Could the British have held America ?

[timshatz]

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.

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]

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

 

[drgondog]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

-------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

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]

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!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

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]

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

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

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]

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.

Good summary of a very complex first couple of years

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Still might happen...

lol

 

[pbfoot]

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