Why did Britain lose the war over America's independence?

[The riddler]

Why did Britain lose the war over America's independence?

Yesterday was independance day and it got me wondering why Britain losed the war for American independance. I've never really heard the full story behind it, at the time the British empire had the most powerful military ever known so it confuses me to how the American colonists won.

Any ideas?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

They got tea abstinence after their tea was dumped into the ocean.

 

[Topher925]

Basically it was because of the support from the french and different war tactics that the army had never seen before. Sort of like guerrilla war but with muskets.

 

[arildno]

Yesterday was independance day and it got me wondering why Britain losed the war for American independance. I've never really heard the full story behind it, at the time the British empire had the most powerful military ever known so it confuses me to how the American colonists won.

Any ideas?

I've never really heard the full story behind it, at the time the British empire had the most powerful military ever known

That is a premise of doubtful accuracy.

The East India Company, for example, was a private enterprise, with its own fleet&mercenaries, not a compliant extension of the British Crown. The British state didn't take the reins of India before the establishment of the Raj in 1857 or so.

Thus, that the British Crown had a lot of resources is something that has to be shown, rather than assumed.

 

[Dadface]

Yesterday was independance day and it got me wondering why Britain losed the war for American independance. I've never really heard the full story behind it, at the time the British empire had the most powerful military ever known so it confuses me to how the American colonists won.

Any ideas?

I think the Americans cheated

 

[arildno]

I think the Americans cheated

Besides, Norwegian claims to superiority over those lands have been consistently ignored for 1000 years. USA and Canada are Norwegian lands we have not granted independence.

Have no fears, though, we are working towards a, preferably, diplomatic solution to this injustice.

 

[Astronuc]

Besides, Norwegian claims to superiority over those lands have been consistently ignored for 1000 years. USA and Canada are Norwegian lands we have not granted independence.

Have no fears, though, we are working towards a, preferably, diplomatic solution to this injustice.

:rofl: Happy 4th, arildno!

 

[arildno]

:rofl: Happy 4th, arildno!

The same to you, Astronuc!
I do nourish hopes, though, to convert you to celebrate the 17th of May instead..

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I thought it was because the British wore bright red with a white X marks the spot.

 

[Astronuc]

I thought it was because the British wore bright red with a white X marks the spot.

Yes - the red coats did make it easier to spot targets.

 

[Astronuc]

The same to you, Astronuc!
I do nourish hopes, though, to convert you to celebrate the 17th of May instead..

I'll put it on my calendar for next year and there after. Allow me to wish you a belated Happy 17th of May, National Day of Norway!

FGI -

The Norwegian constitution was inspired by the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the French revolution in 1789 and the subsequent U.S. and French constitutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Norway#Writing_the_constitution

 

[AUK 1138]

Because, they were unable to match the colonist's cajones level.

 

[arildno]

On a lighter note, dispensing for the moment with serious discussion of the crucial political importance of testicle size (thanks to AUK), it is worth noting that as a result of the all-european seven-years war, Britain was a victor of sorts (1755-62), but with a drained treasury (France was also ruined).
ONe of the British Crown's attempts to fill the coffers was to introduce revenue-raising schemes like the Stamp Act, that fuelled the ire of the colonists in the Americas.
Previously, taxation had been fairly light, as an inducement for colonization, I think.
The political balance that the colonists had minimal political representation, but also minimal taxation level, was upset by these tax-raising schemes the Crown regarded as necessary.
Thus, that the British Crown had huge resources to set in against the Americans is fairly doubtful, and coupled with a natural hesitancy to be swift&severe towards "fellow Britons" (in contrast, say, with British behaviour in India) made the British reaction against the independence movement rather feeble.

 

[Astronuc]

On a lighter note, dispensing for the moment with serious discussion of the crucial political importance of testicle size (thanks to AUK), it is worth noting that as a result of the all-european seven-years war, Britain was a victor of sorts (1755-62), but with a drained treasury (France was also ruined).
ONe of the British Crown's attempts to fill the coffers was to introduce revenue-raising schemes like the Stamp Act, that fuelled the ire of the colonists in the Americas.
Previously, taxation had been fairly light, as an inducement for colonization, I think.
The political balance that the colonists had minimal political representation, but also minimal taxation level, was upset by these tax-raising schemes the Crown regarded as necessary.
Thus, that the British Crown had huge resources to set in against the Americans is fairly doubtful, and coupled with a natural hesitancy to be swift&severe towards "fellow Britons" (in contrast, say, with British behaviour in India) made the British reaction against the independence movement rather feeble.

