Could Britain have won the Southern Theater of American Revolutionary War?

[TFSmith121]

Actually, I just wanted to make sure your "superpower" definition

Yes. (I can only see this as stalling... unless, again, you're planning on doing something ridiculous with the letter of the definitions.)

Actually, I just wanted to make sure your "superpower" definition from the answer to question 2, below, was still pertinent for the baseline question, which given how far this has gone from the OP question, seems only prudent. Having said that, if the question is:

Q. How far back a PoD do you think is necessary to prevent The United States of America being a global superpower?

A. 1840s, roughly (*), with the caveat that whether slavery would result in a signficant internal rebellion/conflict/war in the 1860s depends greatly upon what happens in the 1840s, obviously.

*absent nuclear war, asteroid strikes, global pandemics, replacement of senior decision makers from Polk onward by time-travelling robots, etc.

More seriously, the 1840s basically was the decade in which the US truly became a continental power (as a result of the US-Mexican War) which was, I think, a necessary foundation for the US to reach the level of "global superpower" as you have defined it.

Happy?

Best,

 

[Dave Howery]

Kings Mountain seems to have been a major turning point in the war in the south... mainly because it killed Ferguson, who had been very skilled at recruiting local militia for Cornwallis (over 5000, according to one book I have). The battle both killed Ferguson and put a damper on enthusiasm for the locals to join the Loyalist militia. The battle is one I've always been interested in because it featured a larger but untrained Patriot force vs. a smaller force that had a core of veteran militia from the north. The Patriots basically fought 'colonial guerrilla' style, tree to tree and accurate rifle shooting, while the core of the Loyalists tried to fight in the usual British ranks, volley fire. Turn this battle around, and Cornwallis has a better chance (although maybe not enough to really win it all). What Ferguson really needed was more time... 800 of his 950 men were raw recruits, and he was trying to get back to the Charlotte area for supplies and reinforcements. Have him able to get back, give him better scouts who get word of the Patriot force earlier?

 

[hasdrubal barca]

No, those were kept there to stave off an American attack. I think this number is a bit high, actually...
.

According to a book i'm reading Clinton had 23,000 men in NY.

Prior to the arrival of the French how large were Washington's forces? My guess is much less then 23,000. So until the French arrive Clinton should be safe and can detach part of his forces.

My thinking is that Clinton was just overly cautious even sending a mere 2,000 more troops to the south, in spring 1781, could have tipped the balance.

 

[hasdrubal barca]

Kings Mountain seems to have been a major turning point in the war in the south... mainly because it killed Ferguson, who had been very skilled at recruiting local militia for Cornwallis (over 5000, according to one book I have). The battle both killed Ferguson and put a damper on enthusiasm for the locals to join the Loyalist militia. The battle is one I've always been interested in because it featured a larger but untrained Patriot force vs. a smaller force that had a core of veteran militia from the north. The Patriots basically fought 'colonial guerrilla' style, tree to tree and accurate rifle shooting, while the core of the Loyalists tried to fight in the usual British ranks, volley fire. Turn this battle around, and Cornwallis has a better chance (although maybe not enough to really win it all). What Ferguson really needed was more time... 800 of his 950 men were raw recruits, and he was trying to get back to the Charlotte area for supplies and reinforcements. Have him able to get back, give him better scouts who get word of the Patriot force earlier?

Your right, the British really needed support the loyalists forces more. Having 1000 of them being killed or captured at Kings Mountain probably hurt recruitment to say the least.

 

[Saphroneth]

Actually, I just wanted to make sure your "superpower" definition from the answer to question 2, below, was still pertinent for the baseline question, which given how far this has gone from the OP question, seems only prudent. Having said that, if the question is:

Q. How far back a PoD do you think is necessary to prevent The United States of America being a global superpower?

A. 1840s, roughly (*), with the caveat that whether slavery would result in a signficant internal rebellion/conflict/war in the 1860s depends greatly upon what happens in the 1840s, obviously.

*absent nuclear war, asteroid strikes, global pandemics, replacement of senior decision makes from Polk onward by time-travelling robots, etc.

More seriously, the 1840s basically was the decade in which the US truly became a continental power (as a result of the US-Mexican War) which was, I think, a necessary foundation for the US to reach the level of "global superpower" as you have defined it.

Happy?

Best,

Almost. I'm also interested in what you think it would take to reduce the USA from said continental power status - presumably a nasty loss in the Mexican-American War.
Since you'd in the past said that the US was undefeatable as of 1775, I thought I'd check whether you actually considered any question relating to the US could be answered without the answer being "the US wins because historical inevitability".

 

[Faeelin]

According to a book i'm reading Clinton had 23,000 men in NY.

Which book?

(Filler).

 

[hasdrubal barca]

Which book?

(Filler).

