Faeelin
Banned
We've talked before about the British seizing the southern colonies during the Revolution, but I would like to suggest that, based on actual events in South Carolina during the British occupation, the actual result would be far messier than many envision and merely see the USA and UK at war once again.
The Southern Strategy of the British was developed after the French joined the Revolutionary War, on the theory that they could at least secure the valuable southern colonies, which were believed to be a hotbed of loyalism. Georgia fell easily enough, and Charleston, South Carolina, fell in May of 1780. Under the terms of Charleston's capitulation of May 12, 1780, Continentals were treated as prisoners of war and militia were allowed to return home so long as they did not take up arms against the British. In the weeks after Charleston's surrender, some 1600 men came forward and took an oath to the crown. On June 1, General Clinton offered a complete pardon to all South Carolinians who offered their allegiance to the king, save for those who executed loyalists. Those receiving pardons were also promised to be exempt from taxes not levied by locally chosen representatives. On June 3, Clinton changed his tack, demanding all men declare allegiance or be considered enemies of their crown. All who held public offices or commands in the patriot militia were to be dispatched to the sea islands as prisoners of war. (This would have a big effect down the line, since statements about how you're either with someone or against someone make a lot of people end up against you).
Within Charleston itself, there was no rush to establish a civil government. The British set up a Board of Police, to act as a court of common pleas and an advisory body to the British, but no thought was given to reestablishing the Colonial Assembly.
But was there a reason to reestablish a civil government? We tend to think (and certain posters have argued) that the South was viewed as a hotbed of loyalism, but the response to the British invasion was underwhelming. James Simpson, a former royal attorney general who accompanied the British expedition, found that Loyalists were not so numerous as the British anticipated. Lieutenant Balfour, who moved inland along the Santee to reestablish British rule found that "all the leading men of property have been on the rebel side." He also warned that the area between the Slauda and Savannah rivers was full of people who might rise up once again if given the opportunity, and that many of the weapons the rebels turned in as part of their surrender were of poor quality, with the good weapons being kept in hiding. Colonel Robert Gray concluded that barely one third of the colony was loyal, and that this was "by no means the wealthiest" part.
The British did have some success in organizing loyalist militias. In the Orangesburg district, twelve companies were established, two of whom were commanded by members of the legislature when the Patriots held South Carolina. But overall the British referred to the militia forces as Banditti and plunderers, and they never lived up to the expectations the British had placed in them. British attempts at recruitment were also frustrated by shortages of horses, powder, and arms. Which they remedied by confiscating from Carolinians without any real regard for the political inclinations of the goods' owners.
Just how well the British plan was going can be indicated by the "Second Revolution" of 1780, where Patriot rebels diehards, based out of the Carolina piedmont, launched assaults on isolated British posts in the interior. Rebel forces attacked loyalist gatherings across the Carolinas, and Lord Rawdon, a member of the British staff, was forced to conclude that Cornwallis's June 3 proclamation had only emboldened Patriots.
Indeed, there was evidence of wholesale defection in some of the loyalist
militia units. [1] British officers complained of being attacked by men who took an oath of allegiance to the crown, and while the British put a crimp in the rebels by their victory at the Battle of Camden on August 16, 1780, the rebels continued to be a thorn in the British side. [2] After the victory of King's Mountain, another of the 150 captured loyalist militia joined the rebel authorities. [3]
The British did experiment with raising regular units of colonial loyalists, but they were so useless that Cornwallis concluded that "raising corps does not succeed in this province." Cornwallis turned to the idea again after Kings Mountain, but by that point the British had lost effective control of the colony.
The British defeat at Kings Mountain has been marked as a turning point in the struggle for South Carolina, because even before the surrender at Cornwallis a year later the rebels regained effective control of the state. Even the upcountry frontiersmen, who supported the crown in 1775, had come around to support the Patriot cause by 1780, if only because unlike the British, the Patriots had no problem waging war with the Cherokee.
In other words, it's clear that South Carolina would not go quietly under British rule, even if there was a Uti possidetis peace in 1784 or so. A majority of the colony remained Patriots, and the British would be faced with: 1) maintaining strong ties with the Cherokees to halt the USA's expansion; 2) appeasing frontiersman, who dislike the Cherokee; 3) a strong Patriot streak in the Carolina low country.
Unlike thinly settled Canada, a British Carolina (to use a term for Georgia and the Carolinas if the British won them in the Revolution) would be a flashpoint for Anglo-American hostilities. Meanwhile, the British presence in the Ohio country would only add to the tensions. I think in this scenario, the USA would be drawn into any hostilities between France and Britain in the 1790s, with incalculable effects on Europe. But a British Dixie looks like the least probable outcome.
Thoughts?
[1] One notable example: John Lisle, a rebel militia officer who was sent to the sea islands, gave his parole, joined a loyalist militia, and then carried his militiamen off to the Patriots. This is the moment where all Americans should do a fistpump, shout Wolverines, and go pour some tea in a local body of water.
[2] This was true in most of the south; in September of 1780 the rebels assaulted Augusta, Georgia. They withdrew, but when the rebels are raising forces to attack major positions it's hard to think that any of the region was that loyal to the crown.
