历史上英国怎样才能赢得美国独立战争？
How could England have won the US War Of Independence?
译文简介
英国在美国殖民地的独立战争中失败了导致了美国的独立，那么如果时光回到当初，英国怎么做才能赢得美国殖民地的独立战争呢？
正文翻译
Scott Goldman
Take it seriously. Get those troops out of the Caribbean and move them to Boston.Work with John and Sam Adams toward a solution, rather than getting them to inspire a national rebellion.Employ/recruit the 1/2 of American colonists (exact numbers are unknown) that remained loyal to the Crown.Get better mercenaries. The Hessians from Germany were notorious for going AWOL. At least 1/4 shed their uniforms and walked away.
Save money for emergencies. Too much money had been spent recently on fighting France and Spain. Britain's debt was too burdensome throughout the war to launch the massive naval assault against the French fleet keeping them (literally) at bay.
1. 认真对待。把军队撤出加勒比海，转移到波士顿。
2. 和约翰·亚当斯（美国第二任总统）和萨姆·亚当斯一起寻找解决方案，而不是让他们激起一场全国性的叛乱。
3. 雇佣、招募1/2的美国殖民者(确切数字不详)忠于英国王室。
4. 获得更好的雇佣兵。德国黑森人擅离职守是出了名的，至少四分之一的人脱下制服，走了。
5. 存钱以备不时之需。最近在与法国和西班牙的战争中花费了太多的钱。在整个战争期间，英国的债务负担太重，无法对法国舰队发动大规模的海军攻击，使他们(字面上)陷入困境。
Develop a better marketing strategy. Rather than pointing to the flaws in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, they let it inspire Lafayette, Pulaski, von Steuben and a heck of a lot of their own officers to support the colonies.
Use overwhelming force before the French and Spanish forces came in.
Take the Boston Tea party seriously. A rebellion was brewing and Britain assumed, erroneously, that it would not spread.
6. 制定更好的营销策略。他们没有指出杰斐逊的《独立宣言》中的缺陷，而是让它激励了拉斐特、普拉斯基、冯·斯图本以及他们自己的一大批军官去支持殖民地。
7. 在法国和西班牙军队入侵之前使用压倒性的武力。
8. 认真对待波士顿倾茶事件。叛乱正在酝酿，而英国错误地认为叛乱不会蔓延。
Use overwhelming force before the French and Spanish forces came in.
Take the Boston Tea party seriously. A rebellion was brewing and Britain assumed, erroneously, that it would not spread.
6. 制定更好的营销策略。他们没有指出杰斐逊的《独立宣言》中的缺陷，而是让它激励了拉斐特、普拉斯基、冯·斯图本以及他们自己的一大批军官去支持殖民地。
7. 在法国和西班牙军队入侵之前使用压倒性的武力。
8. 认真对待波士顿倾茶事件。叛乱正在酝酿，而英国错误地认为叛乱不会蔓延。
Stay out of the south. Britain decided to focus on the southern states that had been generally sympathetic to the Crown. Instead, their aggression inspired hatred and rebellion by the southern colonists.
Follow orders. The battle of Saratoga might have ended the war in 1777, but General Howe defied orders, going to Philadelphia instead.
Fight a stalemated war of attrition. Instead, Britain went for the jugular, time after time.
32.7K viewsView UpvotersView Sharers
9. 远离南方。英国决定将重点放在南部各州，这些州通常对国王表示同情。相反，他们的侵略激起了南方殖民者的仇恨和反叛。
10. 服从命令。萨拉托加战役本可以在1777年结束这场战争，但豪将军违抗命令，前往费城。
11. 应该打一场消耗战。而不是像英国这样一次又一次地把矛头指向了要害。
Follow orders. The battle of Saratoga might have ended the war in 1777, but General Howe defied orders, going to Philadelphia instead.
Fight a stalemated war of attrition. Instead, Britain went for the jugular, time after time.
