Could the British have held America ?

[Soren]

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]

Nope, would have been a colonial version of Iraq.

[ToughOmbre]

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

TO

[Oreo]

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]

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

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

Originally Posted by syscom3

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

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]

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:

Originally Posted by njaco

Nope, would have been a colonial version of Iraq.

make us think about many things, isnt ?