The Men Who Lost America by Andrew O'Shaughnessy, [book] review

The surrender of General Cornwallis at Yorktown, 1781 Photo: courtesy Library of Congress

Britain’s loss of America in the War of Independence (1775-1783) is typically attributed to the failings of its key political and military decision makers who were, in Andrew O’Shaughnessy’s words, “associated with opposition to progress and with attempting to introduce an authoritarian style of government”. They have, he writes, become cartoon figures of incompetence and mediocrity in a story with an inevitable ending, “as history progresses towards modernity”.

Not any more. In this fascinating, well written and extensively researched study of 10 of those British decision makers – a monarch, three politicians, four generals and two admirals – O’Shaughnessy overturns much of received opinion by insisting that all “were able and substantial individuals who nevertheless failed”. The question is why – and could things have turned out differently?

The answer to the first part is, inevitably, multifaceted. The British lacked the military and naval resources to not only win battles but also police a largely recalcitrant population; their victories – and they won many – merely “served to reinvigorate the revolutionary cause” by stimulating recruitment and prompting greater unity among the rebels; they made a fatal miscalculation that loyalists were in a majority and would rally in support of the Army; they were hampered by the logistical nightmare of transporting supplies and reinforcements 3,000 miles across the Atlantic;

The more things change, the more they stay the same!

Even so, there were opportunities for the British to win, the best falling to the Howe brothers (General Sir William and Admiral Richard, army and naval commanders from 1776-7) who failed to follow up victories at New York to trap and destroy Washington and the Continental Army, and attack and burn ports along the coast. They were not taken, explains O’Shaughnessy, because the brothers "favoured a more humane approach [to war] in order to both win the support of the people and create the conditions necessary for a harmonious postwar reconstruction of civil government".

COIN - anyone? The coming massive failure of our adventurism in the Middle East!

I guess I do remember that there were actual planes drawn up by both sides for a possible war that could take place between both sides as late as the 30s. Not sure how serious they ever were about the actual possibility.

FDR was also none to big on the British’s imperial mentality either.

I wonder if Evacuation Day is even commemorated anymore?

Thanks again, Pharmboy.

...10 of those British decision makers -- a monarch, three politicians, four generals and two admirals... "were able and substantial individuals who nevertheless failed".

It has been atypical for monarchs to be able and substantial, other than at table -- they get the job based on birth, and survival to inherit power. There's hardly been a less fanatic entitlement success story than George III.

The Parliament tried to levy a series of new and foolish taxes to defray the prior costs associated with what we call the French and Indian War; look, crap-heads, either you want to hold on and rule colonial territory, or you don't. After their first balk on their new tax schemes, each subsequent one looked vindictive and arbitrary.

It's especially mysterious that a Parliament and Crown obsessed with budget problems would throw good money after bad by, basically, upping the ante and spending even *more* money to fight, not a foreign enemy, but British citizens. That isn't the mark of "able and substantial" leaders.

The main reason for the Continental Army's success was leadership -- Washington learned that all he had to do was not be utterly defeated, cornered, and captured. He used an extensive and loyal network of spies to track British and Hessian movements, and struck when his hand would be heaviest. That began to work and take a toll (as we all know of course) with the Battle of Trenton.

Every British attempt in the interior blew up in their faces, thanks to forces other than the one directly under Washington, leaving the British in a role of occupier in coastal cities -- billeting troops in private homes and pissing off anyone who might otherwise have supported the Crown. Genius.

And of course, ultimately, the victory at Yorktown was due in part to having help from the French army and navy. Cornwallis showed great ability in other conflicts (Ireland and India), but simply got outgeneralled.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.