No French intervention in American Revolutionary War, how long could Rebels Hold?

[TFSmith121]

More to Maine than Hampden, Bangor, and Machias; sorry

That's untrue. Maine was occupied successfully throughout the entire war, and the British controlled the Midwest (portions of Michigan, Illinois and the whole of modern Wisconsin). They also successfully controlled the Chesapeake, occupied Washington, and withdrew largely on their own initiative versus being driven out by the Americans That and the failure at Boston made any continued campaign pointless since they had already accomplished their war aims.

More to Maine (even in 1812-15) than Hampden, Bangor, and Machias; there's this place called Portland you may have heard of...

And of course, Maine wasn't even a state in 1812-15; neither were Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin - so they don't really compare to New York, Maryland, and (even) Louisiana, which are the places the British tried to invade in 1812-15 and were repulsed at each ... as Downie, Ross, and Pakenham learned. (or actually, they didn't, since they were all KIA).

Much less upstate New York in 1777. (Oh wait, that was Burgoyne...)

Beyond all that, Boston? BOSTON? In 1812-15?

Do you mean Baltimore?

Might want to re-read that chapter of British military history.

Best,

 

[EnglishCanuck]

The same thing the Haitians, Mexicans, Santo Domingoans, Central Americans, Colombians, Peruvians, Chileanes, Rio Platinenses, and Brazilians (eventually) did - Make it themselves, capture it, and import it themselves.

There's a reason all of the above gained their independence from Europe in the roughly five decades between 1775-1825, and although being able to play one European power off against another was helpful, it was not crucial ... the Atlantic, the home field advantage, and all the Europeans waiting to take advantage of any potential weakness close to home were more than enough.

Best,

Well Europe is a bit broad, its mostly Spain, then Portugal and France, but still mostly Spain.

For each case specifically Haiti had that wonderful thing called disease on their side while Spain was basically bankrupt post-Napoleonic wars, fighting on a front even further than Britain, and one that was oh 10x the size of the 13 Colonies.

For Brazil well much the same, and Portugal was not terribly interested in prosecuting the war.

As to the making/importing, the Colonial Rebels really didn't have that luxury when the British occupied the major ports and were running a pretty nice blockade. There's a reason Valley Forge was a time of desperation and the US was desperate to capture British supplies. You can't do that forever and expect to go on winning.

Makes the CSA comparison pretty apt.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

More to Maine (even in 1812-15) than Hampden, Bangor, and Machias; there's this place called Portland you may have heard of...

Oh yes, and that the British were raiding up and down the coast at their leisure didn't mean anything then? Though its hard to say that every British invasion failed when they clearly occupied US territory, towns, and ports.

And of course, Maine wasn't even a state in 1812-15; neither were Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin - so they don't really compare to New York, Maryland, and (even) Louisiana, which are the places the British tried to invade in 1812-15 and were repulsed at each ... as Downie, Ross, and Pakenham learned. (or actually, they didn't, since they were all KIA).

Well actually it was part of Massachusetts at the time so they were technically occupying portions of that state, but hey semantics right?

Though you've still yet to show the abysmal failure of any British invasion beyond saying take my word for it (for clarity's sake are you suggesting they could have gone no other way?), especially since your list of repulses includes one battle where the invasion never started, a protracted siege where the British withdrew, the successful occupation of Washington, portions of Maryland and Virginia (where the Americans didn't force the British out versus a voluntary withdrawal), and a battle which had no strategic importance.

Though funny how most of those defeats include the commanding officers dying, but I'm sure those had nothing to with it of course

Much less upstate New York in 1777. (Oh wait, that was Burgoyne...)

Well thank heavens they won the war right after right?

Beyond all that, Boston? BOSTON? In 1812-15?

Do you mean Baltimore?

Might want to re-read that chapter of British military history.

Best,

Awful lot of snark over a name gaff.

Though I guess when you don't have much of an argument in the first place you gotta build a strawman to help stuff it up eh

 

[TFSmith121]

"In force"

The British tried to invade the US in force three times in 1812-15, twice from the sea and once overland/lacustrine and were defeated all three times, largely because they could never deploy and sustain combat power worth the name.

They tried the same thing twice in the Rio de la Plata and were stymied and defeated twice in 1806-07, and for the same reasons.

