Started By
Message

re: History thread: How did we win the Revolutionary War?

Posted on 3/15/15 at 10:39 am to
Posted by Wolfhound45
Hanging with Chicken in Lurkistan
Member since Nov 2009
120000 posts
Posted on 3/15/15 at 10:39 am to
quote:

British General John Chavis
Posted by Dick Leverage
In The HizHouse
Member since Nov 2013
9000 posts
Posted on 3/15/15 at 11:09 am to
Very good points.

2. The Howe brothers (General and Admiral) actually had a tender place in their hearts for Americans. They had a sense of gratitude due to how The Colonies had honored their father with statues and plaques in various cities for his service and leadership during the French-Indian War. They tried to handle the Patriots with kid gloves and often held back when they had the strategic initiative. They were probably the wrong guys for the Crown to have conducting operations from late 1775-1778 due to their affection for America.

3. The propaganda point you made was spot on as well. We were always one step ahead. News of Lexington and Concord reached Philadelphia first by way of Patriot propaganda. That was crucial because the 1st Continental Congress was divided. New England Colonies were the most boisterous about the inevitable conflict but the middle colonies were very uncommitted to raising troops to fight. They said they would only do so if the British initiated the war. The Patriots controlled the narrative by claiming the First shot was fired by a Redcoat. Adams, Revere and Warren were master propagandists who realized the importance of controlling the narrative. The Patriot angle of an event or battle always reached England 2-3 weeks before the official British account by way of smaller, faster sloops. Their side was always heard first.

There are hundreds of examples but my favorite is the account of the burning of Norfolk. The British were bombarding many cities up and down the coast to punish and intimidate the locals who were giving aid to the Patriots. While bombing the city of Norfolk from their large ships, the city caught on fire and 80% of the town burned. What was not known at the time was that Patriots actually stoked the fires and caused most of the destruction. It was strategically done to frame the event as an atrocity and to further galvanize the Colonies. The Patriots decided it would be better to do that instead of have Norfolk fall into British hands and become a major seaport for their Navy in The Chesapeake Region. This info was kept secret until made public record almost 50 years later.

Posted by Dick Leverage
In The HizHouse
Member since Nov 2013
9000 posts
Posted on 3/15/15 at 11:14 am to
Actually, it had a good deal to do with it. The area from Quebec to the Bahamas was just to damn large to manage a war. They had to few troops to subdue the Northern and Southern Colonies simultaneously.
Posted by Dick Leverage
In The HizHouse
Member since Nov 2013
9000 posts
Posted on 3/15/15 at 11:23 am to
Another good point.

When Spain declared war in 1779, Louisiana Govornor General Bernardo De Galvez prosecuted a crucial Southern strategy. He captured one British fort after another. Manchac,Natchez,Baton Rouge,Mobile and Pensacola before joining with an American force to capture the Bahamas. He used the frigate [South Carolina] as his flagship on the Bahamas mission. The Bahamas was important because it all but insured that in order to get them back, the British would have to cede British East and West Florida at the peace negotiating table.
Posted by lsucoonass
shreveport and east texas
Member since Nov 2003
68487 posts
Posted on 3/15/15 at 12:18 pm to
This is pretty spot on.

Can't forget Frederick baron Von Steuben
Posted by lsucoonass
shreveport and east texas
Member since Nov 2003
68487 posts
Posted on 3/15/15 at 12:20 pm to
Oh you mean our CIA funding the mujahideen to beat the already broke down Russians.

Or the fact we are using our politicians policies to fight haji and the roe is heavily suited for gaijin Afghanistan
Posted by jimbeam
University of LSU
Member since Oct 2011
75703 posts
Posted on 3/15/15 at 12:20 pm to
Posted by Dick Leverage
In The HizHouse
Member since Nov 2013
9000 posts
Posted on 3/15/15 at 12:26 pm to
Britain was very alienated during this period of history. Since late in the Seven Years War, Britain had offended almost every nation in Europe except Portugal and the North German Principalities. Georges connection to the Hessians was because he was from the House of Hanover. Those were the only mercenaries he was able to hire.

There were many in power in London more than willing to turn their backs on the old European power balancing strategies and Hanoverien connections that had been successful under the previous Hanoverien King George II. These included a benign treatment of the North American Colonies and productive anti-French alliances with the Dutch Republic and the German States.