32.7K viewsView UpvotersView Sharers
9. 远离南方。英国决定将重点放在南部各州，这些州通常对国王表示同情。相反，他们的侵略激起了南方殖民者的仇恨和反叛。
10. 服从命令。萨拉托加战役本可以在1777年结束这场战争，但豪将军违抗命令，前往费城。
11. 应该打一场消耗战。而不是像英国这样一次又一次地把矛头指向了要害。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 3 )
收藏
Some of the British commanders were actually sympathetic to the Colonists, or at least believed that they could achieve a negotiated settlement from the Colonies without the need for an all out war. Even in the UK itself, the necessity of a war against the colonies was controversial.If the debts from the Seven Year’s war (French and Indian War in the Colonies) not been so pressing, the Crown might not have felt so compelled to impose high taxes and close supervision on trade in the Colonies to get funds, one of the flashpoints that led to the Revolution in the first place.
一些英国指挥官实际上是同情殖民者的，或者至少相信他们可以与殖民地通过谈判解决争端，而不需要一场全面的战争。即使在英国国内，对殖民地进行战争的必要性也是有争议的。如果七年战争（在印度殖民地和法国的战争）造成的债务没有那么紧迫，国王可能不会迫不得已去征收高税收以及对殖民地的贸易进行密切监管以筹集资金，这是导致革命的爆发点之一。
Excellent and accurate points.
优秀和准确的要点。
It was controversial because to many Britons it was a war against other Britons. It wasn't like a war against France, but more like a civil war.
这是一场有争议的战争，因为对许多英国人来说，这是一场针对其他英国人的战争。它不像是一场对法国的战争，更像是一场内战。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
It was said of the war that a mostly British army beat a mostly German army, thanks to the French!
据说在这场战争中，一支以英国为主的军队打败了一支以德国为主的军队，这要归功于法国人！
Curious how everbody forgets, Spanish went earlier and with far more support than French to the rebels… Probably because years later the newborn country moved against their “allies “ taking Cuba and Filipines…
奇怪的是，为什么大家都忘记了，西班牙人比法国人更早地支持了叛军……可能是因为多年后这个新生的国家反对他们的“盟友（美国）”占领了古巴和菲律宾……
My apologies to the Spanish. As you say: “curious how everybody forgets”
Mind the newly-minted Americans never showed any gratitude to the French, either.I think I first heard the above in France back in the 60’s/70’s. The French have never shown the Spanish any respect, either!
我向西班牙人道歉。就像你说的:“真奇怪，怎么会有人忘记”。要知道新崛起的美国人也从未对法国人表示过感激。我想我第一次听到上述说法是在60、70年代的法国。法国人也从来没有对西班牙人表示过任何尊重！
As a Canadian of Scottish heritage I am so glad we had the seven years years and France traded Quebec for Guadalupe
作为一个苏格兰血统的加拿大人，我很高兴我们度过了七年时光，法国用魁北克换来了瓜达卢佩（注：美国新墨西哥东南部的瓜达洛普）。
What? The whole of Quebec for Guadalupe?
什么？用整个魁北克换取瓜达卢佩?
The sugar islands in the Caribbean were more important to the British than the North American colonies -- remember cotton was still a cottage industry in 1775. Jamaica in 1750 produced more wealth than London. Part of the reason the British sought peace in 1781 is that the French fleet was threatening the British sugar trade.
对英国人来说，加勒比海的糖岛（种甘蔗的岛屿）比北美殖民地更重要——记住，在1775年，棉花仍然是家庭手工业。1750年，牙买加创造的财富超过了伦敦。英国在1781年寻求和平的部分原因是法国舰队威胁到英国的糖贸易。
Only if they (King and Parliament) had changed their world view, a highly unlikely event. They couldn’t imagine how to negotiate a peace that would result in a more independent America.“Here, then, was the crux. The king and his men believed that British wealth and status derived from the colonies. The erosion of authority in America, followed by loss of sovereignty, would encourage rebellions [elsewhere in the British Empire]” from The British are Coming - by Rick Atkinson; prologue, page 14.