Osprey Swamp Fox, its got some nice pics

 

[hasdrubal barca]

Kings Mountain seems to have been a major turning point in the war in the south... mainly because it killed Ferguson, who had been very skilled at recruiting local militia for Cornwallis (over 5000, according to one book I have). The battle both killed Ferguson and put a damper on enthusiasm for the locals to join the Loyalist militia. The battle is one I've always been interested in because it featured a larger but untrained Patriot force vs. a smaller force that had a core of veteran militia from the north. The Patriots basically fought 'colonial guerrilla' style, tree to tree and accurate rifle shooting, while the core of the Loyalists tried to fight in the usual British ranks, volley fire. Turn this battle around, and Cornwallis has a better chance (although maybe not enough to really win it all). What Ferguson really needed was more time... 800 of his 950 men were raw recruits, and he was trying to get back to the Charlotte area for supplies and reinforcements. Have him able to get back, give him better scouts who get word of the Patriot force earlier?

Cornwallis launched his first, unsuccessful, invasion of North Carolina on Sep, 25th 1780. Perhaps instead of marching on Charlotte he could have moved to link up with Ferguson and prevent the disaster at Kings Mountain in early October?

As well Cornwallis instead of preparing for his second invasion of North Carolina, in early 1781, could have led the forces to Cowpens in person. I doubt he would have behaved as reckless as Tarleton and Morgan's forces probably would have been destroyed.

 

[Faeelin]

One reason I'm so skeptical of British rule is that even in Georgia, the smallest colony, the ostensibly most loyalist... the British couldn't hold the back country. How do you fix that?

One way to do it, IMO, is to move up the invasion of the South. Don't do it in 1780; do it in 1776, instead of (or in addition to) Saratoga...

 

[zhenghe1421]

No way after Greene is put in command. Cornwallis wanted to pin his hopes on one last battle and even if he defeats Greene in detail, he would still have to contend with militia attacks and Cornwallis lost almost a third of his force in a victory at Guilford Courthouse. Remember that Greene would never allow himself to risk everything on one battle and Greene was smart enough to use every advantage.

Cornwallis also burned his supplies during the Race to the Dan, which hindered him greatly and led in part to him going to Yorktown. Britian could have conquered the South, but they lacked the ability or the will to win the big battle.

 

[John Farson]

Three pages of the Southern Theater of the Revolutionary War and not one "Patriot" reference? I'm impressed.

 

[Legend-in-Exile]

Three pages of the Southern Theater of the Revolutionary War and not one "Patriot" reference? I'm impressed.

I'd be shocked if anyone actually used that movie as evidence for anything. Only thing missing was woad and kilts.

 

[Space Oddity]

I'd be shocked if anyone actually used that movie as evidence for anything. Only thing missing was woad and kilts.

Which was just as out of place in the story of Lowlander Scot-Norman William Wallace, and his battle for the right of fellow Lowlander Scot-Norman John Balliol to rule without the interference of Anglo-Norman Edward Longshanks and his Lowlander Scot-Norman sidekicks the Bruces.

As a descendent of Highlanders, I find it somewhat amusing that the Lowlanders have taken all that from us too...

 

[hasdrubal barca]

I'd be shocked if anyone actually used that movie as evidence for anything. Only thing missing was woad and kilts.

Despite the movie being the way it was, I did find Jason Issacs and Tom Wilkinson quiet entertaining

I look forward to see Issacs again in Fury later this week

 

[hasdrubal barca]

Two topics also of interest:

1. George Washington first thought about putting New York under siege instead of going to Yorktown. How would that have gone?

2. Benedict Arnold recommended to Cornwallis that he not base his army near the coast. Where else in Virginia, besides Yorktown, would have been an option?

 

[TFSmith121]

Those are two very different questions;

Almost. I'm also interested in what you think it would take to reduce the USA from said continental power status - presumably a nasty loss in the Mexican-American War.
Since you'd in the past said that the US was undefeatable as of 1775, I thought I'd check whether you actually considered any question relating to the US could be answered without the answer being "the US wins because historical inevitability".

Those are two very different questions.

IIRC, the first question posed was something along the lines of "when was the latest the US could be conquered by a foreign power" and the answer, as was proven pretty decisively in 1775-83, was 1775.

The global superpower question is different; by definition, the results of the Mexican-US war made the US both a continental and Pacific power, so absent that, very unlikely the same level of economic strength and strategic depth would have been achieved.

As an aside, given that what the US "won" in the 1846-48 war was the Cession territories, and there was no way - given history as it was to 1846 - Mexico was going to prevent US conquest of the (current) US Southwest. The only part of Mexico where the Mexicans could - potentially - generate enough military power in 1846-48 to defeat the forces the US was able to deploy was - maybe - the Veracruz to Mexico City land route, against Scott, which was how they defeated the French in 1862; but even the French were able to come back and win (for the time being) in east central Mexico in 1863-64.