From about 1760, British arrogance had just about pissed off every Monarch and Foreign ministry in Europe. They were viewed as insular and arrogant. France and Spain were rather revenge minded and a The Bourbon Compact of 1761 was a very strong link. They knew that Britain would be in a very vulnerable position if and when their North American colonies ever took up an armed rebellion. While they were the two biggest nations at odds with the British, they had many like minded allies. From Sweden, Holland, Russia, Austrian Netherlands,etc..They all had their own grievances , from British meddling in their politics or interference with trade and shipping, etc.. They all had an interest in seeing Britain taken down a notch or two.

It was evident by 1775 that these Nations were eagerly abetting the North American upheaval. There was a large quantity of gunpowder and arms crossing the ocean from these nations and all types of provisions and goods were being shipped via the West Indies trade route and transported to the back water estuaries on our coast that the large British ships could not access.

And it is hard to ignore how the British were declined in their request for mercenaries from every Monarch in Europe with the exception of those few German Principalities. The Dutch would not allow them to borrow their Scots Brigade. Catherine of Russia said no to their request to contract 20,000 Russian soldiers. Frederick of Prussia, who George had insulted repeatedly, not only encouraged Catherine's refusal but worked to damage George's relations with the German Princes. Austria tried to block George from using his dual role as Elector of Hanover to recruit soldiers within the Holy Roman Empire.

All of these European powers either tolerated or favored their merchants covert selling of arms to the Americans while simultaneously rejecting their efforts to procure mercenaries. Britain stood alone without a single ally when the Revolution began in earnest.
Posted by Feral
Member since Mar 2012
12457 posts
Posted on 3/15/15 at 12:30 pm to
quote:

Britain was fighting a world war and North America was a minor theatre in the conflict.


This.

We were but a colonized theater of the world war including Britain, France and Spain, and the French pretty much midwifed the creation of America by recognizing our independence shortly after the Declaration and using their navy (most importantly) and troops to assist in the fight. The British didn't have the wherewithal to keep trying to suppress the colonial uprising when they had an ongoing war with other superpowers.
Posted by HaveMercy
Member since Dec 2014
3000 posts
Posted on 3/15/15 at 12:35 pm to
Especially when the British had to pretty much fight the French navy all the way across the Atlantic.

To the OP: many historians consider the Am. Rev War as simply another theatre in the longstanding conflict bt France and Britian. It often goes unmentioned that most of the Continental Army's munitions were supplied by the French.
During the Rev War, the majority of Britain's military resources were spent fighting France, not the Colonists...
Posted by supadave3
Houston, TX
Member since Dec 2005
30298 posts
Posted on 3/15/15 at 12:39 pm to
quote:

British General John Chavis showed up and blew the whole thing in the last two minutes


THEN, he had the audacity to turn around and sue the British for some bullshite reasons that even his own mother probably doesn't understand.
Posted by Wishnitwas1998
where TN, MS, and AL meet
Member since Oct 2010
58354 posts
Posted on 3/15/15 at 12:41 pm to
quote:

See what had happened was the British were winning the war. All they had to do was effectively defend against the revolutionaries for a little while longer. Then, little known British General John Chavis showed up and blew the whole thing in the last two minutes.


Posted by doublecutter
Hear & Their
Member since Oct 2003
6598 posts
Posted on 3/15/15 at 12:44 pm to
quote:

Don't forget the Spanish Militia from La.(including about 600 revenge seeking Acadians), marched on West Florida, capturing Baton Rouge, Mobile, and Pensacola. This ended English occupation in the Deep South. 



My great, great, great, great, great grandfather was one of those Acadians. He was a member of Judice's Militia in St. James parish and he participated in this campaign under Governor Galvez.
Posted by Wishnitwas1998
where TN, MS, and AL meet
Member since Oct 2010
58354 posts
Posted on 3/15/15 at 6:03 pm to
Thanks to everybody who contributed to this thread
Posted by Wolfhound45
Hanging with Chicken in Lurkistan
Member since Nov 2009
120000 posts
Posted on 3/15/15 at 6:55 pm to
quote:

THEN, he had the audacity to turn around and sue the British for some bull shite reasons that even his own mother probably doesn't understand.
Posted by Champagne
Already Conquered USA.
Member since Oct 2007
48514 posts
Posted on 3/16/15 at 12:28 am to
quote:

It often goes unmentioned that most of the Continental Army's munitions were supplied by the French.


