Last edited by Stephanie B; 07-06-2019 at 08:32 PM.
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I know that's a popular thing to say but we'll never know the real answer. The Continentals won several victories without French boots on the ground, and public sentiment was mostly in favor of independence. It's possible that without French intervention the Americans would not have won the war in the fashion they did, but they may have simply refused to give up.
Washington had planned an assault on Clinton at New York for years. Without the French-assisted victory at Yorktown, the war may have been decided at New York instead. An American victory there was possible.
Certainly America's struggle for independence would have been longer and more difficult without the aid of the French. But the British could not fight a campaign away from deep water for long, and a British occupation -- especially in the South -- would have been all but impossible.
You are free to choose, but you are not free from the consequence of your choice.
My recollection is that France (and later, Spain) went to war against England, to the point that the war has its own name (the Anglo-French War). The British had to devote considerable resources to that war, to the point that the Revolutionary War, for the British, was a sideshow, much as happened during the War of 1812.
While it's a area best suited for the alternative history genre, I suspect that if Britain was able to bring its full power to bear, they would have won. Any successful rebellion requires both a remote area for rest and training and a source of resupply. Without the French, there would have been few sources of military supply.
But it was not in the interest of the other European powers for the British to continue to exploit their lower North American colonies. And so, they intervened.
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.