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

[Evo]

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

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

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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:

[...]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

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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

 

[SW VandeCarr]

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

 

[WhoWee]

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). "

 

[SW VandeCarr]

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.

 

[epenguin]

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.’

 

[WhoWee]

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)?

 

[turbo]

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 )

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[turbo]

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

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.