They tried it by sea in Boston in 1775 and were forced to withdraw or face destruction, tried it overland from BNA at Saratoga and Oriskany in 1777 and were defeated in both; given the realities of the Saratoga campaign, the British actually lost three battles in the field (Bennington, Freeman's Farm, and Bemis Heights), so their track record in the interior is even worse, actually.

And note that all of the above predate the extension of significant French aid, much less overt action.

Again, one can try and qualify it all one may wish, but the historical record is pretty clear - none of the European powers were able to deploy and sustain enough combat power on either American continent of any significance to force a political settlement against the wishes of those who lived there.

Best,

"In force" ...

Cripes, Jones raided Whitehaven, the French landed in Ireland, and the Dutch raided the Downs - does not mean that London was in much danger.


May want to read the source material a little closer.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

"In force" ...

Cripes, Jones raided Whitehaven, the French landed in Ireland, and the Dutch raided the Downs - does not mean that London was in much danger.


May want to read the source material a little closer.

The Brits sacked Washington and were actively standing on US territory for quite a while.

In force. In 1812.

They had almost total control of the coasts in the Revolutionary War, occupied many of the major cities, and were sustaining campaigns throughout the interior of Virginia and the Carolinas, while repulsing the ill-conceived American northern thrust.

That was with somewhere near 50,000 men in North America.

That sounds pretty 'in force' to me. Unless you don't think the number is high enough.

Chalk one up to the Brits I guess.

 

[TFSmith121]

Talk about separated by a common language...

The Brits sacked Washington and were actively standing on US territory for quite a while.

In force. In 1812.

The British sacked Washington in 1812? News to me.

Come on, you really don't see the significance of the strategies and commitments behind the invasions mounted by Prevost, Ross, and Pakenham (and the RN in all three cases) in 1812-15, as opposed to the forces they committed to northeastern Maine or Illinois?

Let's work through this one, sentence by sentence:

The British tried to invade the US in force three times in 1812-15, twice from the sea and once overland/lacustrine and were defeated all three times, largely because they could never deploy and sustain combat power worth the name.

Okay, you disagree with this because why, exactly?

 

[Just a Rube]

It's also important to remember that the war was extremely politically divisive in Britain, and was used by the Opposition to criticize the Government. Indeed, French entry into the war actually led to an uptick in support, as the colonists went from "a party mistreated by incompetent politicians in London" to "allies of the perfidious Frogs."

There's a reason the British made extensive use of foreign mercenaries during the war, after all.

It's in many ways a Vietnam scenario; the British have to decisively win, the Americans just have to not decisively lose. Loss of French support would be a serious problem, but it's not like the French wouldn't be willing to sell gunpowder (and given the rivalry, probably on pretty generous terms) even in the worst case, and their are other possible sources. It probably means the US would be less willing to commit to major campaigns, but again, as long as they survive, they can focus on picking off isolated garrisons until the Government falls, and the British become more willing to play ball.

 

[RodentRevolution]

It's also important to remember that the war was extremely politically divisive in Britain, and was used by the Opposition to criticize the Government. Indeed, French entry into the war actually led to an uptick in support, as the colonists went from "a party mistreated by incompetent politicians in London" to "allies of the perfidious Frogs."

There's a reason the British made extensive use of foreign mercenaries during the war, after all.

It's in many ways a Vietnam scenario; the British have to decisively win, the Americans just have to not decisively lose. Loss of French support would be a serious problem, but it's not like the French wouldn't be willing to sell gunpowder (and given the rivalry, probably on pretty generous terms) even in the worst case, and their are other possible sources. It probably means the US would be less willing to commit to major campaigns, but again, as long as they survive, they can focus on picking off isolated garrisons until the Government falls, and the British become more willing to play ball.

I think you are right to point up the divisive nature of the war back in Britain as that offers the rebels their best chance. However as EnglishCanuck has pointed out in fact the CSA example is more apt. They have to win big, the Government stays the Government so long as it stays the Government.

The Continental Congress itself, which is a less than representative body at the best of times, had to be carefully information managed as there were a wide divergence of war aims amomng the delegates.

If the British were divided so too were the rebels.

