjamin Franklin and Silas Deane. In all of the 13 Colonies, there was only one or two makers of gunpowder supllying the Continental Army and the various militias, only a fraction of what Washington needed. There is strong evidence indicating many of the American forces at Saratoga were using the French powders, and also many of them carried French muskets, which in turn helped to dispense the various muskets of different calibers being used beforehand.
> 
> ...



Good summary of a very complex first couple of years


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 16, 2008)

freebird said:


> Still might happen...



lol


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 16, 2008)

something that might be possibly overlooked is that the Europeans wanted the Carribean more as opposed to North America in 1763 and the treaty of Paris the French opted for Guadaloupe as opposed to Canada 
another fact is slavery was outlawed in Canada in 1793 as opposed to the UK in 1807


----------



## Amsel (Aug 18, 2008)

The odds were so overwhelmingly against the Continental Army that our nation only exists through providence. Nobody but George washington could have held the rebellion together. Washington is one of the greatest figures in the history of the world.


----------