Adding to arildno's comments, I think there were a number of factors, including geography (the British Empire was over extended), economics, politics (the American colonists were highly motivated to break political ties), and military (strategic and tactical).

An interesting backstory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

England experienced its own internal and local turmoil, as did the continental powers. The 17th and 18th centuries were marked by rapidly changing political situations. The traditional regal/imperial systems were being replaced by more democratic systems.

Interesting point here - " . . . with estimates of 10,000 prisoners not surviving or not returning home (8,000 captured during and immediately after the Battle of Worcester were deported to New England, Bermuda and the West Indies to work for landowners as indentured labourers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War#Casualties

England's legal system was rather harsh. Small infractions of civil or criminal law were met with deportation, and in the extreme, captial punishment (execution). People who escaped to the colonies were certainly not bound to the system.

Don't forget, Canada, Australia and New Zealand eventually established some sort of indepedence from England.

 

[arildno]

Yes, we cannot underestimate that:
1. THe Americans had reached a level of prosperity, and hence, a level of self-confidence that made alternative political arrangements thinkable.

2. The Enlightenment movement, with its ideas of popular control of the government made the yoke of the far-away Government seem much more onerous than when the King was, for all practical matters, a deified figure.

The Civil War certainly removed some of the glamour around the King, but it can't be regarded as a major direct factor, I think, for developments a century later.

 

[Astronuc]

Yes, we cannot underestimate that:
1. THe Americans had reached a level of prosperity, and hence, a level of self-confidence that made alternative political arrangements thinkable.

2. The Enlightenment movement, with its ideas of popular control of the government made the yoke of the far-away Government seem much more onerous than when the King was, for all practical matters, a deified figure.

The Civil War certainly removed some of the glamour around the King, but it can't be regarded as a major direct factor, I think, for developments a century later.

There was a confluence of socio-political trends.

One aspect of the Civil War was the depletion of the King's treasury, and I don't believe the royal treasury really recovered. It also put pressure on the social system, which was quite punitive, which IMO eroded the social fabric.

I think it also interesting the impact of sending 'criminals' to the colonies. Once they served their indenture, they were free, and certainly were not supportive of the crown or the crowns institutions in the colonies.

I prefer to look at history as a continuum in which all upstream effects determine to some extent what happens downstream.

Had the kings (and queens) (English in the case at hand) behaved differently, history could/would have been quite different.

 

[arildno]

Well, Australia was the archetypical prison convict colony of Britain, whereas the Americas were not.
Australia is still part of the Commonwealth, and real political independence came there much later than for the US.

Petty thiefs do not make great leaders (not even for each other!), but landholders and puritan preachers do..

So, although I agree that history must be understood along numerous time-scales, I remain doubtful if colonies of convicts are breeding grounds for effective independence movements.

It is an interesting assertion, though, that deserves an empirical examination.

 

[Astronuc]

The transport of convicts to Australia ramped up after England lost the American colonies.

Also, many (most?) landholders who supported the crown, lost their land.

I'll have to find Howard Zinn's book A People's History of the United States, in which he discusses the nature of the Americal population, including the large portion of indentured servants. It wasn't all landholders and Puritans. The Puritans were a relatively small group in the colonies, although they were very influential in the Massachusetts colony, and perhaps Rhode Island.

Also, I'd imagine that service in the British Army and British Navy was also harsh, so they British military were not as motivated as were the colonists. I have to wonder about the levels of conscription in both the army and navy.

And the styles of military leadership were an important factor as well. Had England won key battles, England might have re-asserted itself, but perhaps only for a time. I think it inevitable that the US developed - given the set of unique circumstances.

 

[Insanity]

The American colonist were fighting for their freedom, while the British military were being paid to fight for the Crown.

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting points here from a geopolitical/military perspective.

France's government under King Louis XVI secretly provided supplies, ammunition and weapons to the rebels from 1776, and the Continentals' capture of a British army in 1777 led France to openly enter the war in early 1778, which evened the military strength with Britain. Spain and the Dutch Republic – French allies – also went to war with Britain over the next two years, threatening an invasion of Great Britain and severely testing British military strength with campaigns in Europe — including attacks on Minorca and Gibraltar — and an escalating global naval war. Spain's involvement culminated in the expulsion of British armies from West Florida, securing the American colonies' southern flank.