The main reason for brining in allied troops under the Capitulation system was simply they could be raised faster than the British Army could be expanded by itself. It was not a shortage of manpower at any given point as of trained manpower.

However even the Vietnam scenario requires both the support of a regular army, foreign aid and a safe area for the rebels.

Even with French aid at the level OTL the conflict was very touch and go for the rebels. Pare back French aid and it becomes vastly more so. It is worth remembering that the British were divided over the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars and yet sustained conflicts over a course of years from 1793 until 1815 and fought some other folk in that time besides.

Which does not mean that the rebels could not win but a win might well look very different from OTL, a British North American Commonwealth say. Also the odds are against them.

The odds however were probably against them OTL but they pulled it off. It was far from the pre-ordained order of things however.

 

[Mike]

I so love reading British and American fratboys going at it. It's an amusing way to start the morning. Anyway...

Plattsburgh was barely a battle, the British lost on the Lake so Prevost withdrew, despite the fact he had been gaining ground on land. Hardly stunning incompetence or a bloody repulse, more like a well reasoned strategic decision.

Plattsburgh was not insignificant. The British surrendered a naval force, the second time it happened in this war, and forced Prevost to retreat. That is significant. However, it does not mean that the British were destined to lose in this war as TFSmith claims. Losing a battle doesn't automatically mean losing a war.

New Orleans was hardly stunning incompetence. Pakenham's major mistake was not attacking earlier, then during the battle the senior British commanders were killed or incapacitated leaving the British forces leaderless for crucial hours, which then led to an orderly withdrawal and an army that still would have been capable of offensive operations had they not learned the war was over. It was a nice morale booster but hardly the decisive victory people like to paint it as, since it had no effect on the war.

According to Wikipedia, New Orleans did have an impact.

"Although the Battle of New Orleans had no influence on the terms of the Treaty of Ghent, the defeat at New Orleans did compel Britain to abide by the treaty.[54] This was crucial because uncovered British war records show that in October 1814, Maj. Gen. Pakenham had been given secret orders to continue fighting in the area regardless of the capture of New Orleans or any peace deal; he was told, "If you hear of a peace treaty, pay no attention, continue to fight."[55] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans

Basically, the British wanted an easy war in order to force the Americans to accept a buffer territory between the USA and Canada. The defeat at New Orleans proved that continuing the war would be bloody. The Americans were more populous, more united, had an industrial base established and, after two years of war, had learned the value of raising professional regulars instead of militias. Theoretically the British could still prevail after 1814 in America; they had the best navy in the world, a lot of money and great industrial capacity. However, it is also possible that they could lose because logistics were not on their side. In any case, the war was likely to be long and bloody in which the British had no stomach to pursue, after having gone through 20 years of constant war, just to force the Americans to accept the buffer territory.

Considering Spain was fighting across the breadth and width of South and Central America at pretty much the same time there's a bit of a difference between the two. The people in the West Indies also had both British help, and useful things like diseases on their side, which tended to wipe out European armies, just like in South America.

Something the Colonials noticeably lack.

you also forgot the biggest reason; that Spain was unstable throughout the 19th century. They went from French occupation at the beginning of the century, through a series of civil wars between the Legitimists/Catholics and Libertarians/Republicans and finally a military coup at the near end of the century. The whole 19th century was a massive screw for poor Spain.

That is the biggest reason why Spain lost their colonies. The American Rebels had none of these advantages and therefore had absolutely no chance whatsoever in hell of prevailing without foreign intervention.

 

[unprincipled peter]

TF,
I think you're being a bit unfair, especially with the Spanish. They had put down several rebellions. They had the New Spain uprising put down until their top General switched sides due to issues in the mother country. I know you can't take the bullet out of the gun and say aside from that Lincoln would have lived, but Spain being completely in turmoil/overrun/destroyed by a foreign country might have had a smidgeon to do with the successful revolutions in Spanish America. You'll note that none of the rebellions were successful, or even seriously contemplated until after the French invasion, and that even still many of them were far from a sure thing. I'm a believer that much of Spanish America would have broken free eventually simply due to the advancing technologies of the day/the shrinking world, but in the 2 or 3 decades of the late 18th/early 19th centuries, sans outside help/catastrophe, Spain could have easily held onto her empire.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Plattsburgh was not insignificant. The British surrendered a naval force, the second time it happened in this war, and forced Prevost to retreat. That is significant. However, it does not mean that the British were destined to lose in this war as TFSmith claims. Losing a battle doesn't automatically mean losing a war.

