WI Yorktown was not a British defeat?

1 PoD - The French fleets get beaten and driven off by the British
before the battle

2 what ifs from that


a) Cornwallis defeats the Continental Army and French at Yorktown, or


b) British Naval superiority allows Cornwallis to hold his position or
evacuate in good order.


What's this likely to do to the final settlement of the war in North
America, the Caribbean and elsehwhere, with what domestic effects for
all the belligerents?
 
I'm just an amateur in this area, but here's a suggestion...

The war ends months later; the Rebels still win, but they don't win as much. The Old Northwest (and perhaps even a chunk of upstate New York) could remain British Territory.

Or is that totally wrong?
 
1 PoD - The French fleets get beaten and driven off by the British
before the battle

2 what ifs from that


a) Cornwallis defeats the Continental Army and French at Yorktown, or


b) British Naval superiority allows Cornwallis to hold his position or
evacuate in good order.


What's this likely to do to the final settlement of the war in North
America, the Caribbean and elsehwhere, with what domestic effects for
all the belligerents?

A full victory at Yorktown is ASB a successful escape from Yorktown was plausible and only was not achieved because of Cornwallis and his extreme caution prior to and leading up the to siege. I forget the details but there were numerous times to escape via the RN before the French reached the area. I am going to find the book I had on it.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
A full victory at Yorktown is ASB a successful escape from Yorktown was plausible and only was not achieved because of Cornwallis and his extreme caution prior to and leading up the to siege. I forget the details but there were numerous times to escape via the RN before the French reached the area. I am going to find the book I had on it.

Not really, what was decisive was the French artillery unloaded from the fleet. Had the Whigs committed to battle and the RN kept control of the Chesapeake then this fitted with Cornwallis's concept of operations, the Continental Army brought out of their entrenchments to batter themselves to destruction upon government entrenchments.

Should the government win the siege then they've effectively won. The Whig forces near New York have been so weakened they won't be able to stop the government forces from marching north.
 
I'm just an amateur in this area, but here's a suggestion...

The war ends months later; the Rebels still win, but they don't win as much. The Old Northwest (and perhaps even a chunk of upstate New York) could remain British Territory.

Or is that totally wrong?

Your general idea is right, but the land concessions are wrong. Up until this point, the British were in a strong position in the south, not the north. They still held New York and perhaps could expect to gain a hinterland for it in a peace, but really they had abandoned the north years ago. Instead, they held a firm (relatively) control over Georgia and South Carolina, they were in nominal control of North Carolina, and were pressing north in the hopes of clearing a path all the way along the coast. The loss of the only remaining major British army then meant they had no forces with which to hold their ground from a concerted attack, save for militia and garrison units, which weren't going to hold off the Continental Army. If Cornwallis' army stays intact and isn't routed, butchered or captured, then the British have every chance of holding what they've taken - they were starting to adapt to the war, and had a much better chance of holding the southern colonies alone as it didn't require nearly the commitment of holding the whole 13 colonies, and saving another calamitous defeat, on the defensive he had every chance of fighting back any Continental Army incursion. Should Cornwallis have survived, he likely either would have pressed ahead to his objective doing serious damage if not ultimately successful, or headed back to defensive positions; the likely outcome is a peace a little sooner with the UK retaining everything south of North Carolina (including NC) plus as mentioned New York City. The British would likely have been in a good position to negotiate for their version of the Maine border, too. Otherwise, I find it unlikely to see the Americans losing any more of the north.
 
67th Tigers, except that is also ASB territory. Without the French artillery and control of the Chesapeake the odds of Washington attacking Cornwallis are effectively nil.

Washington is surely a bit disappointed but Cornwallis, having failed to subdue North Carolina and Virginia, has already seen the defeat of his campaign so it isn't a total loss.


The likelihood of the British holding NYC alone is pretty much nil but they will certainly seek to use it as a bargaining chip, but they'ld best not bargain too long or the Whigs will take power and...
 

terence

Banned
= No USA. No extermination of Native Americans. Slavery ended sixty years earlier. No aggressive war against Mexico--No California or Texas-- No drug culture Movie stars. No George Bush. No Starbucks. No MacDonalds. No Rap music. No Jerry Springer show. No 'habanizeday'. Sounds great to me
 
= No USA. No extermination of Native Americans. Slavery ended sixty years earlier. No aggressive war against Mexico--No California or Texas-- No drug culture Movie stars. No George Bush. No Starbucks. No MacDonalds. No Rap music. No Jerry Springer show. No 'habanizeday'. Sounds great to me

Anymore completly pointless flaming or are you done?

On topic: Would the British trade New York City for more land down South?
 
Top