只有他们（国王和议会）改变他们的世界观，这是极不可能的。他们无法想象如何通过谈判来实现和平，那将导致美国更加独立，这就是症结所在。国王和他的手下认为英国的财富和地位来自殖民地。在美国殖民地的权威受到侵蚀，随之而来的将是主权的丧失，这将鼓励叛乱（在大英帝国的其他殖民地）。
英国在进行战争时从未充分考虑过美国殖民地的距离、面积和抵抗程度。他们无法想象如何发动一场如此大规模的战争，同时还要满足对他们资源的其他需求。1778年，其他欧洲列强（主要是法国）的介入扩大了冲突，结束了英国试图保留帝国三分之一（殖民地）的企图。只有全力以赴才能奏效，英国的世界观不允许这样做。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
It’s funny because the wealthy and prestige of Britain increased with the independence of the US, partially due to the fact that they reaped all the trade benefits without the administrative costs.
有趣的是，英国的财富和声望随着美国的独立而增加，部分原因是他们在没有行政成本的情况下获得了所有的贸易利益。
Yes, they outsource it to a private company in India.——East India Company - Wikipedia
是的，英国把贸易外包给印度的一家私营公司。——东印度公司-维基百科
Meh, we got our own empire after beating Spain in the Spanish-American war.Hell, after we beat Mexico in the Mexican-American war and making the Gadsden purchase, just the mainland United States became far bigger than the Roman Empire ever was.So if you interpret what an empire is by the amount of land it owns, then we have been an empire for well over 150 years.And, mind you, that was before we even annexed Hawaii and bought Alaska from Russia. Alaska by itself is around a third of the size of mainland America. It’s freaking huge.
美国在美西战争中打败西班牙后，我们建立了自己的帝国。见鬼，我们又在美墨战争中打败了墨西哥，并购买了 加兹登，美国大陆就比罗马帝国大得多了。如果你用拥有的土地数量来解释帝国是什么，那么我们的帝国已经有150多年的历史了。而且，请注意，那是在我们吞并夏威夷和从俄罗斯手中买下阿拉斯加之前。阿拉斯加本身的面积约为美国大陆的三分之一，该死的，太大了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
“The distance, size, and level of resistance of the American colonies were never given sufficient thought by Britain in conducting its war.”True, and in fairness it was hard for them to calculate. Britain did not fight big land wars overseas with supply lines running all the way home. Doing that was simply not practicable by 1700s standards. Instead the main effort was usually made by the navy with most of the land fighting done by locally recruited forces and allies. India is a good example of this.However the North American rebellion was a bit of a black swan, with a huge and wealthy population spread across an even bigger area. It was a challenge, to put it mildly. With hindsight they should probably have leaned on local forces more but they also lost most of the militia when they switched sides at the beginning of the war. It was quite unprecedented and had many of the problems of a civil war.
“英国在进行战争时从未充分考虑过美国殖民地的距离、面积和抵抗程度。”没错，公平地说，这对他们来说很难计算。英国没有在海外打过大规模的陆地战争，因为补给线要一直延伸到本土。按照18世纪的标准，这样做根本不可行。相反，主要的成就通常是由海军达成的，大部分的陆地战斗是由当地招募的部队和盟军完成的。印度就是一个很好的例子。
然而，北美叛乱有点像一只黑天鹅，庞大而富有的人口分布在更大的区域。委婉地说，这是一个挑战。事后看来，他们或许应该更多地依靠当地军队，但在战争开始他们倒戈时，也失去了大部分民兵。内战有许多前所未有的问题。
And a logistical nightmare for the Brits
对英国人来说是一场后勤噩梦。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
King George III was notoriously bullheaded, and that (and perhaps his rightful obsession with the French) was a major reason why the British did no implement the above - and possibly win the war.
