British chose to abandon the battlefields of North America... 1783 AD.

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
You know we did not win our independence as much as Britain had bigger priorities than us from 1770 to 1783. They fought wars not only against us but around the with the French, Spain, Dutch and in India. If the British had been detracted by other wars against opponents they feared more we may never had been free from their yoke.

listing them...

First Anglo-Maratha War
(1774–1783)

American Revolutionary War (1775–83)
Anglo-French War (1778–83)
Anglo-Spanish War (1779–83)
4th Anglo-Dutch War (1780–83)

2nd Anglo-Mysore War
(1780–1784)

The British were fighting a global wars something would have to give and lossing the American colonies was what was lost to them. The wars the British fought were not over ideology but over trade and profits. Even , our war with the British in their eyes was about finding and opening new trade routes and profits, not about freedom and republics.

Snip... https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smit...ust-one-battlefront-huge-world-war-180969444/

“The American Revolution: A World War” demonstrates with new scholarship how the 18th-century fight for independence fit into a larger, international conflict that involved Great Britain, France, Spain, the Dutch Republic, Jamaica, Gibraltar and even India. “If it had not become that broader conflict, the outcome might very well have been different,” says David K. Allison, project director, curator of the show and co-author of a new forthcoming book on the subject. “As the war became bigger and involved other allies for American and other conflicts around the world, that led Britain to make the kind of strategic decisions it did, to ultimately grant the colonies independence and use their military resources elsewhere in the world.”

Snip...

“We became a sideshow,”
says Allison. Both France and Spain, to undermine British power, provided both arms and troops to the rambunctious rebels. The Dutch Republic, too, traded weapons and other goods to the American colonists. Ultimately, after struggling to retain its 13 feisty colonies, British leaders chose to abandon the battlefields of North America and turn their attention to their other colonial outposts, like India.

Snip...https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/american-revolution-was-just-one-battlefront-huge-world-war-180969444/

In a global context, the American Revolution was largely a war about trade and economic influence—not ideology. France and Spain, like Britain, were monarchies with even less fondness for democracy. The Dutch Republic was primarily interested in free trade. The leaders of all three countries wanted to increase their nations’ trade and economic authority, and to accomplish that, they were willing to go to war with their biggest competitor—Great Britain. To the French, Spanish and Dutch governments, this was not a war about liberty: It was all about power and profit. If American colonists won their independence, that would cause harm to British interests and open new trade opportunities in North America and elsewhere for those who allied themselves with the colonists

Snip...

The last battle in this global conflict known in the United States as the American Revolution was not fought on the fields of Virginia in 1781: It occurred two years later at Cuddalore, India.

After all fighting ended, Britain negotiated separate peace treaties with the United States, France, Spain and the Dutch Republic in 1783
. While Britain maintained its dominant position on the high seas, the treaties gave the American colonies their independence, returned French prestige lost in the Seven Years War, guaranteed Spain’s holdings in the Americas as well as its trade routes, and left the Dutch Republic in a worse position in both trade and world power



I am pointing we Americans are full of ourselves about our revolution. If was not for the greed of other nations, we would most likely not be the nation we are today. Our independence from Britain was just the British taking a loss for greater profits over there...

LINK:
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
You know we did not win our independence as much as Britain had bigger priorities than us from 1770 to 1783. They fought wars not only against us but around the with the French, Spain, Dutch and in India. If the British had been detracted by other wars against opponents they feared more we may never had been free from their yoke.

listing them...

First Anglo-Maratha War
(1774–1783)

American Revolutionary War (1775–83)
Anglo-French War (1778–83)
Anglo-Spanish War (1779–83)
4th Anglo-Dutch War (1780–83)

2nd Anglo-Mysore War
(1780–1784)

The British were fighting a global wars something would have to give and lossing the American colonies was what was lost to them. The wars the British fought were not over ideology but over trade and profits. Even , our war with the British in their eyes was about finding and opening new trade routes and profits, not about freedom and republics.

Snip... https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smit...ust-one-battlefront-huge-world-war-180969444/

“The American Revolution: A World War” demonstrates with new scholarship how the 18th-century fight for independence fit into a larger, international conflict that involved Great Britain, France, Spain, the Dutch Republic, Jamaica, Gibraltar and even India. “If it had not become that broader conflict, the outcome might very well have been different,” says David K. Allison, project director, curator of the show and co-author of a new forthcoming book on the subject. “As the war became bigger and involved other allies for American and other conflicts around the world, that led Britain to make the kind of strategic decisions it did, to ultimately grant the colonies independence and use their military resources elsewhere in the world.”

Snip...

“We became a sideshow,”
says Allison. Both France and Spain, to undermine British power, provided both arms and troops to the rambunctious rebels. The Dutch Republic, too, traded weapons and other goods to the American colonists. Ultimately, after struggling to retain its 13 feisty colonies, British leaders chose to abandon the battlefields of North America and turn their attention to their other colonial outposts, like India.

