No they didn't. The British just decided the bloodshed wasn't worth it.
King George III could have utterly crushed the USA had he been as vicious as Lincoln.
Only at the cost of a Phyrric victory. His war-induced taxes were badly straining the British economy by that point and the French would have loved an opportunity to settle some old scores across the Channel if he overextended himself in America.
I know you sort of hate America, and apparently wish it had died at several points, but King George didn’t have a ton of great options during the Revolution.
The British military simply wasn’t big enough to occupy the entirety of the colonies AND fight Washington in the north AND try to control the South AND deal with Spain and France on the continent.
At least he could not have done so without a major impressment, which would have gone over like a fart in church.
Doubtful. It was a different world. Less industrialized, more decentralized. Armies were smaller, weapons less destructive.
Washington could lose and would lose national capital after national capital. Congress moved something like six or seven times during the war. It didn't make a difference.
Lee was fighting a different kind of war -- maybe because it was a different world. For him it was Richmond or nothing and if he lost Richmond he lost the war.
Could Lee have fought something more like a guerrilla war? Would that have won the war for him?
As it was, the British were quite vicious enough during the Revolution.
Don't let your knee-jerk hatred of Abraham Lincoln blind you to real historical factors and real historical questions.
And I suppose that means the South didn't lose? They just decided the bloodshed wasn't worth it?
King George III could have utterly crushed the USA had he been as vicious as Lincoln.
And you wander back to fantasyland.