The naval battle of Plattsburgh was significant, the land battle was not. Which is precisely the contention I am making. Prevost's army was not defeated, nor was it then not available for any other potential offensive action.

According to Wikipedia, New Orleans did have an impact.

"Although the Battle of New Orleans had no influence on the terms of the Treaty of Ghent, the defeat at New Orleans did compel Britain to abide by the treaty.[54] This was crucial because uncovered British war records show that in October 1814, Maj. Gen. Pakenham had been given secret orders to continue fighting in the area regardless of the capture of New Orleans or any peace deal; he was told, "If you hear of a peace treaty, pay no attention, continue to fight."[55] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans

Basically, the British wanted an easy war in order to force the Americans to accept a buffer territory between the USA and Canada. The defeat at New Orleans proved that continuing the war would be bloody. The Americans were more populous, more united, had an industrial base established and, after two years of war, had learned the value of raising professional regulars instead of militias. Theoretically the British could still prevail after 1814 in America; they had the best navy in the world, a lot of money and great industrial capacity. However, it is also possible that they could lose because logistics were not on their side. In any case, the war was likely to be long and bloody in which the British had no stomach to pursue, after having gone through 20 years of constant war, just to force the Americans to accept the buffer territory.

I'm afraid I won't quite be able to take the word of Wikipedia and the word of one very new online article as evidence of the matter. It had no effect on the peace terms, did not alter anything about the war, and was nothing but a morale booster according to what I have read.

I may agree with the contention that it had the British more properly respect the articles of the treaty, but I would have to read into that more before I came to a firm conclusion.

you also forgot the biggest reason; that Spain was unstable throughout the 19th century. They went from French occupation at the beginning of the century, through a series of civil wars between the Legitimists/Catholics and Libertarians/Republicans and finally a military coup at the near end of the century. The whole 19th century was a massive screw for poor Spain.

That is the biggest reason why Spain lost their colonies. The American Rebels had none of these advantages and therefore had absolutely no chance whatsoever in hell of prevailing without foreign intervention.

That's actually a significant oversight on my part . Thank you for adding that.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

The British sacked Washington in 1812? News to me.

Padding your argument with another fine strawman I see we all know you're smart enough to understand the contention that this was in the War of 1812 and not the year 1812.

Come on, you really don't see the significance of the strategies and commitments behind the invasions mounted by Prevost, Ross, and Pakenham (and the RN in all three cases) in 1812-15, as opposed to the forces they committed to northeastern Maine or Illinois?

Well let's see, the British were occupying US territory (while you claim otherwise) successfully ,landed and sustained the two seaborne invasions, one which successfully occupied Washington, bits of Virginia and Maryland and was not forced back by American force of arms, and the second which saw its commander killed and was unable to reduce the fortifications so withdrew, which compelled the withdrawal of the second force.

The strategies were pretty spot on, and came fairly close to working. Unless you're contending they could not have possibly gone any other way, or can show how they were somehow idiotic strategies to pursue, you don't really have an argument here.

The British tried to invade the US in force three times in 1812-15, twice from the sea and once overland/lacustrine and were defeated all three times, largely because they could never deploy and sustain combat power worth the name.

Okay, you disagree with this because why, exactly?

successfully ,landed and sustained the two seaborne invasions, one which successfully occupied Washington and was not forced back by American force of arms, and the second which saw its commander killed and was unable to reduce the fortifications at Baltimore so withdrew, which compelled the withdrawal of the second force.

Well there's why to the first part. So unless you claim they could go no other way and were pre-ordained to fail what is your point? (Also note I don't include New Orleans there since it was after the war and as such had no significance)

As to the second part, what constitutes 'in force' to you exactly? The British were pretty clearly out in force here.

----

Though getting back to the OP, since we've looked at the vastly different reasons each European war in the Western Hemisphere failed (or succeeded in a few cases) can you provide an absolute reason why the colonists were all pre-ordained to succeed or why there was no plausible way the European forces could win?