American Independence w/o French help?

[Blizrun]

In another thread, Thande mentioned that the British public were largely sympathetic to the Americans during the revolution, and that the most talented generals refused to fight. He went on to say that it was only after France entered the war did the British people began to support the war and were more willing to enlist (though I believe Thande also added that many of them would only fight the French).

So, what if, for whatever reason, France decides to stay neutral? Would domestic opposition to the war force Parliament to seek terms with the colonials?

 

[Johnnyreb]

The basic question should be, How far does French neutrality go? As is clear from modern times, you can supply arms to a revolutionary movement yet still remain neutral. In the case of the AWI, the French supplied arms and advisers to the Americans before they intervened militarily. The result was the American victory at Saratoga, which became the real hinge of the war on the American continent.

Let us assume this American victory, but that the French neither landed troops nor deployed any naval forces. The situation at Yorktown would still have arisen. However, with Washington unable to break into the British lines and Cornwallis getting unlimited supplies by sea, stalemate would set in.

At that stage the last serious British army in the that part of the world would be locked up in Yorktown and the British government had very few troops to send across the Atlantic. In view of the sympathy held for the Americans by large sections of the English Parliament, population and indeed in the Royal Navy, a deal would have to be worked out.

In fact I believe certain deals had already been suggested to Congress by British intermediaries more or less throughout the war, but had been refused by Congress itself, who were afraid they would be treated as traitors, i.e. hanged. Obviously after the above version of Yorktown, hanging would be off the table.

However, if the French had not supplied arms and the British had won Saratoga, the Brit government may have felt they were on a roll and proceeded with the suppression of the Continental Army. This would not solve the problem.

There were about three million people in the Colonies and they would still have to be administered and policed. The British Army in America before AWI numbered about 10,000. Many more would have been needed because of the bad feeling caused by the war and the British Exchequer had been depleted by the Seven Years War.

Let me leave this with a picture of a country with a weakened currency deploying large numbers of troops in another country where large numbers of the population don't like them and there is an active guerilla movement. Modern parallel, what?

 

[nickjbor]

I think that even if the rebels had "lost" the war, that eventually public opinion would have lead to independence.

 

[Johnnyreb]

No doubt about that. Even in my Saratoga-lost scenario, once things had settled down and normal trading had been resumed, something like dominion status would have had to be granted.

 

[nickjbor]

No doubt about that. Even in my Saratoga-lost scenario, once things had settled down and normal trading had been resumed, something like dominion status would have had to be granted.

I read an interesting book that ranked the "options" that the UK and USA had. There were 5.

1 - outright independence
2 - nothing changes
the others are "compromises" I dont remember them all, but one of them was to have a federation of colonies, with some domestic freedoms, but as a dominion of the UK. That option was #2 to both colonists and britons. I've always thought it interesting to think what would have happened if this option was chosen, partly because all of British North America would have been in this federation (IE canada)

 

[Darkling]

Let us assume this American victory, but that the French neither landed troops nor deployed any naval forces. The situation at Yorktown would still have arisen. However, with Washington unable to break into the British lines and Cornwallis getting unlimited supplies by sea, stalemate would set in.

Yorktown wouldn't occur, without the French threat to New York more forces could have been deployed to the South and indeed more British forces deployed to the North American mainland.

So things would like considerably different in the Southern campaign and thus alter the entire strategic situation by that late in day.

Even if by some miracle Yorktown did occur as OTL Without the French naval presence the Britsih can be evacuated or reinforced, not to mention that without the French troops and siege equipment the rebels would have no hope of over coming the army under Cornwallis so it leads to the same status as before with time running out for both sides even if the Britsih just sat about.

 

[Johnnyreb]

I suppose the British could have gathered a few more peasants from Lincolnshire or Somerset or Lancashire and thrust them into red coats and ferried them across the Atlantic (depending on weather, the voyage could take anything from four weeks to three months.)