英王乔治三世的固执是出了名的，而这（也许还有他对法国人原有的迷恋）是英国没有实施上述措施并可能赢得战争的主要原因。
The British won the War of 1812 with the peace treaty. The imperative of the wars with France was over, and they offered very favorable terms to make a lasting peace that would a future beneficial future.
英国通过和平条约赢得了1812年的战争。与法国的战争已经结束，他们提出了非常有利的条件来建立持久的和平，这对未来是有利的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I am not sure George lll felt the same about who “won”, but thanks for the perspective. In hindsight, looking at the results from a political rather than military perspective, you are certainly correct.
我不确定乔治二世对谁“赢了”是否也有同样的感受，但谢谢你的观点。事后来看，应该从政治而不是军事的角度来看结果，你当然是正确的。
At the time besides the problems with France, Spain and in the Caribbean weren’t the English also having Colonial problems in India spreading their troops even thinner to be able to combat the problems here in America? Though a lot of all England's problems (at the time) stems from the pure arrogance of the Crown and the Aristocracy of the time towards it’s Colonies.
当时除了法国，西班牙和加勒比海地区的问题，英国人在印度不是也有殖民地问题吗？他们把军队分散了能应对美国的问题吗？尽管英国的很多问题(在那个时候)纯粹是由于国王和贵族对其殖民地的傲慢。
I believe from old Documents that I read and would capture, turn over the “American Patriot Rebels” fighting to the Redcoats. Majority of American Colonist where loyal to the crown and wanted to stay under the control of England. The American Revolution is falsely portrayed as everyone wanted a Revolution. The American Patriots had to basically avoid Two enemies, the one they where fighting and their own who, unknown to each other, who would turn who over to the enemy.
Any Battle Doctrine is this: Win the Hearts & Minds of the people, win their support. If you can do this, the hardest battle is won. Can’t win over the people, in for a very long war. You see that today so very well.The Confederacy used this very same example of their Fore Fathers (Rev. War) as one of their reasons for steps to successions, rebellion.
我从我读到的旧文件中看到，捕获并移交“美国的爱国叛乱者”给英国军队。大多数美国殖民者忠于英国国王，并希望留在英国的控制之下。美国革命被错误地描绘成人人都想要革命。美国的爱国者必须要避免两个敌人，一个是在和他们战斗的敌人，另一个是他们自己内部的敌人，他们彼此不知道，谁会把谁交给敌人。任何战争的原则都是这样的：赢得人心，赢得民心。如果你能做到这一点，最艰难的战斗也会获胜。在一场旷日持久的战争中，是无法赢得人民的支持的。
Two excellent analogies, George. Thank you for showing the connections. Unfortunately, old lessons seem to be forgotten by each successive generation.
两个很好的类比，乔治，谢谢你给出这些联系。不幸的是，似乎每一代都遗忘了旧的教训。
Really interesting answer. Perhaps also the British parliament could have pushed back more strongly on the Crown’s taxation of the American colonies.
非常有趣的答案。也许英国议会本可以更有力地抵制国王对美洲殖民地的征税。
While Point 1 has some truth, in that Britain certainly prioritised the West Indies over the continent, one must realise that the Caribbean was more valuable than the 13 Colonies, and letting the French take those much more valuable islands would be an economic disaster.