However, given the unpleasant reality (for Mexico) that the US could mount a multi-front war in 1846 against Mexico, and the Mexicans had to at least attempt to defend northeastern Mexico and east-central Mexico because of their own domestic political realities, the end result was they faced a much more difficult strategic problem in 1846-48 than they faced in 1862 - and so were defeated on all fronts.

Once hostilities began, there was no way Mexico could generate enough military power in New Mexico or California to prevent the US from taking control of those territories; sea power made all the difference in California, after all. The same differential, overland, held true for New Mexico and Taylor's offensive into northeastern Mexico.

Again, none of this is particularly disputed; US supremacy on the North American continent - real and latent - has pretty much been a fact since the 1770s, and no historian with any concept of economics, demographics, or geography has ever argued otherwise; the latent supremacy gained in 1775-83 was made concrete, of course, in the following decades, through diplomacy and military, economic, and demographic power.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Yeah, but ...

One reason I'm so skeptical of British rule is that even in Georgia, the smallest colony, the ostensibly most loyalist... the British couldn't hold the back country. How do you fix that?

One way to do it, IMO, is to move up the invasion of the South. Don't do it in 1780; do it in 1776, instead of (or in addition to) Saratoga...

Yeah, but ... the reality is British military resources were not inexhaustible, and as it was, they already had to retreat from Boston, face a real threat to Lower Canada, and (by the way) had chosen to occupy the largest American city...

And now you want them to:

a) march south from the Saint Lawrence and Lake Champlain;
b) invade Georgia and/or the Carolinas; and (presumably)
c) hold on to New York, which is the one clear British military triumph in the conflict.

And there are those French people just across the Channel, waiting for an opportunity to make mischief.

Plus I'm sure there's some pending challenge in India, or Ireland, or the Med, or all three...

Best,

 

[Carl Clausewitz]

Washington did lose battles, but he knew that was long as his army was around, the British couldn't win. Washington, along with Daniel Morgan and Nathanael Greene all used the Fabian strategy when they could.

Back on topic: Let's just say that the battle of King's Mountain doesn't happen or the British win it. What do they do next? Do they push on and invade North Carolina or wait in South Carolina to recruit loyalist to their army before they invade North Carolina? If he does push on, would his target be the capital of North Carolina?

 

[ManintheField]

One reason I'm so skeptical of British rule is that even in Georgia, the smallest colony, the ostensibly most loyalist... the British couldn't hold the back country. How do you fix that?

The same way you dominate any particular region that has malcontents: You set up a local power structure and equip it to keep down the locals while still being dependent on you for its position.

In other words, there are two ways the British can win in the South:

1. Very early on make it very clear that His Majesty's Government has no interest in depriving planters of their slaves and, in fact, is interested in keeping the plantations of the region running smoothly with as few upset slavers as possible. Repudiate the actions and words of men like Governor Dunmore loudly, clearly, and sincerely; essentially, win over the Tidewater up and down the coast with as much aplomb and treasure as necessary. There will be some problems in the backwoods but they aren't anything that can't be dealt with by the proper authorities over the course of years or decades as something more approaching police action than rebellion.

2. Destroy and dominate local society in such a way as it is more brought into an imperial structure of governance, with those who are able to exercise local power dependent on and beholden to the imperial government, instead of to local society. This requires a significant investment of blood and treasure. Probably less likely than number one, structures of power and domination tend to be developed over the course of generations in the pre-industrial world, difficult and expensive to do quickly and thus very unlikely to be done by the tight-fisted governments of the pre-Bastille 18th century.

Britain either kowtows to the interests of the planters or it brings all the trappings of imperial power into the South of the continent, with all the attendant costs and sacrifices. The planters cared, to a degree, about the issues that drove the rest of the country into revolt (and participated from an early stage), but the British were only well and truly fucked, from a political perspective, when Lord Dunmore offered freedom to Virginian slaves who fought for the Crown (and when similarish things happened in other plantation colonies).

 

[hasdrubal barca]

Washington did lose battles, but he knew that was long as his army was already, the British couldn't win. Washington, along with Daniel Morgan and Nathanael Greene all used the Fabian strategy when they could.

Back on topic: Let's just say that the battle of King's Mountain doesn't happen or the British win it. What do they do next? Do they push on and invade North Carolina or wait in South Carolina to recruit loyalist to their army before they invade North Carolina? If he does push on, would his target be the capital of North Carolina?

I think Clinton would have liked Cornwallis to wait in South Carolina, but my gut tells me he would have invaded North Carolina. He would probably have captured Charlotte in Oct, left a garrison, and then retired to the coast, probably Wilmington.