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

[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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Though the thread is mostly just chitchat now, there is a third reason you missed: The British were fighting a war several thousand miles from home, which mean their troops in the US had to be almost completely self-sufficient. That helped neutralize their advantage of being a large country with a powerful military.

 

[arildno]

Though the thread is mostly just chitchat now, there is a third reason you missed: The British were fighting a war several thousand miles from home, which mean their troops in the US had to be almost completely self-sufficient. That helped neutralize their advantage of being a large country with a powerful military.

That is certainly an important factor.
Coupled to Astronuc's mention of over-extension of the Empire, and my own mention that the British Crown's near bankruptcy as a result of the Seven Years' war, this indicates that the resources the Crown had available was rather limited.
Not the least when held up against a militia-trained populace that had reached a level of affluence&self-confidence who thought it the most natural thing in the world should be self-government, in particular with regard to taxation.

 

[mheslep]

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

Ssshhhh. The secret plan is to get claim on the North Sea oil as Norwegian citizens, then renege.

 

[turbo]

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

Why would anybody want Newfoundland? The cod stocks are severely depleted, and their stunted "timber" is suitable only for turning into toothpicks. What's left? You can't make much of a living selling funny accents.

 

[Astronuc]

Why would anybody want Newfoundland? The cod stocks are severely depleted, and their stunted "timber" is suitable only for turning into toothpicks. What's left? You can't make much of a living selling funny accents.

And besides, the British spell funny.

 

[Studiot]

And besides, the British spell funny.

Don't you guys spell phoney the same way as us then?

 

[turbo]

Don't you guys spell phoney the same way as us then?

A. A. Milne was English, and he followed the English tradition of using "u"s as frequently as possible. Hunny? Please!

 

[brainstorm]

Though the thread is mostly just chitchat now, there is a third reason you missed: The British were fighting a war several thousand miles from home, which mean their troops in the US had to be almost completely self-sufficient. That helped neutralize their advantage of being a large country with a powerful military.

Doesn't anyone think that ideology played a role. If loyalism among the colonists had remained dominant or even sufficiently strong, I would think it would have been possible to repress rebellion just by ridiculing anyone foolhardy enough to suggest such a thing. Maybe media and hegemonic techniques have advanced a great deal since the 18th century, but can you imagine being able to successfully instigate a rebellion against the US, British, or other hegemonically well-situated modern government?

On the other hand, maybe you could say that the political philosophies of nationalism, republicanism, etc. that were popularized in the 18th century WERE the ideological fuel for garnering sufficient interest in rebelling for colonial independence. If pro-imperial ideology had been developed more strongly than republicanism, couldn't the colonists just have been motivated to remain in solidarity with the British empire in the interest of imperial solidarity and prosperity through unity?

 

[mgb_phys]

The British were fighting a war several thousand miles from home,

And where everything had to be carried over the north atlantic in wooden ships.
Which is why this little beastie should be America's national animal

In 1776 many ships only made the crossing once before being ruined, although it prompted the use of copper bottoms.

 

[russ_watters]

Doesn't anyone think that ideology played a role.

As former military, I tend not to focus much on ideology except when it plays a big part in the tactics of the soldiers (see: Japan in WWII). But certainly popular support for any war will play a part in whether a war is even fought or how much effort is put into it.

 

[brainstorm]

As former military, I tend not to focus much on ideology except when it plays a big part in the tactics of the soldiers (see: Japan in WWII). But certainly popular support for any war will play a part in whether a war is even fought or how much effort is put into it.

True, the force that leads to abdication by one side or another is not determined by which soldiers believe most strongly in their cause but by which fight most effectively, right?

But, I'm still interested in what motivates soldiers to pick one side over the other, especially in civil wars or insurgent revolutions. I'm also interested in how an ideology can be used to promote warfare and then modified to achieve the same goals of the losing enemy by political means after the fact.

It sounds like conspiracy theory, but once a war is fought to establish dominance of a particular ideology, that ideology can be appropriated more easily to serve almost any political goal because it has become little more than a rallying cry for team-spirit. This is why I think it is possible to use the ideologies of democracy and republic to garner support for a commander-in-chief and strong central command.

I wonder to what extent the ideologies of independence and freedom were utilized to promote economic agreements benefiting GB through colonial industrial exploitation. Once the colonists were free to regulate their own political-economy, did they not pursue trade with Europe out of capitalist self-interest? This seems to be the same pattern that occurs when slavery is abolished in favor of a wage-labor system where workers voluntarily serve whoever will pay them to. Similarly, look how popular anti-colonialism became in the period following WWII with the effect of creating many small post-industrial economies with substantial prosperity as the result of imports.