虽然第一点有些道理，因为英国肯定优先考虑西印度群岛而不是欧洲大陆，但我们必须认识到加勒比地区比13个殖民地更有价值，让法国拿走这些更有价值的岛屿将会是一场经济灾难。第四点完全错了。正如豪威和康沃利斯所指出的那样，黑森军团拥有当时世界上最优秀的部队，而黑森菲尔德猎人军团则是英国军队中的精英。
四分之一没有回家的黑森人并不是逃跑了，而是被驱逐了，黑森人领主明确地允许任何想在服役期满后留在美国的人这样做，有很多，大约有四分之一的人去美国了。他们知道他们的国家又穷又小，而英国习惯上向在美国作战的军队提供土地，而且还节省了遣散费用。黑森人部队的实际逃兵率非常低，主要是来自安哈尔特-泽布斯特的那支小分队，他们有逃兵的问题。
关于第五点：弗里德里希·冯·斯图本就是为钱而战，不是为理想主义而战。他是一个船长，他欺骗一些轻信的殖民者，让他们以为他是一个将军，这样就可以拿到他们的贿赂了……他所做的就是给他们一些基本的训练，这一点，实际上在任何普鲁士其他公司的军官以及任何专业人员都能做到。
I disagree with you on Baron von Steuben, yes he was a Baron haven been appointed to the Order of Fidelity in 1769 for service to the Prince of Baden. If any professional officer could have accomplished what he did, why did Horatio Gates, Charles Lee, Edward Hand, Tadeusz Kosciuszko, Kazimierz Pulaski, Moses Hazen, Charles Armand, John De Kalb etc. not create the needed work? The need for it was there, but unfortunately the brain to put it together was not there until the good Baron joined us at Valley Forge.
我不同意你对斯图本男爵的看法，是的，他在1769年被任命为忠诚勋章，为巴登王子服务。如果任何专业的军官能够完成他所做的事情，那为什么霍雷肖·盖茨、查尔斯·李、爱德华·汉德、塔德乌什·科修斯科、卡兹米耶尔兹·普拉斯基、摩西·哈森、查尔斯·阿曼德、约翰·德·卡尔布等人没有做到这些必要的工作呢？对它的需要是存在的，但不幸的是，直到男爵在福吉谷与我们会合之前，还没有能组成联盟的大脑。
美国对他的投资是一笔大买卖。你提到了他的训练过程，美国军队的秩序和纪律的规定通常被称为蓝皮书。240年后，冯·斯图本提出的很多东西至今仍在使用。除了这项伟大的工作，他还帮助我们形成了我们今天所看到的常识。比如公共厕所的布局、不让死去的动物尸体四处腐烂、营地的标准化安置等等。
最后，看看男爵在2月23日抵达福吉谷时给军队带来的变化，以及5月20日在秃山之后的战斗，然后6月28日在蒙茅斯法院战斗。在仅仅4个月的时间里，他帮助陆军转变为一支能够与英军面对面作战的部队。一年后，在石点镇，军队已经到了仅用刺刀就能完成进攻的地步——这完全逆转了自保利大屠杀以来双方的角色。
Not let france fight for American and win for her…basically.In hindsight we handed them the keys to become the worlds first true super power. The British empire was vast, powerful and vicious, but we could not take on the entire rest of the world at once, the Americans can. Thats how big we have let them become. Thy have strategic bases all over the world, enough ships and so on to embargo much of the world while supplying themselves with their own vast resources. They have enough stuff dotted about to take us all on and we would lose, we don’t work as well in alliance as people think, plus the americans run all our intelligence networks lol.
别让法国为美国而战，别让法国为美国赢得胜利。事后看来，我们给了他们成为世界上第一个真正的超级大国的钥匙。大英帝国是巨大的，强大的，邪恶的，但是我们不可能同时接管整个世界，而美国可以。我们让他们变得这么大。他们在世界各地都有战略基地，有足够的船只等等来封锁世界大部分地区，同时用自己丰富的资源供应自己。他们有足够的东西来对付我们，我们会输的，我们的联盟不像人们想的那样好，再加上美国人控制着我们所有的情报网络，哈哈。
England could never win in the war of US independence as they were never in it, Great Britain was as it came into existence 69 years previously in 1707. You need to remember also that George Washington was actually born in what was then Britain. The British American territory of Virginia (I believe).
