Worst British Mistake of the American Revolution

[Half Pint John]

Originally Posted by Ogukuo72

As far as I know, hardly any. There are certainly Anglophiles, but they understood that - and the British colonial masters made it perfectly clear that - they were colonial subjects.

However do note that this was quite different from the status of Australia, South Africa, etc. which were granted Dominion status near the turn of the century, which effectively made them independent states.

I can surly agree with you on Australia how ever SA is different. Whites were/are the minority and many of those whites hated the British with a passion (Afrikaans) who made up the majority of the whites.

[History fan]

Originally Posted by Wellington95

Could you elaborate a bit on that? Not sure what detriment it had to the British army, rather than proving the resilience of the colonials. If anything it should have made them send more reinforcements and begin a more determined war effort.

It was. The forces from Lexington to Boston were mainly garrison troops. After the evacuation Howe trained them up for the New York campaign.
TBH the who Breeds Hill campaign was pointless as none of the British Generals wanted Boston (New York was always the preffered option) as there base. They felt it was not secure enough and they didnt have the men to garrison it.

Another big mistake in the South was the proclomation of freeing of slaves who fought for the British it turned many whites against the British for that act.

[DARKPLACE]

1/ not establishing firm control over the colonies in the first place.

2/ not realising that any control had to be implemented by the men on the ground due to distances involved. That all London was going to be able to do was act as a court of appeal, suggest, approve, guide and protect.

3/ as commented by others arm the loyalists.

4/ institute a proper system of road building.

5/ establish a system of peerages in theUS with the right to sit in the house of lords.

Personally I think we were pretty much screwed way before the shooting started

[Twitter3]

Originally Posted by copenhagen

Letting it get to open conflict in the first place.

As several have already stated, this was probably the biggest.

[Ogukuo72]

Originally Posted by Half Pint John

I can surly agree with you on Australia how ever SA is different. Whites were/are the minority and many of those whites hated the British with a passion (Afrikaans) who made up the majority of the whites.

So in other words, the non-white majority continued to 'enjoy' colonial status even if South Africa achieved Dominion status?

[Nickuru]

Originally Posted by lakechampainer

I chose the decision to attack Bunker Hill in a direct manner.

I also chose the frontal attack on Bunker Hill. It was a senseless attack uphill on an entrenched enemy. In spite of defeat, the losses inflicted on the British gave morale to the rebels. Had the British just cannonaded the rebels and held off from a frontal assault; the whole mess might have died down when William Pitt became Prime Minister.

Once again we saw a fossilized military formation, led by a clueless General, acting like a Macedonian phalanx in an era when weaponry had dramatically changed the requirements of battle. This persisted through the Napoleonic wars, the American civil war and WWI.

[copenhagen]

I choose letting it get to open war in the first place...

[Massena]

The complete mishandling of the taxation issue after the French and Indian War which led to rebellion and full-scale war was the biggest mistake that Parliament and the king made in dealing with the colonies as a whole.

If it could have been presented in the light of the colonies needed to help pay for the war because of the immense British effort in North America, perhaps the situation could have been prevented or at least 'softened.'

Sincerely,
M

[Half Pint John]

Originally Posted by copenhagen

Indeed and as some said at the time but by that time cooler heads and that was on both side hadn't prevailed and Britain now had to make a choice with the Wolves of Europe at their door. Speaking of cooler heads. The Earl Of Coke used to toast George Washington. He for one was livid!! His house is fantastic by the way. North Norfolk. Holkham Hall. Stunning. Personally I don't think there was anything wrong with asking the thirteen colonies to pay for the security of the area rather than by London. The government just ballsed it up when going about it. Pitt would've sorted it!

Asking to pay is one thing but not having any say in Parliament is another. Got to remember one of the rallying calls of the war was "No taxation with out representation" The average colonist thought of themselves as Englishmen with all the rights of Englishmen. The crown did not or could not understand that pov. Had these rights been given there would have been no war, at least on at that time. IMO the Crown screwed that one up big time.

[Hesse-Kassel]

Originally Posted by copenhagen

Indeed and as some said at the time but by that time cooler heads and that was on both side hadn't prevailed and Britain now had to make a choice with the Wolves of Europe at their door. Speaking of cooler heads. The Earl Of Coke used to toast George Washington. He for one was livid!! His house is fantastic by the way. North Norfolk. Holkham Hall. Stunning. Personally I don't think there was anything wrong with asking the thirteen colonies to pay for the security of the area rather than by London. The government just ballsed it up when going about it. Pitt would've sorted it!

There was no point for the British to even be in the 13 Colonies. The Americans can just protect themselves like they always have.

[copenhagen]

Originally Posted by Hesse-Kassel

There was no point for the British to even be in the 13 Colonies. The Americans can just protect themselves like they always have.

What? They were British Colonies at the time with British people which is why there was such a big fuss about rights....

[KRJ]

Originally Posted by copenhagen

What? They were British Colonies at the time with British people which is why there was such a big fuss about rights....

What he said.

[Hesse-Kassel]

Originally Posted by copenhagen

What? They were British Colonies at the time with British people which is why there was such a big fuss about rights....

I don't get what you're saying.

[copenhagen]

Originally Posted by Hesse-Kassel

I don't get what you're saying.

The British were in the 13 colonies because they were British colonies...

[Hesse-Kassel]

Originally Posted by copenhagen

The British were in the 13 colonies because they were British colonies...

Yes I know that but why now (meaning why did they do it back in the 18th century)? The Americans had to protect themselves before without help so why did they occupy now?