Sorry to throw so many broad examples together in one post. I'm just pointing out how the instigation of war can be part of a larger ideological progression that can eventually achieve economic domination regardless of which side wins the war militarily.

You fight communism only to get a political economic system where central planning drives a military-industrial complex and other economic institutions that ensure economic dependence on central government. And of course the defense (and other government-driven industries) are devoted to the goal of preserving freedom and preventing communism, while simultaneously creating an economy of trickle-down government spending.

 

[russ_watters]

True, the force that leads to abdication by one side or another is not determined by which soldiers believe most strongly in their cause but by which fight most effectively, right?

Yes, and in WWII, ideology often worked against the Japanese. They fought to the last man in cases where a staged withdrawal would have both inflicted more casualties on the US and enabled the retreating troops to survive and fight again.

But, I'm still interested in what motivates soldiers to pick one side over the other, especially in civil wars or insurgent revolutions.

Interesting and complicated question. In the Civil War, probably hundreds of thousands of people died largely because the best general of the war (Lee) decided based on loyalty to his home state. I haven't heard anything to suggest he felt an actual ideological connection to the South beyond that.

I'm also interested in how an ideology can be used to promote warfare and then modified to achieve the same goals of the losing enemy by political means after the fact.

It sounds like conspiracy theory, but once a war is fought to establish dominance of a particular ideology, that ideology can be appropriated more easily to serve almost any political goal because it has become little more than a rallying cry for team-spirit. This is why I think it is possible to use the ideologies of democracy and republic to garner support for a commander-in-chief and strong central command.

Not quite sure what you're getting at with that, but it doesn't strike me as conspiracy theory either. The idea that the conquering entity would harness the pre-existing ideology to help pacify the locals seems reasonable. Can't think of any examples of that, though.

I wonder to what extent the ideologies of independence and freedom were utilized to promote economic agreements benefiting GB through colonial industrial exploitation. Once the colonists were free to regulate their own political-economy, did they not pursue trade with Europe out of capitalist self-interest? This seems to be the same pattern that occurs when slavery is abolished in favor of a wage-labor system where workers voluntarily serve whoever will pay them to. Similarly, look how popular anti-colonialism became in the period following WWII with the effect of creating many small post-industrial economies with substantial prosperity as the result of imports.

Sorry to throw so many broad examples together in one post. I'm just pointing out how the instigation of war can be part of a larger ideological progression that can eventually achieve economic domination regardless of which side wins the war militarily.

You fight communism only to get a political economic system where central planning drives a military-industrial complex and other economic institutions that ensure economic dependence on central government. And of course the defense (and other government-driven industries) are devoted to the goal of preserving freedom and preventing communism, while simultaneously creating an economy of trickle-down government spending.

Not sure about all that...I'll think about it some more.

 

[lisab]

And where everything had to be carried over the north atlantic in wooden ships.
Which is why this little beastie should be America's national animal

In 1776 many ships only made the crossing once before being ruined, although it prompted the use of copper bottoms.

Any idea where the timber came from? Or what species were used?

 

[mgb_phys]

Any idea where the timber came from? Or what species were used?

The victory was built in 1760 and used 6000 trees, 90% of which were oak and the remainder elm, pine and fir (presumably for masts and spars?)

 

[Galteeth]

In the Civil War, probably hundreds of thousands of people died largely because the best general of the war (Lee) decided based on loyalty to his home state. I haven't heard anything to suggest he felt an actual ideological connection to the South beyond that. .

He was a supporter of slavery, although not an initial supporter of succession.

 

[arildno]

Any idea where the timber came from? Or what species were used?

At this time, Norway was a great exporter of timber. So was Sweden and Finland.

 

[mgb_phys]

At this time, Norway was a great exporter of timber. So was Sweden and Finland.

The Oak would be British, 6000 trees is about 100acres of woodland.
The spruce and fir for the masts would probably be either Baltic or Scandanavian.

 

[turbo]

The masts probably came from New England. Eastern white pine was the wood of choice for masts, because the trees were large enough to make large single-stick masts. Without the large pines, masts had to be made with 2 or more segments, and they were weakest at the joints. Solid pine masts allowed British ships to maintain full sail under conditions that other ships might find dangerous. This is the reason that the crown claimed all the large pines in the colonies from the 1600s onward. The more onerous size limitations imposed by Parliament and the king in the 1760s and 1770s seemed less a matter of military necessity, and more as a revenue-generating move.

 

[arildno]

The Oak would be British, 6000 trees is about 100acres of woodland.

Might well be.

The spruce and fir for the masts would probably be either Baltic or Scandanavian.

Possibly.

I merely offered one possibility as to where timber could have come from, by mentioning major exporters of timber at that time. Russia under Catherine the Great was probably also an exporter.

It might be that there was sufficient oak in britain at this time to supply its own demands, but I don't know.
What I do know is that at this time, oak was being depleted in Norway, so that most of the timber exported would have been from evergreens like fir.

 

[mgb_phys]

Also the Victory was a no expense spared mega-project, presumably cheaper ships used whatever wood was available.

Interestingly according to the museum there - the ship has lasted so long because construction was delayed for a few years and so the timber already built into the structure could age for longer and became stronger. Pity that doesn't work for modern defence projects!

 

[russ_watters]

He was a supporter of slavery, although not an initial supporter of succession.

Do you have a source for that? See this article:

So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained.[1870]

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/About the General.htm

and:

On 20 April, 1861, three days after the Virginia convention adopted an ordinance of secession, he resigned his commission, in obedience to his conscientious conviction that he was bound by the act of his state. His only authenticated expression of opinion and sentiment on the subject of secession is found in the following passage from a letter written at the time of his resignation to his sister, the wife of an officer in the National army; "We are now in a state of war which will yield to nothing. The whole south is in a state of revolution, into which Virginia, after a long struggle, has been drawn; and though I recognize no necessity for this state of things, and would have forborne and pleaded to the end for redress of grievances, real or supposed, yet in my own person I had to meet the question whether I should take part against my native state. With all my devotion to the Union, and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission m the army, and, save in defense of my native state--with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed--I hope I may never be called upon to draw my sword."

http://www.robertelee.org/

 

[mheslep]

As I recall from my readings (esp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee%27s_Lieutenants:_A_Study_in_Command" ), in the years leading up to the US Civil War there were several recorded events where Lee opposed succession verbally or in written form, continuing almost up until the moment when he was forced to choose between Virginia and the US. That is as we might expect really, since he was serving as a West Point educated US Army officer, and it would be difficult to imagine much rebellion talk coming from an active duty officer in, say, 1855.

 

[Galteeth]

Do you have a source for that? See this article:

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/About the General.htm

and: http://www.robertelee.org/

I was referring to his beliefs before and during the war. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say he oppossed abolition then supported slavery.


Robert Lee's own words, 1856
http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

 

[Radrook]

Both France and Spain offered significant help to the revolutionaries. Since Spain's contribution is never mentioned here are some links to that info.

Spain's Support Vital to U.S. Independence
http://www.neta.com/~1stbooks/vital.htm

GALVEZ, SPAIN AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
http://www.nmhcpl.org/uploads/GALVEZ.pdf

 

[Lt_Dax]

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.

England and Britain are not synonymous terms. Britain is the officially accepted shorthand for the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. England, as a sovereign state and independent geopolitical entity, did not exist during the events you describe. England did in fact have a small empire in the 1600's, but everyone who studies basic history knows that England and Scotland were united in the Act of Union in 1707. At that point, all English colonies became British ones.

The only concession I will make on this (very basic) point is that, on rare occasions, 'England' has been used to poetically describe the UK, such as the way Rudyard Kipling used it. This has more to do with patriotism than anything else, and was only properly evident in the Victorian times, when the British Empire was at its peak, which paradoxically seemed to increase the patriotism of members of the biggest 'home nation'. However, I assume that you are not being poetic, but that you are speaking in a historical, geographical, political and economic sense - in which case, you have no excuse.

England may be called a "country" sometimes, as are the other home nations, but again this is more out of reference to history and patriotism than to actual function. The UK is what we call a unitary state, which means that its constituent states have less power than US states. Yes, less power, not more, even after recent devolutions. If you're at all confused about this, just try to think whether England has a seat on the United Nations. You will find that the label in the box says either the United Kingdom or Great Britain. Great Britain is, strictly, a geographical term which excludes Northern Ireland, but has some general acceptability as a substitute for the UK (as in sport, for example).

It surprises me that people in the USA are most prone to this error (which sadly I have discovered is not due to an effort to be poetic like Kipling, but is simply due to ignorance). The reason I am surprised is because the very birth of the nation USA, something which people in the USA are very proud of, happened after the Union in 1707! But come on - surely it's not that complicated?

I am not just being anal retentive here. The constant misuse of these terms annoys me mainly because it is so darned simple to understand. How is it that people can imagine themselves discussing such a complex historical issue as why Britain lost the colonies, when they don't even have basic knowledge of the nation they are discussing?