Best Way to Defeat the Colonists

Great Debates
21

Pay attention:

I didn’t say they were drunk. I said they failed to post proper security. From the very next sentence on your linked site:

Same page, next paragraph:

From this site:

No fortifications, and the sentries were inside, allowing Washington to approach unnoticed and unmollested. Without patrols, early detection of the advance was impossible. Crappy security.

And why was the Hessian commander so hard to awake?
Maybe because he stayed up too late the night before?

From the first site I linked to:

So: I’ll say it again: If you want to spend the winter in New Jersey, Don’t let your mercenaries indulge in predictable celebrations without first establishing decent security.

The combination of crappy security and lack of effective leadership early in the battle cost Trenton, and the success resurrected the almost moribund rebel army by finally giving it a victory. Without the victory at Trenton, and the spirited action at Princeton a few days later (where Conwallis’ rearguard took a savage mauling before the rebels called it a day), the revolution would have failed that winter. As it was, save for a line from Perth Amboy to New Brunswick, the British were forced to abandon New Jersey, and Washington’s army stayed intact. The French, emboldened, released supplies to the Americans while the English government started losing support for the war.
As for the behavior of the British and Hessians towards New Jersians, before the attack at Trenton:

The result of said poor behavior:

22

How long before the revolution starts? Here are a few answers depending on when I get my hands on the power.

  1. Ten years before: Don’t let up on the colonists and have their legislatures pass taxes to repay the debt owed for defending their lands. Also, I’d have sold the colonies more lands from Canada. Let the colonies or rich individuals speculate on the land. This is an easy way of building the trade paper for repaying the war debt. I would encourage the rich land owners use this land speculation as a means to repay their merchantile debts.

  2. Five years before the start of the revolution: Throw open the Appalachian Mountains and beyond for any type of colonization, but make the colonists have to deal with the natives. With England mediating all of the disputes, a good deal of money could be made by charter companies. Also, find and arrange a fatal accident for Paul Revere and a couple other big organizers of the Sons of Liberty.

  3. Right before Lexington and Concord: Make sure they take the cannons and ammo with them.

4)The war is on: Shot myself in the head, I’ve screwed up so badly already.
-Keep the blockades up and attempt to undercut the patriot merchants with goods sold to loyalists at minimal profit.
-The southern stragedy was fairly effective for a while (setting loyalists on the patriots in the countryside while holding the major ports). Not applicable in the north…up there I would just hold on to Boston, New York and Philadelphia with an agressive defense and naval support.
-Offer any person of money or property a partial (or even full) cancellation of debts by assuming their bills. Then allow them to trade freely if they pay all of the new taxes.
-Let it be known that any colony that meets a certain percentage of the population signing a pledge to honor the King and Parliament’s position could reconstitute their local legislature and help to elect new parliament representatives from the colonies.
-Also let it be known that large rewards are offered for those rebel patriot leaders at large with exhile possible for those who turn themselves in (instead of hanging them).

Just few fun ideas, cheers!

23

Take out that Washington guy.

With no George, someone with less talent and more personal ambition would have come to power post-Revolution and run the place into the ground. Those reprobates would have come back begging for Crown governance.

24

Well, I would agree with you that it does seem a little dodgy, but if they were truly loyal British subjects, then they should’ve stopped their husband/father from leaving. Or turned him over to the authorities. Otherwise, they were privy to a treasonous British citizen making them guilty by association.

If the war had ended in favor of Britain, and those men taken alive, do you think there would still be a trial? As far as Britain was concerned, by signing the Declaration of Independence, they had signed their own death warrant (had they lost). I’m merely taking the punitive action at an earlier step.

Well, the Royal Governors weren’t commanding the war effort (to my knowledge) and since the commission would only be there to dictate troop actions and war-related activities. You really couldn’t ensure their safety, but since it’s a time of war, if I were Britain, I wouldn’t put assassination past the colonials even if I hadn’t committed it first.

As I understand it, the musket wasn’t the “accepted weapon” of the British; it was the bayonet. Standard operating procedure was to fire 2-3 volleys of musket fire in the general direction of the enemy and then march into hand to hand combat. The British merely pointed their guns in the right direction, fired and repeated. Colonials actually aimed their guns.

