George III was simply far more rational than Lincoln. George III could have conquered the US, but he didn't feel the bloodshed was worth it.
Lincoln had no such qualms, and 750,000 people were killed to establish the supremacy of Washington DC.
I wouldn’t go that far. The so-called RevWar was 8 years. Much longer than the so-called CW.
George III and Parliament was not willing to give up a long time. But eventually they did acquiesce.
For further insight into what that rebellion meant, look at GB track record since. Never again would they lose their native English-speaking territories. Instead when colonies wanted “independence”, they got it. And not fully, so GB did not lose the benefit of having those colonies. Worked out pretty well for all involved.
They never made that mistake again.
Too bad within the US, we didn’t learn that lesson.
theOlLine Rebel (#170): "I wouldn’t go that far.
The so-called RevWar was 8 years.
Much longer than the so-called CW.
George III and Parliament was not willing to give up a long time.
But eventually they did acquiesce."
And there's much more to it -- the Brits were not just fighting Americans, they were basically fighting the whole world!
Brits had troops & ships scattered fighting battles everywhere you can imagine -- from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean to the Caribbean, plus Americans were powerfully supported by French, Spanish & Dutch among others.
Bottom line: in terms of percentages of national wealth, populations and natural resources committed by British to the war against Americans and our allies over nearly eight years, Brits spent just as much, if not more, than the Union did defeating a relatively weak and concentrated Confederacy with no allies.
So it wasn't that Brits didn't try, rather that they had tried to do too much, and so failed.
A modern term for that is "mission creep".