Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You now about two weeks ago I was at Yorktown and went to the battlefield. We were in an area which was sort of the hub of Cornwallis' position while under siege. The battlefield park guide noted that in the area where we were standing it was estimated that about 15,000 cannonballs came into the position during the siege. Now these did not just drop in and simply explode. They were the ones which ricochet through earthworks and roll through the entire position continually maiming and killing soldiers and just driving them crazy under the bombardment. I have the feeling after Cornwallis surrendered he was so wrecked he made sure to tell Clinton that they had to get the hell out of North America. It was useless to fight. I figure Cornwallis at Yorktown knew much about Washington and how he conducted the battle that he had to know that Washington would make sure he was dead before Colonial America would ever surrender to the British monarchy.
If the British had somehow reconquered the colonies they would have had a new rebellion every few years or so, once the colonists experienced self-rule they would not go back to being mere colonies.
Also, Britain was also at war with France and Spain at the time and they were bigger priorities than we were.
Plus King George III is believed to be insane by many historians.
You now about two weeks ago I was at Yorktown and went to the battlefield. We were in an area which was sort of the hub of Cornwallis' position while under siege. The battlefield park guide noted that in the area where we were standing it was estimated that about 15,000 cannonballs came into the position during the siege. Now these did not just drop in and simply explode. They were the ones which ricochet through earthworks and roll through the entire position continually maiming and killing soldiers and just driving them crazy under the bombardment. I have the feeling after Cornwallis surrendered he was so wrecked he made sure to tell Clinton that they had to get the hell out of North America. It was useless to fight. I figure Cornwallis at Yorktown knew much about Washington and how he conducted the battle that he had to know that Washington would make sure he was dead before Colonial America would ever surrender to the British monarchy.
Even worse than the cannonballs was the malaria. Malaria ran rampant in East Virginia at that time and Cornwallis later reported that over half of his men were incapacitated from the effects of the disease when they decided to surrender. The malaria had little impact on the American troops as they had grown up around the disease and built up a measure of immunity. The long incubation period meant that the French forces weren't suffering the effects yet, but it would tear through their army a couple of weeks later.
In terms of the bombardment, while it was fierce, it was also largely ineffective. Out of a force of 8,000 men the British only suffered 156 killed and 326 wounded. Most of these occurred during the assaults on the redoubts. The soft muddy Earth meant that most of those cannonballs just lodged themselves into the ground.
As for Cornwallis, I think he credited his defeat to the French. It was the French fleet that kept him from being relieved or executing a proper evacuation. It was the French forces that formed half of the regular forces available and made the entire siege possible. While Washington did plan and lead the entire battle, Cornwallis most likely went to his grave believing it was the French and not the Americans that beat him. To a certain degree he is right. Without Rochambeua's army and de Grasse's fleet the siege at Yorktown would have been impossible to execute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deh74
If the British had somehow reconquered the colonies they would have had a new rebellion every few years or so, once the colonists experienced self-rule they would not go back to being mere colonies.
I think a lot would depend on the way the defeat played out. It's not as if there was a majority of support for the revolution. About 15-20% of the colonists remained loyal. Around 40-45% actively supported the revolution and around 35-45% or so remained passive. In a scenario where the first major attempt fails and the organizers are all arrested and killed, it would probably be hard to galvanize new support for another revolution. It would be made nearly impossible if the defeat of the revolution came in concert with reforms of the manner of British rule.
Quote:
Also, Britain was also at war with France and Spain at the time and they were bigger priorities than we were.
Very true. The entry of France, Spain and the Dutch Republic as well as the Kingdom of Mysore into the war meant that far more important possessions than the 13 Colonies were in danger. India and the West Indies were worth far more economically.
Quote:
Plus King George III is believed to be insane by many historians.
The "madness" of George III is a fact. What is questionable is the degree of impact this had on anything that mattered. George III, like all British monarchs starting with the house of Hanover, was a constitutional monarch. The nations affairs were run pretty much just fine without George III. In this way, he "reigned rather than ruled". Of course the king wielded influence and power and helped set direction, but it's not as if the nation ground to a halt when George lost his marbles. Overall, there are two major bouts that are known and then a final descent at the end of his reign.
In 1778 he suffered a mental breakdown that lasted for over a month. When he recovered he returned and ruled for the next 26 years until his next episode in 1804. He recovered from that, but then permanently relapsed in 1810 and remained unstable until his death in 1820. In 1811 his son, the future George IV, was made regent.
It is highly debatable whether his bout of insanity had any bearing whatsoever on the course of the Revolution. Lord North was essentially the man at the helm during the Revolution and the course of events was far more influenced by his decisions and those of his government than the king. I think no greater argument could be made for the lack of impact George's insanity had than the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars. George dove into even worse bouts and became permanently incapacitated during this time, yet Britain managed to come out victorious and supreme in a far more complex political and military environment.
Fortifications of the time, both permanent and field works, were often built with traverses that kept shot from running down the length of the works. Permanent fortifications that lacked traverses often had them erected when the works were actually threatened. I'd be quite surprised if Cormwallis's engineers were unaware of such a simple and effective structure.
