A rare Alt-Hist question by CdM

[Valmy]

Depends on what army Wellington was commanding.  He could have been decisive commanding Howe or Burgoyne's armies but anybody with any military talent could have defeated the rebellion in those cases.

I do not think he or any general could have done that much better than Cornwallis, whose situation just sucked.  Really once the French supported the Colonial cause the war was all but lost for Britain, but pure bull-headed stubborness kept them going.

[Valmy]

For a British "victory" I think we would need Pitt the Younger to have been earlier too. The scenario then runs like this, Wellington scores some early victories and gives the colonials a bloody nose. Pitt then offers an olive branch and makes many generous concessions to the colonials (recall that Pitt and others were against the war as they believed that the colonials had indeed been badly treated). Let us imagine that Pitt and his government manage to come up with something like Dominion status for the American colonies, maybe this could have been the basis for an arrangement acceptable to all.

If either Pitt had been in charge it would never have come to a rebellion.  You would be hard pressed to find a British politician more liked by the Colonial assemblies than Pitt the Elder.

[The Brain]

For a British "victory" I think we would need Pitt the Younger to have been earlier too.

What's next? Pitt the Toddler? Pitt the Foetus?

[garbon]

What's next? Pitt the Toddler? Pitt the Foetus?

Pitt the Youngest.

[Syt]

What's next? Pitt the Toddler? Pitt the Foetus?

Pitt the Youngest.

It was a Blackadder reference.

[grumbler]

What's next? Pitt the Toddler? Pitt the Foetus?

Pitt the Youngest.

It was a Blackadder reference.

And that is why it wasn't funny.

[HisMajestyBOB]

What's next? Pitt the Toddler? Pitt the Foetus?

Pitt the Youngest.

It was a Blackadder reference.

And that is why it wasn't funny.

Do you prefer Mr. Bean?

[Faeelin]

Only early political concessions could have ended the rebellion, even an improbable crushing military defeat in 1775 or 1776 would have meant little in the long run. And even if somehow the British had managed to suppress the reballion they would only have succeeded at making America a festering wound garrisoned at huge expense, a permanent source of weakness for Britain, the Loyalists would have to be rewarded for their support... and still the damned colonists would keep trying with all their might to avoid paying taxes!

I'm not so sure I agree with the idea of an ineveitable triumph. Without Washington and his army, where would the additional men have come from? Who would have led them? As it was Washington's army almost melted away in the winter of 1776; if the main rebel army had been destroyed, would there have been a willingness to create a second one? 

[Valmy]

I'm not so sure I agree with the idea of an ineveitable triumph. Without Washington and his army, where would the additional men have come from? Who would have led them? As it was Washington's army almost melted away in the winter of 1776; if the main rebel army had been destroyed, would there have been a willingness to create a second one? 

The same forces that created the first one?  Even if the colonists might have had second thoughts British blundering and incompetence would have eventually forced their hand.

[grumbler]

Do you prefer Mr. Bean?

In general, yes.  It isn't that there were not funny bits in Blackadder, it is that they are quite rare for a series that has such a rep for humor.  You have to put up with a lot of dross before you get to the gold.

[grumbler]

Without Washington and his army, where would the additional men have come from? Who would have led them? As it was Washington's army almost melted away in the winter of 1776; if the main rebel army had been destroyed, would there have been a willingness to create a second one?

The same place they came from when the American armies were destroyed at Charleston and Camden.

[The Brain]

grumbler is a Mr. Bean man :nelson