The real point is, they were running out of money to pay them. With free land available (something Tommy could never have got at home) the desertion rate would be high. The generals, talented or untalented, would know this. Stalemate would still have set in.

Trying to increase tax in England to pay for war in America would have benn highly unpopular and quite possibly led to revolution in Derbyshire, never mind the 13 Colonies.

 

[Tyr]

The thing is with Dominion status though is it wasn't all that special.
The various parts of Canada were already self governing pre-dominion, all that did was unite the many small colonies into one greater one and more officially recognise how developed they were.

 

[Darkling]

I suppose the British could have gathered a few more peasants from Lincolnshire or Somerset or Lancashire and thrust them into red coats and ferried them across the Atlantic (depending on weather, the voyage could take anything from four weeks to three months.)

You didn't address the fact that they could redeploy those already in North America, or those sent to the west indies or those sent to Florida or more raised locally in the colonies.

In fact you didn't really address any of the problems I pointed out with the idea of an alt-Yorktown or one that ends in stalemate.

Allow me to raise another problem, with no overt French military support getting supplies to the US will be more difficult (one of the reason the French went the extra mile was they were tied of their supplies getting captured or destroyed y the Britsih) and there will be less money spent (with the cause looking less likely to succeed the loans to the US will be a greater risk).

Let's be honest here, by 1781 even with French, Spanish and Dutch active military engagement Washington wasn't terribly upbeat about his chances so the idea that without that support everything will be fine somewhat stretches credibility.

The real point is, they were running out of money to pay them. With free land available (something Tommy could never have got at home) the desertion rate would be high.

How high?

How high was it in OTL?

Higher than the rebel army?

The generals, talented or untalented, would know this. Stalemate would still have set in.

What does that favour the rebels when it didn't in OTL?

Trying to increase tax in England to pay for war in America would have benn highly unpopular and quite possibly led to revolution in Derbyshire, never mind the 13 Colonies.

You have some work to do in making that seem likely.

 

[Johnnyreb]

You have to look at the English social history of the times. Riots were very common in British cities. The Boston Riots are held to be something special, but were in fact only the continuation of a good old English tradition. I don't know at what point riot shades into revolution: You'ld have to ask an American.

I can't see the Brits pulling troops out of the West Indies. These were the Sugar Islands and looked on as more valuable to Britain than all 13 Colonies put together. They had to be safeguarded against the real enemy (France.)

Be that as it may, the British might have established military superiority in the South but what good was this going to do them? Trade to and from the South was miniscule compared to trade to and from New York and Boston. The British financial problem remains.

Stalemate would favour the Colonists in the long run. If the war was going nowhere and costing huge amounts of money (to say nothing of lives) political pressure to stop it by whatever means will increase by leaps and bounds. Ask any American politician at the time of Vietnam.

I know nothing about AWI desertion rates but I do know that generals of that era were always worried by it. If it got too high, it would decrease their willingness to manoevre.

 

[67th Tigers]

I can't see the Brits pulling troops out of the West Indies. These were the Sugar Islands and looked on as more valuable to Britain than all 13 Colonies put together. They had to be safeguarded against the real enemy (France.)

By way of illustration: http://www.geocities.com/littlegreenmen.geo/1781.htm

I know nothing about AWI desertion rates but I do know that generals of that era were always worried by it. If it got too high, it would decrease their willingness to manoevre.

They were extreme in the Continental Army, about normal in the British, and quite low amongst the Germans and Provincials.

 

[fhaessig]

One point is that the french were not only providing food, weapons and supplies for the continental army, but also paying for it. Literally, as in providing the pay for the soldiers.

So without french support, or with a limited french support, the continental army is going to melt away by desertion as unpaid soldiers leave.

Without the continental army you may get a low level guerilla, but definitely not independence.

And that says nothing of the effect of the RN when not countered by the Royale. The ability to land and retrieve troops at will on any coast cannot be underestimeted ( as the british proved later ).

Bottom line, with limited french support, the traitors hang or retreat to the interior, across the Missisipi at least.