Yes, but had the British won the first Revolutionary war, the colonists would be hard pressed to find the proper leadership, to supply it and the will to fight another war. Not to mention the British would then be ruling with an iron fist. Perhaps a ways down the road another rebellion would ensue, but not anytime in the near future.

25

I think that not only will this anger the colonists and sap loyalist support, but now you have put the burden of feeding the families of the alleged rebels on the local loyalist magistrates, or you let them starve to death. Bad economics and bad PR. Plus how much time will be spent verifying the stories before you imprison families. ‘My husband is a sailor/a fisherman/hunting/gone to market, my oldest son is apprenticed in Albany’.

This could guarantee post-war strife even if you win. And it indicates that you fear losing so much that you will toss out the rights of Englishmen in which the colonists believe, perhaps converting more undecideds to the rebel camp.

Ah, but the French have a large fleet, which will make hay in the caribbean, where the money colonies are. Hurts the war effort to have the wealthy sugar planters crying bloody murder.

If you can find the troops without either blowing the budget or stripping garrisons elsewhere, and supply them without taxing your fleet too much (Boston being under seige) then more troops is better, though it makes foraging and quartering that much more onerous for those loyalists still in Boston.

Unified command would be better, regardless of whether it is under a general, commissioner, or MP’s. But you still have to fight the time delays, communications errors, and personality conflict. IIRC in the Saratoga campaign, Burgoyne thought he had ordered Clinton(? Howe?) in no uncertain terms to march north from NY. The recipient thought he had received a recommendation, a suggestion.

Two comments here:

  1. For once, France’s fleet is not inferior. If you take the French sugar islands you may lose North America. France’s has more troops to spread around than you do.
  2. Spain will probably go neutral in exchange for Gibraltar. That is probably unacceptable to the RN.

Or, use loyalist guerillas to fight rebel guerillas. Actually, that did happen.

Aiming a musket is problematic at best. You only ‘point’ muskets because they are so inaccurate that aiming gains you nothing. The colonists rep for marksmanship was won by the various corps of rifle (Morgan’s rifles, for example), not the run of the mill militia/continentals. And the British won almost all of the set piece battles anyway

Overall, I feel that the fight smarter/fight sooner/get medieval on their asses options all guarantee an eventually independent and potentially hostile state. Regardless of whether you start in 1763 or 1174, if all of your actions reinforce the (generally correct) idea that England’s colonies exist for England’s benefit, then you will continue to have problems.

Instead of gutting or overruling the existing colonial governments, coopt them into England’s government. Give them representation, if only to shut them up. Every effort to show the colonies who’s boss is going to be misinterpreted because from the colonies point of view they are losing money and autonomy for no perceived gain. Explaining to them that they have to pay for the last war doesn’t help because they feel they already paid for it, in money and blood.

If the colonists have legitimate grievances then beating the crap out of them without addressing the grievances won’t help. Instead of having a Canada you’ll have an Ireland.

26

Sorry, but the “I’ll post my own ideas later” OP is usually a red flag indicating someone is looking for homework help.

Looks like you do have some ideas of your own, though, so I hereby withdraw my wisecrack. :wink:

27

The OP presupposes that “You have the entire power of Britain behind you in your actions.” Not even Britain had that. Their forces and their attention were divided over quite a bit of the world. You may as well ask how you would suppress the rebellion if you had gatling guns.

28

Actually, this, while not too kosher by today’s standards, problably would’ve worked pretty well. It wouldn’t have even needed a law, just a policy or general order from Lord Cornwallis would’ve turned the trick. Before Trenton, the NJ militias were showing up in miserably small numbers due to the looting and plundering in which the British and Hessians were already engaged. Had this been done in a more systematic and just manner, there’d have been less resentment (and thus less sniping and ambuscade), less support for the rebels, and better intelligence, both from loyalists, and from Dragoons more able to move freely with less fear of ambush.

Bad idea: You don’t want to legitimize assasination as a tactic of war. The Rebels would’ve come out way ahead on this, as the British were far less able to replace leadership lost to assasination. Better to place largish bounties, and maybe a minor title, as reward for capturing the rebel leaders, then let nature take it’s course.

Good, good… Sound tactics and strategy, although it does presume that you’ve got detailed advanced knowledge of the Rebel’s plans, years in advance. Taking out or at least disrupting French anchorages is a very good idea.

Hmm… Maybe. Alternative tactics would be to go after the farms and properties of the men fighting, as in measure 1, above. Use stronger escorts for unit and supply movements, and set up traps and ambushes for the guerillas, and then you don’t need to retrain your troops for swamp warfare.

Hmm… Maybe. The typical British or Hessian soldier was pretty proficient. I’d maybe get more riflemen, or expand Major Ferguson’s breech-loader company into a full Regiment.

All-told, not too bad.

29

Bad idea. These sorts of actions were done in NY and it served to anger the colonists. It is better to have an enemy in the field and a his neighbors at home, that all his neighbors become enemies in the field. Add to this, what if the father is serving the Tory regiments? Its not like there was an accessible database.

**

Not as easy as it sounds, and you’re talking about a suicide mission for the assasin.

**

They tried that. Privateers and bloackade runners made it through. The only blockade that was ever really close to 100% effective was the British in WW1. OF course it helped that there weren’t many trying to sell stuf to Germany.

**

A) Where are you gonna get that many troops without seriously depleting garrisons around the world. B) if you win at Bunker (Breeds) Hill, the game is pretty much over for the rebellion.

**

This is essentially a pre-emptive strike on France, it also leaves the British quite vulnerable to other powers if they tried it.

**

They did that. It worked. But the bottom line is that conventional battles must take place in pre-modern warfare. The British worked pretty well at it until the Swamp Fox figured out the best way to use his numerous, but low quality infantry (i.e. militia)

**

A) Nobody was hitting anything with muskets past 75 yards. Minutemen were never that good. Rifles were much more acurate but took forever to load.

B) Push of bayonet was actually quite effective and the British soldier could certainly aim quite well.

C) Riflemen, while serious problem, are overrated in their role in winning the war. Truth is that they did have an effect on the way war was waged, but they were not the deciding factor. THe British begged the German states for more Jaegers (German Riflemen) to the point where the princes just outfitted anyone in a Jeager coat and a rifle. Never mind if they could shoot or not.

30

On the Bunker Hill idea, both Charleston, where Bunker’s Hill/Breed’s Hill is (are?), and Boston were on peninsulas with narrow necks connection them to the mainland and Cambridge where the main body of the New England militia were camped. Every thing I have read tells me that General Gage and his second, General Howe, thought that disciplined British troops could pretty well walk over the trenches the Colonist militia had dug on Breed’s Hill and did not ever consider the option of landing a force on the Charleston neck to cut the Rebels off.

The British Navy did not need to approach the Charleston Neck with its big ships. All they had to do was bring the Neck under fire so as to allow troops to land from the ship’s boats. There were plenty of boats available and plenty of sailors to row them. It was in ships’ boats that Percy’s force was carried from Boston to Cambridge for the Lexington raid in April, 1775–one if by land and two if by sea. Had the New England militia been defeated at Bunker’s Hill the active armed rebellion would probably been over.

That leaves the political aspect of the whole thing. Without a resolution of the political grievances the rebellion would have burst out again and again, much like the Highland uprisings in Scotland and the repeated big and small rebellions in Ireland. Much of the discontent in Scotland and Ireland was in reaction to the Acts of Union that supposedly merged the Scottish and Irish parliaments in the Parliament at Westminister. In time an accommodation was worked out with Scotland but there was never a resolution of Irish grievances short of Irish independence. None the less the election of American members to Parliament, along with a few judicious hangings, may have gone a long way toward restoring the authority of the King in Parliament.

The alternative to an Act of Union between Britain and the American colonies was to establish the sort of dominion and mother country relationship that has proved effective in Canada. That idea was, of course 100 years in the future and required the example of the American Revolution to make it thinkable by England.

31

Ravendriver wrote:

Well, how would you suppress the rebellion with Gatling guns?