I did not know this.

Are we fairly sure that this is accurate? What percentage, if that info is known?

Great stuff in this thread.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67214 posts
Posted on 3/16/15 at 1:48 am to
There were many factors:
1. The american people did not have to arm themselves, they were already armed. The people had long kept rifles and pistols in the home and the recent French & Indian war meant there were tons of experienced veterans, munitions, and even artillery lieing around.
2. Washington was an escape artist. No matter how many time he was forced to retreat (and no one retreats like Washington), he always kept his army together, preventing the British from ever landing a decisive victory or destroying the continental army.

3. Supply lines. British supplies had to come thousands of miles across the atlantic or hundreds of miles from Canada. Communication was just as slow.

4. The french. The French and Spanish engaged the British abroad, preventing them from being able to focus on only America. India, the Caribbean, Africa, and the Gulf Coast were all active theaters outside of the colonies.

5. Lack of political will. Since the French & Indian War, the colonies had been costing the crown more than they were making. As british losses mounted and the war continued to drag on, many members of parliament questioned why Great Britain should bother exhausting men and treasure to keep an unprofitable colony. Political will in England slowly dried up.
Posted by Champagne
Already Conquered USA.
Member since Oct 2007
48514 posts
Posted on 3/16/15 at 10:59 pm to
kingbob:

All good points.

I would like to add: it's very important to keep in mind one critical fact. Great Britain was militarily defeated. They lost a number of crucial land battles at Saratoga and Yorktown. They lost a critical naval battle off of the coast of Yorktown.

It is fair to say that Great Britain lacked the political will to continue the war. However, IMHO, the reason why they suddenly lacked the political will in 1783 was because they were decisively defeated by land and sea at Yorktown in 1781.

Great Britain did not decide after Yorktown in 1781 that they lacked the political will to continue the war. No. Indeed, Britain continued the war for another two years. After two more years of failure to reverse the effects of their decisive defeat at Yorktown, they suddenly decided that they'd had enough.

Great Britain's version of what happened would have us believe that they simply grew bored. The British version of what happened is designed to diminish the importance of the decisive military defeat that they suffered.

The vigor with which Britain prosecuted the War of 1812 is a demonstration that they were NOT quite bored with and tired of war in North America.

So, I submit that the most fair historical interpretation of the American Revolution should emphasize that Britain was militarily defeated. Britain's change of Policy with regard to North America was dictated by military defeat, not by a simple change of King George's mind.

Clausewitz teaches us that War is a continuation of Policy by other methods. Britain's change of Policy with regard to North America was dictated by defeat in War.
This post was edited on 3/16/15 at 11:01 pm
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67214 posts
Posted on 3/17/15 at 1:02 am to
While Britain did in fact continue the war after Yorktown, the political climate was such that the crown refused to commit any more sizable ground forces to the war. The fighting at the end of the war was largely carried out on Great Britain's behalf by Native American tribes (who were promised that a British victory would keep white settlers out of Ohio) and loyalist colonists. British regulars were content to hold New York and Canada while engaging the French and Spanish globally.
Posted by Champagne
Already Conquered USA.
Member since Oct 2007
48514 posts
Posted on 3/17/15 at 10:29 am to
quote:

the political climate


I quoted only this phrase, but, I thank you for the entire post, because, most don't know very much about what happened in the American Rev after Yorktown.

Do you agree with my interpretation that "the political climate" after Yorktown developed as a result of Britain's military defeats in North America?

I maintain that the Crown's new policy with regard to North America was dictated by the fact that Britain's military was defeated in the North American War. That accomplished fact made the policy change mandatory, rather than voluntary. The Crown changed policy after they realized that the war was lost, not because of some enlightened new way of seeing things.

If you don't agree, that's fine, because history is always open to more than one interpretation.

My own observation is that most history professors are less expert in the area of military matters, and therefore may tend to interpret something like the American Revolution in terms of being resolved by voluntary changes in policy instead of being dictated by defeat in war. I could be wrong. That's just my observation, and is subject to revision, if necessary.

Or, it could be that US history has a natural tendency to take the pro-British interpretation of history because our two nations are close allies and both are English-speakers.

This tendency towards Anglophilia in US history is most evident in the area of the Napoleonic Era. The US interpretation of that era tends to mirror the British interpretation.
This post was edited on 3/17/15 at 10:44 am
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram