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

  • Thread starter Thread starter The riddler
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Independence
AI Thread Summary
Britain's loss in the American War of Independence can be attributed to several key factors. Despite having the most powerful military at the time, Britain faced significant challenges including overextension of its forces, economic strain from the Seven Years' War, and the geographical disadvantage of fighting a war thousands of miles from home. The American colonists, motivated by a desire for self-governance and aided by French support, employed innovative guerrilla tactics that the British military was unprepared for. The British military struggled to maintain control over the vast countryside, where the majority of the population resided, while their naval superiority allowed them to capture coastal cities but not sustain long-term control. The political and economic discontent among the colonists, exacerbated by heavy taxation and restrictive trade policies, fueled their resolve to fight for independence. Ultimately, the combination of these military, political, and social factors led to Britain's defeat and the recognition of American sovereignty in the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
  • #51


lisab said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52


arildno said:
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.
 
  • #53


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.
 
  • #54


mgb_phys said:
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.
 
  • #55


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!
 
  • #56


Galteeth said:
He was a supporter of slavery, although not an initial supporter of succession.
Do you have a source for that? See this article:
Lee said:
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/
 
  • #57


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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60


Astronuc said:
The transport of convicts to Australia ramped up after England lost the American colonies. :biggrin:

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?
 
  • #61


Lt_Dax said:
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?
My guess would be because we don't care, to be perfectly honest.
 
  • #62


Lt_Dax said:
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?
The underlying fact address the realities HERE in North America, and not details of the political alliances ( or lack of) in the British Isles.

England could not afford to field and equip a standing army in the colonies. Instead, the crown used the strategy of establishing armories near every population-center in the colonies. They required every able-bodied male to assemble and train and drill with their supplied muskets, balls, and powder periodically. Whenever England wanted to mount an assault against a foreign enemy in North America (generally French and their Indian allies), they would press masses of colonists into service to launch those assaults. The colonists had to abandon their farms, businesses, etc, to satisfy their service to the king.

Thanks to that model (a self-sustaining remote army made of obedient colonists), when the colonists decided to kick the traces, England found itself in a really hard spot. They had to put a lot of regular-army forces into the fight and supplement them with German mercenaries, and still they lost. There are lessons here.
 
  • #63


Lt_Dax said:
England and Britain are not synonymous terms.

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?

You might want to read some of the thread I started in this sub-forum: "What is England?" Last post Oct 13, 2010.

SW VandeCarr;2885334

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=429726
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #64


Lt_Dax said:
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.

I think you'll find that most Americans are content with having beat the British - no further clarification is required.
 
  • #65


I largely disagree with him, but Britain's Conrad Black, formerly the world's third largest medial mogul, now recently released from prison, has an alternative view on the matter:

Conrad Black said:
[...]In fact, though King George III and his prime minister, Lord North, handled it incompetently, they were really only trying to get the Americans to pay their fair share of the costs of throwing the French out of Canada and India in the Seven Years’ War.

Lowry and Ponnuru are correct that America was already the wealthiest place in the world per capita, and it had 40 percent of the population of Britain and was the chief beneficiary of the eviction of France from Canada. The colonists should certainly have paid something for the British efforts on their behalf, and “no taxation without representation” and the Boston Tea Party and so forth were essentially a masterly spin job on a rather grubby contest about taxes.

In its early years, the U.S. had no more civil liberties than Britain, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and parts of Scandinavia. About 15 percent of its population were slaves and, in the Electoral College, the slaveholding states were accorded bonus electoral votes representing 60 percent of the slaves, so the voters in free states were comparatively disadvantaged. (If America had stayed in the British Empire for five years beyond the death of Jefferson and John Adams, the British would have abolished slavery for them and the country would have been spared the 700,000 dead of the Civil War.)[...]
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/229287
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66


mheslep said:
Originally Posted by Conrad Black - excerpt of original
"(If America had stayed in the British Empire for five years beyond the death of Jefferson and John Adams, the British would have abolished slavery for them and the country would have been spared the 700,000 dead of the Civil War.)"

Often speculation of this sort is frivolous. Accordingly, if the US had focused on Japan in WWII (leaving Great Britain to protect herself) and used "the Bomb" on Berlin instead, quite a few American soldiers might have been spared in Europe.
 
Last edited:
  • #67


mheslep said:
WW you have me quoted as the author there, it was Conrad Black!

I'm sorry mheslep - you are correct. I made a bad cut and paste - apologies.
 
  • #68


WhoWee said:
I'm sorry mheslep - you are correct. I made a bad cut and paste - apologies.
Please edit when you have a moment, before the timer runs out.
 
  • #69


mheslep said:
Please edit when you have a moment, before the timer runs out.

I didn't realize it was possible to edit after additional posts were made - or of any specific timers - thanks
 
  • #70


Conrad Black's speculation that the British would have abolished slavery had the "colonies" remained within the British Empire is not well founded. Britain's huge textile industry benefited enormously from the cheap high quality cotton produced in the American South. When the Civil War began, the Palmerston government considered a Confederate victory inevitable although Britain remained "officially" neutral. A war between the US and Britain nearly broke out over the Trent Affair in late 1861. Palmerston sent 11,000 troops to Canada. American slavery was good for British industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair
 
Last edited:
  • #71


SW VandeCarr said:
Conrad Black's speculation that the British would have abolished slavery had the "colonies" remained within the British Empire is not well founded. Britain's huge textile industry benefited enormously from the cheap high quality cotton produced in the American South. When the Civil War began, the Palmerston government considered a Confederate victory inevitable although Britain remained "officially" neutral. A war between the US and Britain nearly broke out over the Trent Affair in late 1861. Palmerston sent 11,000 troops to Canada. American slavery was good for British industry.

To emphasize your point, the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 freed slaves below the age of 6 - over 6 slaves were reclassified as "apprentices" and some served until 1840.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

Jefferson died in 1826 - as did Adams - a few hours apart.
http://www.biography.com/articles/Thomas-Jefferson-9353715
http://www.american-presidents.com/john-adams
"On July 4, 1826, on the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, he died at Quincy, after uttering the famous last words "Thomas Jefferson still survives." (Unbeknownst to Adams, Thomas Jefferson had died a few hours earlier). "
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #72


WhoWee said:
To emphasize your point, the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 freed slaves below the age of 6 - over 6 slaves were reclassified as "apprentices" and some served until 1840.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

[/I]

Yes. Note that the act contained exceptions including the huge East India Company which ruled over all of India (including present day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar (Burma), Malaysia and Singapore.

Despite its official neutrality Britain, supplied the Confederacy with fast well built blockade runners which ran between Southern US ports and Great Britain bringing vital supplies to the South. Uniformed British officers were attached to Confederate military units as "observers". The Trent Affair itself involved Confederate agents aboard British ships and Canada swarmed with Confederates engaged in war related activities including a brief "invasion" of Vermont.

http://americancivilwar.com/statepic/vt.html

EDIT: During and after the American Civil War, Britain got most of its cotton from India.
 
Last edited:
  • #73


A recent history of the American losers of whom

“80,000 quit the new republic for Britain, the British colonies in the Caribbean and especially for Canada, where their influence has been lasting.”
(T.A.Edison was of that stock) reviewed here: http://www.economist.com/node/17848373?story_id=17848373

Hard to single out just one or two bits of this review (I think link feely accessible online only for limited time) but:

‘Mr Allen sees it as “a revolution that was also a civil war”.’

‘Like other civil wars, the American revolution was marked by brutality on a sickening scale. Both sides shot and hanged prisoners without mercy, and on at least two occasions Patriots enforced the gruesome punishment of hanging, drawing and quartering….
Patriotic legend remembers the violence of British officers, but rebel officers, including General Washington himself, could be ruthless when policy recommended it.’
 
  • #74


epenguin said:
A recent history of the American losers of whom

“80,000 quit the new republic for Britain, the British colonies in the Caribbean and especially for Canada, where their influence has been lasting.” [/I]

Doesn't the 80,000 number seem a bit high (approx 3% of population)?
 
  • #75


WhoWee said:
Doesn't the 80,000 number seem a bit high (approx 3% of population)?
Wiki puts the the number at about 2% of the total. The Wiki article is especially well-written and well referenced with explanatory notes. I'm inclined to trust its accuracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #76


turbo-1 said:
Wiki puts the the number at about 2% of the total. The Wiki article is especially well-written and well referenced with explanatory notes. I'm inclined to trust its accuracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution )

The link wouldn't open? However, 2% represents about 50,000 people - if you don't count slaves. It's possible that some of these people would have left even if there hadn't been a war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77


Wiki truncated the parentheses. Just click the link and select their suggested link (with parentheses) to get to the article.
 
  • #78


SW VandeCarr said:
Conrad Black's speculation that the British would have abolished slavery had the "colonies" remained within the British Empire is not well founded. Britain's huge textile industry benefited enormously from the cheap high quality cotton produced in the American South. When the Civil War began, the Palmerston government considered a Confederate victory inevitable although Britain remained "officially" neutral. A war between the US and Britain nearly broke out over the Trent Affair in late 1861. Palmerston sent 11,000 troops to Canada. American slavery was good for British industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair
Never the less the then British empire abolished slavery throughout its remaining colonies in 1833.

edit: i see this was already addressed above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79


turbo-1 said:
Wiki truncated the parentheses. Just click the link and select their suggested link (with parentheses) to get to the article.

It worked and the wiki analysis sounds reasonable.
 

Similar threads

News Is it just Britain and America in Afghanistan?
2
Replies
62
Views
9K
Why did Churchill refuse to discuss peace with Hitler in 1940?
2
Replies
59
Views
22K
How Did the Invasion of Iraq Impact Your Perspective on War?
Replies
4
Views
2K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
Replies
1
Views
3K
My list of the top five heavyweight boxers of all time
Replies
35
Views
5K
News THE CAUSES OF WAR What factors lead to the outbreak of war between nations?
Replies
39
Views
6K
News Is War Sometimes Necessary to Achieve Peace?
Replies
9
Views
4K
News Is America turning into a Monarchy?
Replies
38
Views
11K
I've been feeling lost as of late.
Replies
6
Views
2K
News Is America Losing the War on Drugs?
2
Replies
61
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top