This is my thinking too. If there is a difference, it's too subtle for me to grasp.
I suppose the colonists could have tried to talk Britain into having an election in the colonies to decide the matter.
The very base foundation of British law is a "perpetual allegiance" to the King, who rules by "Divine right." Every stone of it is built on that premise, so no, there was never any hope of people "voting" to leave the Allegiance of the King.
They could have tried to negotiate with Washington for an election,
They had elections. Washington D.C. didn't like the outcome, so they simply dismissed the results.
they decided to have the matter decided by force of arms.
You keep saying "they decided" as if they didn't live in a country founded on the principle that people had a right to leave. Why would anyone think violence should be a necessary part of leaving when you live in a country that is founded on the premise that leaving is a right?
This is like saying " You want freedom of speech? You're gonna have to fight for that. "
No, someone asserting their right does not automatically translate into "so you decided to fight? "
I would suggest that if they had "decided" to fight, they would have massed troops along the border and invaded. H3ll, if they had taken Washington D.C., it probably would have worked out for the better.
As it is, their disinclination to fight is what cost them the war.
No, they weren't trying to fight, they were trying not to fight, and perhaps they should have been more aggressive.
If me and my neighbors, right here on my block, decide that we want to secede from the Union, do we have a right to do so, totally without regard to the opinions of the whole body of the people of my state and of the United States, and to take this little section of America out of the United States?