[Pharmboy]

I thought I would post a review from The Mother Country. It seemed appropriate for this tome. The Wall St Journal liked it, too.

[mrmeyer]

"The British lacked the military and naval resources to not only win battles but also police a largely recalcitrant population."

Recalictrant and proud! FUKG!

[Pharmboy]

General Cornwallis

The RevWar/Colonial History/General Washington ping list.

[Sirius Lee]

Of all America’s enemies, the British are the ones I hate the least, and the ones I despise the most.

[Catmom]

When I first saw this thread I thought it was a book about RINOs!

[VanDeKoik]

Something tells me the U.K. feels it dodged a bullet.

[ZULU]

And now we have a King Obama.

[NonValueAdded]

For a moment there I thought this was a contemporary story, going off the headline. Sadly, that book too will come. :(

[Yardstick]

Off topic but the name O'Shaughnessy compels me to post this.

[brityank]

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!

[SunkenCiv]

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.

[GeronL]

I thought this was about leftists like Obama when I saw the title