Snip...https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/american-revolution-was-just-one-battlefront-huge-world-war-180969444/

In a global context, the American Revolution was largely a war about trade and economic influence—not ideology. France and Spain, like Britain, were monarchies with even less fondness for democracy. The Dutch Republic was primarily interested in free trade. The leaders of all three countries wanted to increase their nations’ trade and economic authority, and to accomplish that, they were willing to go to war with their biggest competitor—Great Britain. To the French, Spanish and Dutch governments, this was not a war about liberty: It was all about power and profit. If American colonists won their independence, that would cause harm to British interests and open new trade opportunities in North America and elsewhere for those who allied themselves with the colonists

Snip...

The last battle in this global conflict known in the United States as the American Revolution was not fought on the fields of Virginia in 1781: It occurred two years later at Cuddalore, India.

After all fighting ended, Britain negotiated separate peace treaties with the United States, France, Spain and the Dutch Republic in 1783
. While Britain maintained its dominant position on the high seas, the treaties gave the American colonies their independence, returned French prestige lost in the Seven Years War, guaranteed Spain’s holdings in the Americas as well as its trade routes, and left the Dutch Republic in a worse position in both trade and world power



I am pointing we Americans are full of ourselves about our revolution. If was not for the greed of other nations, we would most likely not be the nation we are today. Our independence from Britain was just the British taking a loss for greater profits over there...

LINK:
OK but so what. That describes a lot of war's ending. One side decides it is not worth it without complete victory for either side happening.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
You should have highlight parts of it....

Snip...

No, I have not lost my mind. Of course, the Americans won their freedom from British rule. However, what started in 1775, as an American rebellion against British rule in the thirteen colonies evolved into a far-reaching global war among world’s most powerful nations. Fighting between Britain and American allies including France, Spain and The Dutch Republic spread to the Caribbean, Africa, Europe and Asia. Britain fared well in many of the conflicts waged outside the thirteen colonies, especially those fought after 1781. Consequently, there were significant favorable outcomes of the American Revolution for Britain, especially when viewed in context of the late 18th century state of affairs.

Snip...

For example, British army and naval resources were diverted from North America to counter expected new French and Spanish threats in the Caribbean.[7]

Snip...

The British government viewed the Caribbean islands as more commercially important than North America. British leaders even discussed withdrawing from North America to protect the more economically important sugar islands in the Caribbean.[11] The Caribbean islands provided the funding to continue the war and King George III was willing to even risk French invasion of the British homeland to protect these vital territories.


I hope everyone read your link... it is insightful that we really did win our freedom the British made a business decision to let us go...
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
OK but so what. That describes a lot of war's ending. One side decides it is not worth it without complete victory for either side happening.
The British let us go... we we not valuable enough to save compared to other parts of their empire... We did win it as much as they chose to leave us...
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
Yorktown was to the British what the TET Offensive was to Americans. It broke their will to continue the fight like the TET broke our will to continue the fight.

From OBJ link on post #2

As 1782 began, the war was not going well for the British and they were on the defensive. The Duke of Chandos, a member of the House of Lords referred to the October 1781 Yorktown defeat as a “calamity”[8] and a ”disaster.”[9] It was clear to British leaders that the British Southern strategy failed and that they could not forcibly compel the American colonialists to end their rebellion. .

We had Walter Cronkite famous anti-Vietnam op-ed... in January 1968... just after the TET Offensive...

 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
I like to point out Washington almost became a common criminal by...

Link: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/king-george-iii

The teenage Prince William Henry (the future King William IV) visited New York in the fall of 1781 while serving as a midshipman in the Royal Navy, where he temporarily held court as well. Knowing this, Washington approved a plan proposed by Colonel Matthias Ogden to send a group of men led by the colonel and sneak them into the city where they could break into the Prince’s residence, forcing him out at gunpoint if necessary, and ferrying him stealthily back to Continental-held territory all while evading the hundreds of British and Hessian troops patrolling the streets. Washington later abandoned the plan in March of 1782 when he learned that British intelligence got wind of the plot and doubled the Prince’s guard.

snip... King George III Knew his loss... https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/king-george-iii

King George was ultimately crushed to learn that the he had ultimately lost the war to the Americans, writing at an imprecise date, “America is lost! Must we fall beneath the blow?”

snip... a financial loss...

British control of the Thirteen Colonies ultimately came at a financial loss, writing, “it is to be hoped we shall reap more advantages from their trade as friends than ever we could derive from them as Colonies,” and that Britain could maintain its far more profitable holdings in the Caribbean and India so long as it maintains its formidable Navy.

snip...

, he reportedly told him, “I was the last to consent to the separation; but the separation having been made and having become inevitable, I have always said, as I say, that I would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an independent power.”
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
NOTE>>> from wiki...

The Loyalists rarely attempted any political organization. They were often passive unless regular British army units were in the area. The British, however, assumed a highly activist Loyalist community was ready to mobilize and planned much of their strategy around raising Loyalist regiments. The British provincial line, consisting of Americans enlisted on a regular army status, enrolled 19,000 Loyalists (50 units and 312 companies). The maximum strength of the Loyalist provincial line was 9,700 in December 1780.[38][39] In all about 19,000 at one time or another were soldiers or militia in British forces.[40] Loyalists from South Carolina fought for the British in the Battle of Camden. The British forces at the Battle of Monck's Corner and the Battle of Lenud's Ferry consisted entirely of Loyalists with the exception of the commanding officer (Banastre Tarleton).[41] Both white and black Loyalists fought for the British at the Battle of Kemp's Landing in Virginia.[42]

NOTE the Loyalist... from wiki...

Historian Robert Calhoon wrote in 2000, concerning the proportion of Loyalists to Patriots in the Thirteen Colonies:

Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle—some of them deliberate pacifists, others recent immigrants, and many more simple apolitical folk. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority.[21]
.
Before Calhoon's work, estimates of the Loyalist share of the population were somewhat higher, at about one-third, but these estimates are now rejected as too high by most scholars.[22] In 1968 historian Paul H. Smith estimated there were about 400,000 Loyalists, or 16% of the white population of 2.25 million in 1780.[23][24]

Historian Robert Middlekauff summarized scholarly research on the nature of Loyalist support as follows:

The largest number of loyalists were found in the middle colonies: many tenant farmers of New York supported the king, for example, as did many of the Dutch in the colony and in New Jersey. The Germans in Pennsylvania tried to stay out of the Revolution, just as many Quakers did, and when that failed, clung to the familiar connection rather than embrace the new. Highland Scots in the Carolinas, a fair number of Anglican clergy and their parishioners in Connecticut and New York, a few Presbyterians in the southern colonies, and a large number of the Iroquois stayed loyal to the king.[25]
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
It was not a Washington victory that brought us European Allies... but this victory...

The Battle of Saratoga was a turning point in the American Revolution. It gave the Patriots a major morale boost and persuaded the French, Spanish and Dutch to join their cause against a mutual rival.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
@Kirk's Raider's ... But our revolutionary war became a global war... Which freed us from the British chains of oppression... I am sorry higher taxes I meant.
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
@Kirk's Raider's ... But our revolutionary war became a global war... Which freed us from the British chains of oppression... I am sorry higher taxes I meant.
I don't know about the ARW being the principal cause of the Seven Years War vs just a component there of.
Kirk's Raiders
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
It was not a Washington victory that brought us European Allies... but this victory...

The Battle of Saratoga was a turning point in the American Revolution. It gave the Patriots a major morale boost and persuaded the French, Spanish and Dutch to join their cause against a mutual rival.
The US could not of won without foreign help but the foreign nations that helped us needed to see that the Colonial Rebels were a viable military force vs prior to Saratoga not all that impressive.
Kirk's Raiders
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
ARW being the principal cause of the Seven Years War vs just a component there of.
WE need to clarify the French and Indian war was part of the Seven years war. One can say the French and Indian war led to the ARW... after the war ended all those taxes that England passed many times it was to pay the bill for the French and Indian war... I think its grand the British help us defeat the French and now we do not want to pay for it... .

Llink: https://www.thoughtco.com/why-britain-attempted-tax-american-colonists-1222028


snIP… tHE BRIT NEEDED TO PAY THE BILLS...

The Seven Years' War had seen Britain spend prodigious amounts, both on its own army and on subsidies for its allies. The British national debt had doubled in that short time, and extra taxes had been levied in Britain to cover it. The last one, the Cider Tax, had proved highly unpopular and many people were agitating to have it removed. Britain was also running short of credit with banks. Under huge pressure to curb spending, the British king and government believed that any further attempts to tax the homeland would fail. They thus seized upon other sources of income, one of which was taxing the American colonists in order to pay for the army protecting them.

The American colonies appeared to the British government to be heavily undertaxed
. Before the war, the most that colonists had directly contributed to British income was through customs revenue, but this barely covered the cost of collecting it. During the war, huge sums of British currency had flooded into the colonies, and many not killed in the war, or in conflicts with natives, had done rather well. It appeared to the British government that a few new taxes to pay for their garrison should be easily absorbed. Indeed, they had to be absorbed, because there simply didn’t seem to be any other way of paying for the army. Few in Britain expected the colon

sNiP…


British minds first turned to the idea of taxing the colonists in 1763. Unfortunately for King George III and his government, their attempt to transform the colonies politically and economically into a safe, stable and revenue-producing—or at least revenue-balancing—part of their new empire would flounder, because the British failed to understand either the post-war nature of the Americas, the experience of war for the colonists, or how they would respond to tax demands. The colonies had been founded under crown/government authority, in the name of the monarch, and there had never been any exploration of what this really meant, and what power the crown had in America. While the colonies had become almost self-governing, many in Britain assumed that because the colonies largely followed British law, that the British state had rights over the Americans.

No one in the British government appears to have asked if colonial troops could have garrisoned America,
or if Britain should ask the colonists for financial aid instead of voting in taxes above their heads. This was partly the case because the British government thought it was learning a lesson from the French-Indian War: that the colonial government would only work with Britain if they could see a profit, and that colonial soldiers were unreliable and undisciplined because they operated under rules different from those of the British army. In fact, these prejudices were based on British interpretations of the early part of the war, where cooperation between the politically poor British commanders and the colonial governments had been tense, if not hostile.


… You should read the rest of the article and see what led to the ARW.... link:

 
Top