Throughout the war, the British were able to use their naval superiority to capture and occupy American coastal cities, but control of the countryside (where 90% of the population lived) largely eluded them because of the relatively small size of their land army. French involvement proved decisive, with a French naval victory in the Chesapeake leading at Yorktown in 1781 to the surrender of a second British army. In 1783, the Treaty of Paris ended the war and recognized the sovereignty of the United States over the territory bounded by what is now Canada to the north, Florida to the south, and the Mississippi River to the west.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_Density_in_the_American_Colonies_1775.gif
Note that the Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and West Florida colonies were divided later as part of the US.

from - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

Now it's interesting to consider that the English in Canada did not rebel and join the 'Americans'.

 

[arildno]

The American colonist were fighting for their freedom, while the British military were being paid to fight for the Crown.

And a major reason why they fought for their freedom, was that they were freer just prior to the revolt than at earlier times, where freedom fighting was simply..unthinkable.

Once an oppressive regime loosens its reins, people will revolt against their "beneficent"leaders.
The most recent example of that is the dissulotion of the Soviet Union&satelite states.

Gorbachev had no intention to let the communist party lose control, but his perestrojka&glasnost policies undermined the regime's effective ability to squash a revolt.

Deng Xiao Ping understood that; therefore, the massacre at Tian-Anmen Square in 1989, was, partywise, a success, although it was a moral horror.

 

[turbo]

British policies backfired on them. They forced all able-bodied adult men to serve in militias, so that all the men had at least rudimentary military training and shooting skills. Those who were deployed to fight the French and their Indian allies in wilderness areas also picked up guerrilla fighting skills that the British regulars and their commanders lacked. When the colonists decided to arm themselves, they went to their militia armories and did so. The French helped with more arms, including the durable and field-tested Charleville musket.

One fellow that I had researched quite thoroughly was in his forties at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. He was Lt. John Bridge of Massachusetts colony. Before the war, he had participated in military campaigns against the French in Nova Scotia and the upper Hudson valley, among others. Britain's reliance on militia (instead of a large standing army) created a pool of highly-skilled men that could assemble quickly and blend back into the populace easily.

 

[arildno]

British policies backfired on them. They forced all able-bodied adult men to serve in militias, so that all the men had at least rudimentary military training and shooting skills. Those who were deployed to fight the French and their Indian allies in wilderness areas also picked up guerrilla fighting skills that the British regulars and their commanders lacked. When the colonists decided to arm themselves, they went to their militia armories and did so. The French helped with more arms, including the durable and field-tested Charleville musket.

One fellow that I had researched quite thoroughly was in his forties at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. He was Lt. John Bridge of Massachusetts colony. Before the war, he had participated in military campaigns against the French in Nova Scotia and the upper Hudson valley, among others. Britain's reliance on militia (instead of a large standing army) created a pool of highly-skilled men that could assemble quickly and blend back into the populace easily.

Interesting!
The colonists can hardly be called extremely oppressed if the brits chose to rely upon them militia-wise.
Besides, a militia system do not drain the financial resources out of the civilian population in the way that a large, professional army would..

 

[turbo]

Interesting!
The colonists can hardly be called extremely oppressed if the brits chose to rely upon them militia-wise.
Besides, a militia system do not drain the financial resources out of the civilian population in the way that a large, professional army would..

The British had some pretty heavy-handed trade policies that favored their industries and their chartered trading companies. For instance, their ships would return to England heavily-laden, but on the way back to the colonies, there was usually not much in the way of massive cargo, so the ships had to be heavily ballasted. For that reason, colonists were forbidden from firing their own bricks, and had to buy them from the British, who needed to ballast their ships with something very heavy anyway. The same story with cobblestones, IIR. Lots of Boston and much of the Old Port (Portland ME) were paved with cobblestones that the colonists had to buy from the shippers.

For generations, the British counted on the loyalty of the colonists to protect the interests of the Crown, but there were some good reasons to expect a rebellion. Taxes on paper, tea, etc have often been cited as driving the popularity of the rebellion, but there were many more inequalities that underlaid the peoples' unhappiness with the king. If the king's foresters marked a tree on your property with a "broad arrow" you were forbidden to cut it down. It was intended to be used for masts or spars for the British navy. Eastern white pine is an ideal wood for such purposes, and the colonists lost a great deal of income by being forbidden to harvest and export the wood.