英国不可能在美国独立战争中获胜，因为他们从来没有参加过美国独立战争，而69年前，也就是1707年，英国才刚刚成立。你还需要记住，乔治·华盛顿实际上出生在当时的英国——弗吉尼亚的英属美国领土。
David, spot on! There were far more Englishmen living in the American Colonies than fought in George III (a King whose primary allegiance was always to Hanover rather than the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland. The vast majority of The UK’s military were drawn from German. Hanover, Scotland, Ireland and Wales and from the American Colonies. At the war of independence was fought by English Colonists and wasn’t regarded at the time as being particularly significant as it was a minor part of the Global conflict between The United Kingdom and France. French support for the rebelling colonists was not Franco altruism. The United Kingdom destroyed French Sea power at Trafalgar in 1805, Soundly defeated imperialist expansion of France and the American colonies, driving them back from Canada in 1812 and put an end to Napoleon’s million strong army in 1815 at Waterloo.Having lived and worked in the USA for very many years I understand modern America’s wish to present it’s history (or at least that of the 13 colonies) in a way which instils national pride and patriotism; the same is true of all nations. However, the truth is most likely that had the United Kingdom not won the global conflict then the colonies independence would have been short lived under French domination.
完全正确！生活在美洲殖民地的英国人比为乔治三世（乔治三世主要效忠汉诺威，而不是大不列颠和爱尔兰联合王国）打仗的英国人要多得多。英国军队的绝大多数人来自德国。来自汉诺威、苏格兰、爱尔兰和威尔士以及美国殖民地。独立战争是英国殖民者的战争，在当时并没有被认为是特别重要的，因为它只是英国和法国之间全球冲突的一个小部分。
法国对反叛的殖民者的支持并不是佛朗哥的利他主义。英国于1805年在特拉法加摧毁了法国的海上势力，在1812年彻底击败了帝国主义对法国和美国殖民地的扩张，将他们从加拿大赶了回来，并结束了1815年拿破仑在滑铁卢的百万大军。
在美国生活和工作多年后，我理解现代美国希望以一种灌输民族自豪感和爱国主义的方式来呈现美国的历史（或者至少是13个殖民地的历史），所有国家都是如此。然而，事实很可能是，如果英国没有赢得全球冲突，那么殖民地的独立在法国的统治下将是短暂的。
You are very wrong about where King George III placed his loyalties. He wanted to be known as British, pointing out that his education was in England, he spoke English (something George I and II were not very adept at. He had no desire to be known as Hannoveran other than being a descendant of that line. This change was something he was very proud of.
你对关于乔治三世对谁忠诚的分析大错特错了。他想以英国人的身份为人所知，他指出他是在英国受的教育，他说英语（这是乔治一世和二世不太擅长的）。他不想被称为汉诺威人，只希望自己是汉诺威家族的后裔。这一变化令他非常自豪。
There was already strong anti slavery sentiment in Britain which became law before the US gave it up and Britain proposed an area for natives to have as their own while colonists were doing their best to exterminate them despite the noble and irrelevant constitution.
在美国放弃奴隶制之前，英国已经有了强烈的反奴隶制情绪，并制定了法律。英国提出给一块土地作为土著居民的自留地，而殖民者却不顾高尚而无关紧要的宪法，尽最大努力去消灭土著居民。
Yes, there was strong anti-slavery sentiment in both Britain and the Colonies. That doesn’t mean that during the lead up to the Revolution there was any demand from Britain that the Colonies abolish slavery as some sort of deal by which the issues they had with Britain could be resolved. Britain did not abolish slavery in its Caribbean colonies until 1833 by which point half of the former British colonies in North America had already enacted legislation to ban slavery.