[3] Of this number, some thirty ran away immediately, and the rest had to be thrown into a jail. This is the moment when everyone who doesn't want to die for a cause they don’t' feel strongly about should do a fistpump.
The Southern Strategy of the British was developed after the French joined the Revolutionary War, on the theory that they could at least secure the valuable southern colonies, which were believed to be a hotbed of loyalism. Georgia fell easily enough, and Charleston, South Carolina, fell in May of 1780. Under the terms of Charleston's capitulation of May 12, 1780, Continentals were treated as prisoners of war and militia were allowed to return home so long as they did not take up arms against the British. In the weeks after Charleston's surrender, some 1600 men came forward and took an oath to the crown. On June 1, General Clinton offered a complete pardon to all South Carolinians who offered their allegiance to the king, save for those who executed loyalists. Those receiving pardons were also promised to be exempt from taxes not levied by locally chosen representatives. On June 3, Clinton changed his tack, demanding all men declare allegiance or be considered enemies of their crown. All who held public offices or commands in the patriot militia were to be dispatched to the sea islands as prisoners of war. (This would have a big effect down the line, since statements about how you're either with someone or against someone make a lot of people end up against you).
Within Charleston itself, there was no rush to establish a civil government. The British set up a Board of Police, to act as a court of common pleas and an advisory body to the British, but no thought was given to reestablishing the Colonial Assembly.
But was there a reason to reestablish a civil government? We tend to think (and certain posters have argued) that the South was viewed as a hotbed of loyalism, but the response to the British invasion was underwhelming. James Simpson, a former royal attorney general who accompanied the British expedition, found that Loyalists were not so numerous as the British anticipated. Lieutenant Balfour, who moved inland along the Santee to reestablish British rule found that "all the leading men of property have been on the rebel side." He also warned that the area between the Slauda and Savannah rivers was full of people who might rise up once again if given the opportunity, and that many of the weapons the rebels turned in as part of their surrender were of poor quality, with the good weapons being kept in hiding. Colonel Robert Gray concluded that barely one third of the colony was loyal, and that this was "by no means the wealthiest" part.
The British did have some success in organizing loyalist militias. In the Orangesburg district, twelve companies were established, two of whom were commanded by members of the legislature when the Patriots held South Carolina. But overall the British referred to the militia forces as Banditti and plunderers, and they never lived up to the expectations the British had placed in them. British attempts at recruitment were also frustrated by shortages of horses, powder, and arms. Which they remedied by confiscating from Carolinians without any real regard for the political inclinations of the goods' owners.
Just how well the British plan was going can be indicated by the "Second Revolution" of 1780, where Patriot rebels diehards, based out of the Carolina piedmont, launched assaults on isolated British posts in the interior. Rebel forces attacked loyalist gatherings across the Carolinas, and Lord Rawdon, a member of the British staff, was forced to conclude that Cornwallis's June 3 proclamation had only emboldened Patriots.
Indeed, there was evidence of wholesale defection in some of the loyalist
militia units. [1] British officers complained of being attacked by men who took an oath of allegiance to the crown, and while the British put a crimp in the rebels by their victory at the Battle of Camden on August 16, 1780, the rebels continued to be a thorn in the British side. [2] After the victory of King's Mountain, another of the 150 captured loyalist militia joined the rebel authorities. [3]
The British did experiment with raising regular units of colonial loyalists, but they were so useless that Cornwallis concluded that "raising corps does not succeed in this province." Cornwallis turned to the idea again after Kings Mountain, but by that point the British had lost effective control of the colony.
The British defeat at Kings Mountain has been marked as a turning point in the struggle for South Carolina, because even before the surrender at Cornwallis a year later the rebels regained effective control of the state. Even the upcountry frontiersmen, who supported the crown in 1775, had come around to support the Patriot cause by 1780, if only because unlike the British, the Patriots had no problem waging war with the Cherokee.
In other words, it's clear that South Carolina would not go quietly under British rule, even if there was a Uti possidetis peace in 1784 or so. A majority of the colony remained Patriots, and the British would be faced with: 1) maintaining strong ties with the Cherokees to halt the USA's expansion; 2) appeasing frontiersman, who dislike the Cherokee; 3) a strong Patriot streak in the Carolina low country.
Unlike thinly settled Canada, a British Carolina (to use a term for Georgia and the Carolinas if the British won them in the Revolution) would be a flashpoint for Anglo-American hostilities. Meanwhile, the British presence in the Ohio country would only add to the tensions. I think in this scenario, the USA would be drawn into any hostilities between France and Britain in the 1790s, with incalculable effects on Europe. But a British Dixie looks like the least probable outcome.
Thoughts?
[1] One notable example: John Lisle, a rebel militia officer who was sent to the sea islands, gave his parole, joined a loyalist militia, and then carried his militiamen off to the Patriots. This is the moment where all Americans should do a fistpump, shout Wolverines, and go pour some tea in a local body of water.
[2] This was true in most of the south; in September of 1780 the rebels assaulted Augusta, Georgia. They withdrew, but when the rebels are raising forces to attack major positions it's hard to think that any of the region was that loyal to the crown.
[3] Of this number, some thirty ran away immediately, and the rest had to be thrown into a jail. This is the moment when everyone who doesn't want to die for a cause they don’t' feel strongly about should do a fistpump.