 

[arildno]

The British had some pretty heavy-handed trade policies that favored their industries and their chartered trading companies. For instance, their ships would return to England heavily-laden, but on the way back to the colonies, there was usually not much in the way of massive cargo, so the ships had to be heavily ballasted. For that reason, colonists were forbidden from firing their own bricks, and had to buy them from the British, who needed to ballast their ships with something very heavy anyway. The same story with cobblestones, IIR. Lots of Boston and much of the Old Port (Portland ME) were paved with cobblestones that the colonists had to buy from the shippers.

When did many of these regulations come into effect?

Those I knew of, like the Stamp Act seemed to be a direct result of the financial disasters of the Seven Years' War.

If many of these regulations existed prior to that, I really need to re-think what I wrote..

 

[turbo]

Well, the King's pine regulations were in place for a long time, reserving all the largest and straightest white pines for the king and the royal navy. In 1761, the diameter was reduced to 24", greatly reducing the amount of timber colonists could legally harvest. Then in 1772, parliament and the king issued a decree that ALL pines with a diameter of 12" or more were reserved for the king. Colonists had to pay the king's forester to survey their land and mark all the pine trees, and then they had to pay for a royal license to harvest the small pines from their own property. As you might imagine, this additional tax and restraint on the timber trade ticked off the colonists.

I have sawed a LOT of pine logs with my neighbor, and believe me, you don't get much usable lumber out of a 12" log. By the time you slice off the slabs and square the center, you are looking at a few small boards and lots of waste.

Wiki, but I think it is as accurate as most historical accounts can be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tree_Riot

 

[arildno]

1. But both of those dates that severely restricted the trees the colonists could fell lie within, or after the Seven Years' War.

2. As for the King's Right to some of the wealth of the nation, wouldn't that also be the case with, say, oak trees in Britain (to the extent they still existed)?

3. Furthermore, concerning the late 17th century regulations, Wiki has this to say:

The law was not strictly enforced until John Wentworth was appointed governor of the New Hampshire colony in 1766.

From what I can see, the Seven Years' War still marks a signal time when the exactions of the British Crown grew a lot worse than they had been just recently.

 

[Studiot]

Britain has long had a two party political system.

I understand the British general in charge belonged to the party that was not in power.
It is suggested that he could ( would) not present his rivals with a victory.

Your current president should bear this in mind when dealing with his own generals.

 

[turbo]

To which British general are you referring? While Cornwallis is still often referred to in the US, he was not "in charge", having superior general officers to report to.

 

[mheslep]

Besides, Norwegian claims to superiority over those lands have been consistently ignored for 1000 years. USA and Canada are Norwegian lands we have not granted independence.

Have no fears, though, we are working towards a, preferably, diplomatic solution to this injustice.

Ominous. We surrender.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

To which British general are you referring? While Cornwallis is still often referred to in the US, he was not "in charge", having superior general officers to report to.

Cornwallis reported to Henry Clinton who took Charleston but then turned the Southern campaign over to Cornwallis. Clinton was in overall command of British forces in North America in 1781 but returned to New York leaving Cornwallis pretty much on his own.

http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org/yorkfinish.html

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Ominous. We surrender.

What do you mean "we"? Maybe they get Newfoundland. That's it!

 

[lisab]

What do you mean "we"? Maybe they get Newfoundland. That's it!

No, I say give 'em the southern states, too.

 

[Evo]

I wouldn't mind being Norweedish.

 

[Galteeth]

As far as motivation, one must also understand the British mercantilist system. Colonies existed for the benefit of the motherland. The wealthy colonists saw themselves as Britons (with perhaps a slighty exagerrated sense of how free that was suppossed to make them) and were worried about having their role relegated to those of colonial subjects, similar to what happened to the Irish. America being founded by discontents (people who for one reason or another will willing to leave the realtive civilization of England and Europe for the dangerous wilderness of America), there was a certain cultural character in play here as well.

As far as the actual war, it's not so much that the americans won, as they outlasted the British. No one doubts that the American army could have crushed the vietcong, but there were limits in play (respect for human life, limits to the number of troops that could be mobilized without impossible civil discontent, as well as not drawing the soviets into the conflict directly). The significance of the entrance of France into the war an anot be understated. Imagine if the Soviets declared war on America over Vietnam. You can bet that the vietnamese conflict would soon be an afterthought. Faced with an existential threat, holding on to the American colonies just wasn't worth the time, money, and troops.