是的，英国和殖民地都有强烈的反奴隶制情绪。这并不意味着在革命前英国曾要求殖民地废除奴隶制以此作为解决他们与英国之间问题的协议。直到1833年，英国才在其加勒比海殖民地废除奴隶制，当时北美一半的前英属殖民地已经立法禁止奴隶制。
我从未见过任何由英国提出的这样的提议，考虑到他们还得益于加勒比海的奴隶制，认为他们会要求立即禁止在一些殖民地的奴隶制，同时允许另一些殖民地继续另一个50年的奴隶制有违常识。(有些地方的奴隶制直到19世纪末)
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
对于美洲原住民，英国希望暂时停止对殖民地的西部扩张，但这并不意味着他们要无限期地放弃向西扩张。他们只是不想在七年战争之后马上花费大量的钱去和当地人打仗。如果你认为他们会把整个北美西部都留给当地人，我建议你看看加拿大的边界。他们想要的是在恰当的时间来找出一种方法，让这种扩张有利于英国，而不是殖民者。
Yeah, in the 1770s most people thought slavery was on the way out and would die a natural death.The cotton gin would totally change the economics of slavery, but it was still in the future.
是的，在18世纪70年代，大多数人认为奴隶制即将被废除，会自然消亡。轧棉机将彻底改变奴隶制的经济状况，但（废除奴隶制）仍是未来的事。
For the South. Growing sugarcane in Jamaica was still run by slaves very profitably. I suppose the UK kept slavery in India?
对于南方来说，在牙买加的甘蔗仍由奴隶种植，获利颇多。我猜英国在印度保留了奴隶制？
That's not how things go. Slavery was not an issue for the American independence especially since in all of the colonies (not just the 13 that broke away but every one of them) slavery was legal.
事情不是这样的。奴隶制对美国独立来说并不是一个问题，尤其是在所有的殖民地（不仅仅是脱离联邦的13个殖民地，而是每一个殖民地），奴隶制都是合法的。
A good list, but I would add another possibility. Give the colonists representation in Parliament. It would have made next to no difference to the political balance in Britain at the time, but it would have deprived the radicals in the colonies of their biggest political issue,. Leaving them with what? “No taxation without fishing rights on the Grand Banks” ?
There were of course other important issues during the tears before the Revolution but granting representation might have won the war before it started. As a proud American I am forever grateful for British intransigence and hubris.
这是一系列很好的做法，但我想加上另一种可能性。赋予殖民地在议会中的代表权。这对当时英国的政治平衡几乎没有任何影响，但却使殖民地的激进分子失去了他们最大的政治问题。留给他们什么？“没有大浅滩捕鱼权就不纳税”？在革命前的眼泪中当然还有其他重要的问题，但是在战争开始之前，给予代表权可能就已经赢得了战争。作为一个骄傲的美国人，我永远感激英国的不妥协和傲慢。
In 1759 the British army defeated the French at Quebec thus kicking the French state out of Canada. The victor was Major General James Wolfe, probably our best general ‘between’ Marlborough and Wellington. Sadly he died at Quebec . For a general he was very young ; by 1776 he would have been much more experienced than Cornwallis and co and would probably have been the most senior officer in the British army. Had he survived it is quite likely that he would have defeated the American revolutionary rabble . So an answer to the question is ‘if only someone else took that musket ball.’ ( I admit that I am biased as I live in Wolfe’s home town, Westerham and as I type this I am sitting about 20 yards from his statue.
1759年，英国军队在魁北克打败了法国人，从而把法国赶出了加拿大。胜利者是詹姆斯·沃尔夫少将，他可能是马尔伯勒和威灵顿最好的将军。不幸的是，他死在魁北克。作为一个将军，他还很年轻；直到1776年，他比康沃利斯和他的手下经验丰富得多，并可能成为英国军队中最高的军官。如果他能活下来，很可能就会击败美国革命的乌合之众。
所以，这个问题的答案是“如果有人拿走了那颗火枪子弹就好了。”我承认我有偏见，因为我住在沃尔夫的家乡韦斯特汉姆，当我打字时，我坐在离他的雕像大约20码的地方。
Put an act through the British parliament legalising slavery in North America leaving them with no real reason to declare independence
让英国议会通过一项法案，使北美的奴隶制合法化，让他们没有真正的理由宣布独立。