Note that the present fortifications at Yorktown are not very indicitive of the state of the works in 1781; they were rebuilt by the rebels during the War of the Rebellion and were "improved" by the CCC during the Great Depression. Indeed, all the French and American works are reconstructions, not restored or preserved original works. That's because having captured Yorktown Washington sensibly destroyed the field works he'd built to capture the place.
Traverses on the covered way of Fort Knox, Maine
At left are traverses on the covered way of the advanced redoubt at Pensacola. Not the counterscarp galleries that control the ditch.
As for Cornwallis, I think he credited his defeat to the French. .....Cornwallis most likely went to his grave believing it was the French and not the Americans that beat him.
hmmmm....you know it's just possible that a clue is when he 'surrendered' the British army to the Continentals. He himself didn't get in on the 'festivitie's but delegated it to his subordinate Brigadier General Charles O'Hara. French accounts noted that O'Hara gave the sword to the FRENCH commander, the comte de Rochambeau. You got to figure Cornwallis was in on that making his presence felt!
Quote:
Note that the present fortifications at Yorktown are not very indicitive of the state of the works in 1781
Good pix. That's true on the state of the works. And I'm wondering if plans of the Yorktown fortifications back in the 18th would show the details of traverses if they existed. I'm looking to see if one is available somewhere.
What is questionable is the degree of impact this had on anything that mattered. George III, like all British monarchs starting with the house of Hanover, was a constitutional monarch. The nations affairs were run pretty much just fine without George III. In this way, he "reigned rather than ruled".
This is a point that is rarely discussed, King George III for all his being burned in effigy was always a minor player in the events prior the onset of the revolution or the Battle of Yorktown, but rather the actions of commission and omission of the British Parliament.
Which brings me to the original question. While the British Defeat at Yorktown was the catalyst for the fall of the Lord North's government there was more at play than simply British success or failure in American but rather internal issues regarding the views on constitutional democracies. North's opponent Lord Charles Rockingham saw in reflection, the threat that the monarchy posed to constitutional government and in many ways sided with the colonist from the start. What the defeat at Yorktown actually did was provide an opportunity for the Rockingham Whigs to win support to bring a vote of no confidence against the government of Lord North. However, North became aware of the up coming vote and resigned before the motion could be introduced in the House of Commons. At the same time North proposed a resolution commanding the King's government to sue for peace with the Americans which barely passed, 234 to 215.
Interesting enough, had North been able to hold on to the the government, British successes following Yorktown, the combined French-American attack on Newport and the capture of Charlestown would have certainly prolonged the war. So despite all the chest thumping regarding Yorktown, winning the revolution has as much to do with the wars in Europe and British domestic politics than anything that occurred on an American battle field.
Good pix. That's true on the state of the works. And I'm wondering if plans of the Yorktown fortifications back in the 18th would show the details of traverses if they existed. I'm looking to see if one is available somewhere.
By the way, when visiting the Yorktown battlefield park if you're willing to go out of your way you can find several fairly well preserved Federal works from McClellan's siege of Yorktown in 1862. The rangers are eager to point them out to those interested.
A Bing map birds eye view of the defensive works at Yorktown as they exist now shows extensive use of "zoning" by traverses and parados. The roughly detailed map of the British lines in the park brochure also shows such structures.
Last edited by Irishtom29; 09-27-2013 at 02:24 PM..
By the way, when visiting the Yorktown battlefield park if you're willing to go out of your way you can find several fairly well preserved Federal works from McClellan's siege of Yorktown in 1862. The rangers are eager to point them out to those interested.
Yes, that's right. I didn't know that the area (including Williamsburg) is tied in very much with Civil War history. Nearby is also a Civil War cemetery of soldiers unknown and known. Very quiet when iw ent even as it skirted the battlefield.
And one thing which struck me was how confining the area where Cornwallis got 'boxed' in. If I'm not mistaken Cornwallis was ordered to start building a naval yard down there. I don't know if that was his first choice for the fortifications but the decision was made to 'stand' there. Yorktown looked good at the time and the British seemed to have success in the South. But perhaps the combination of the lack of the Loyalists getting the upper hand there and logistics did the fellow in. Ironic for him as I read that in the first year of the war Cornwallis wasn't too keen on fighting the colonials!
If the British had somehow reconquered the colonies they would have had a new rebellion every few years or so, once the colonists experienced self-rule they would not go back to being mere colonies.
Also, Britain was also at war with France and Spain at the time and they were bigger priorities than we were.
Plus King George III is believed to be insane by many historians.
Parliament governed, without the support of Parliament the British government wouldn't fight the war. After the battle of Yorktown, a bill to continue the war failed resulting in the government falling in the first vote of no confidence in British history, which meant the prime minister had to resign:
War end.A vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system is when the legislature can't pass a main part of its agenda, for example a budget bill failing.
After a new government, the new British foreign minister had cheered in hopes of an American victory while a member of Parliament. He would dress up in the colors of the uniforms of the American army. He didn't support the troops!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
