British plans for post revolutionary America

[Deaghaidh]

Anyone know a good source for what the British government intended to do if they crushed the American Revolution?

I imagine they weren't keen on restoring power to colonial governments, but if anyone articulated a vision for how the colonies were to be run post war I never saw it.

 

[benice1234]

Anyone know a good source for what the British government intended to do if they crushed the American Revolution?

I imagine they weren't keen on restoring power to colonial governments, but if anyone articulated a vision for how the colonies were to be run post war I never saw it.

I've never heard of anything like this in the several APUSH books I've read. So I would assume they had no plans.

 

[Anzeginame]

The plan put forth seemed to be, "imprison or execute the instigators"

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

I think that was part of the problem of the Revoloution. The British had no overreaching plan. A few times they called for general amnesty for all who put down their guns, other times they funded Native attacks on colonial settlements. Sometimes they did it at the same time at the same place under the same commander.

 

[gladius2metal]

I think that was part of the problem of the Revoloution. The British had no overreaching plan. A few times they called for general amnesty for all who put down their guns, other times they funded Native attacks on colonial settlements. Sometimes they did it at the same time at the same place under the same commander.

so the basically lived the "How to NOT do Grand Strategy"-guide in full motion.

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

so the basically lived the "How to NOT do Grand Strategy"-guide in full motion.

Yep. Just look at the Saratoga campaign. Gentlemen Johnny Burgoyne moved down from Canada to link up with Howe in New York. Howe left New York to conquer Philly. Neither knew what the other was doing. Apparently the Ministry back home in London was fine with letting the left hand stab itself without the right hand knowing.

Idiots deserved to lose.

 

[keynes2.0]

so the basically lived the "How to NOT do Grand Strategy"-guide in full motion.

This was an entire conflict that started because they thought martial law and blockade would make people more cooperative with tax collectors.

 

[gladius2metal]

This was an entire conflict that started because they thought martial law and blockade would make people more cooperative with tax collectors.

reminds me of: we bomb out their civilians so they will stop fighting assumption

would be really interesting to know, when do people resist and when not, e.g., World War 2 - French vs. Soviet Union; is it mostly a leadership thing, people thing or a combination.

 

[LatinKaiser]

This was an entire conflict that started because they thought martial law and blockade would make people more cooperative with tax collectors.

It's not their fault that the tooltip said Harsh Treatment would lower revolt risk.

As evidenced by the Southern strategy that the British adopted in 1780, they believed that Loyalists would support the re-establishment of British rule, and they presumably would have just put the Loyalists in powerful positions after victory over the rebels was achieved.

However, I think that the postbellum plans of the Government changed as the conflict developed. If Howe had crushed Washington before the latter escaped from New York, then the British probably would not have had too much trouble re-establishing order, though it's unlikely that the colonies would accept the kinds of punitive and authoritarian measures that led to the rebellion. If the Britosh had won the war after 1780 (perhaps Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse are resounding British triumphs, and Cornwallis and Clinton cooperate to smash the rebels in Pennsylvania), it seems likely to me that the more liberal/moderate factions in Parliament, particularly those opposed to Lord North personally, could have pushed for some level of autonomy for the colonies, similar to Edmund Burke's proposals.

A British victory would not have resulted in less colonial freedoms (at least not in the long run).

 

[keynes2.0]

Man I bet they raged on the forums HARD after that happened.

 

[LatinKaiser]

Man I bet they raged on the forums HARD after that happened.

And the peace system still has not been fixed.

 

[imperium3]

This was an entire conflict that started because they thought martial law and blockade would make people more cooperative with tax collectors.

British military doctrine is that a blockade solves every problem.

 

[Fishman786]

British military doctrine is that a blockade solves every problem.

When all you have is a navy, everything starts looking like a French harbour...

 

[Henry IX]

The strategy of blockade sort of makes sense. I mean the Americans are rebelling over taxes. Which means they are rebelling over money, right? Which means if we show them that rebelling against the crown cost them money (due to blockade) they will give up, right? Then we win and everything is good again, right? Right?

Sigh.

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

The strategy of blockade sort of makes sense. I mean the Americans are rebelling over taxes. Which means they are rebelling over money, right? Which means if we show them that rebelling against the crown cost them money (due to blockade) they will give up, right? Then we win and everything is good again, right? Right?

Sigh.

Except that they weren't, which is what the British government failed to realize. They allowed an institution of power entirely seep rate from their own to take power in the colonies, and when push came to shove the colonial population came down on the side that actually represented their shared interest.

 

[Imgran]

Except that they weren't, which is what the British government failed to realize. They allowed an institution of power entirely seep rate from their own to take power in the colonies, and when push came to shove the colonial population came down on the side that actually represented their shared interest.

It's even worse than that, given that the British forced push to come to shove. Some of my ancestors were loyalists, instead of fighting for the crown they simply fled to Canada to be clear of the whole mess

That's what a lot of loyalists did, just leave and go to other British colonies -- either in the Canadian provinces or in the Carribean, or back to the home islands. That, or simply keep their opinions to themselves and prepare to get along with whoever happened to be in power at the time. Just because they were loyal to a distant crown doesn't mean all of the Tories would fight their neighbors for it.

 

[Yakman]

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

 

[Deaghaidh]

It's even worse than that, given that the British forced push to come to shove. Some of my ancestors were loyalists, instead of fighting for the crown they simply fled to Canada to be clear of the whole mess

That's what a lot of loyalists did, just leave and go to other British colonies -- either in the Canadian provinces or in the Carribean, or back to the home islands. That, or simply keep their opinions to themselves and prepare to get along with whoever happened to be in power at the time. Just because they were loyal to a distant crown doesn't mean all of the Tories would fight their neighbors for it.

Reading about the Revolution, I think had I been alive I would have been a Loyalist, but not strongly enough to fight. Especially early on in Boston, the patriot cause took the form of violent street gangs that attacked their political opponents. If I'd been living in Britain, paying higher taxes and with less representation (the majority of people couldn't vote, Colonials at least had their local legislatures) I would have had no sympathy.

My Irish ancestors might have been sympathetic. But it would be mixed with a hefty portion of "oh, you poor babies, your life sounds soooooo hard. Here, have a potato, one of my kids can skip dinner for your cause."

 

[Ming]

The British also tried to arm the slaves in the south.

While America hadn't quite gotten to the paranoia it would after Denmark Vesey this policy didn't endear them to any of the powerful landholders in the area, Loyal or not.

(At the time it was more class conflict than racial. Landowners didn't want free blacks teaming up with poor whites.)

 

[Yakman]

Reading about the Revolution, I think had I been alive I would have been a Loyalist, but not strongly enough to fight. Especially early on in Boston, the patriot cause took the form of violent street gangs that attacked their political opponents. If I'd been living in Britain, paying higher taxes and with less representation (the majority of people couldn't vote, Colonials at least had their local legislatures) I would have had no sympathy.

My Irish ancestors might have been sympathetic. But it would be mixed with a hefty portion of "oh, you poor babies, your life sounds soooooo hard. Here, have a potato, one of my kids can skip dinner for your cause."

Early on in Boston, it was pretty rough.

By the time it came to shooting, the center of the resistance had moved from the city to the countryside, which was agitated in a much different, and deeper way.