Again, there were (roughly) 3.9 million people in the US in 1790
TFSmith121,
I found this great thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=123175
Interested in everyones opinions on it
Again, there were (roughly) 3.9 million people in the US in 1790; even considering the issues of patriot/loyalist/leave me alone (which were not 33/33/33, of course), the reality is the British could not impose a military solution absent a level of expenditure that, frankly, is pretty much impossible in the 1770s, especially given the conflicts (potential and then real) with the other European powers.
The problem for the British (and indeed, the French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc.) that was made clear in the late Eighteenth and early Nineteenth centuries is that they
could not hold their Western Hemisphere empires by military power alone, especially given the willingness of the
other European powers to take advantage of any opportunities, and they
would not attempt to hold by political compromise.
And, of course, all four powers' "homelands" were basically on top of each other in Europe, and all four had interests in Europe and the Mediterranean that were, frankly, much more important to them then the whole of their respective Western Hemisphere empires.
Add in the realities of time and distance, and the facts the Western Hemisphere "daughter" societies could function as peer competitors with the European powers
in the Western Hemisphere, and there was really no way around it, absent political reform - which never seems to have been seriously considered by any of the European powers until it was far too late.
So one can shuffle commanders around, and suggest whichever European power is being discussed should have committed more troops, but the historical reality is none of them could/did, and - obviously - from a macroscale, it doesn't matter.
At least not based on the historical record, which saw the collapse of all four major European empires in the Western Hemisphere in a period of some six decades (1760-1820), essentially.
And it was not because of the abilities or lack thereof of one commander or another, frankly.
Best,