they had very little use for

11:30 Mar 20, 2023 

And OED specifically describes the phase 'have no use for' as 'to be set against; to wish to have nothing to do with; to dislike'.

In other words, it is precisely the text's description of the British HC's shocking lack of tact and bias towards the Americans that makes me favour this meaning of 'have little/no use for', rather than the demure and entirely non-confrontational 'the occasion or need to employ' (which would have suggested that the Americans had a chip on their shoulder, ready to take offence at the slightest slight, however reasonable and necessary).

Which, in turn, brings up the subject of the word 'reasonable'.

11:26 Mar 20, 2023 

Sure, Yvonne. Polysemy, I has them :) Jokes aside, the matter of choosing the right meaning does depend on the context. And while your interpretation is plausible, I believe it does not take into account the matter of Brits' high-handedness prominently on display there. The text speaks of 'thousands of Americans ... thoroughly detesting the name and memory of ... English" and, on the other hand, "Englishmen telling each other ... that Americans are cowards and ... are insolent and ummanageable". That description does not seem to paint us the picture of the British high command simply bypassing the Americans out of necessity. Rather, it speaks of their inherent disdain that should inform our reading of 'have little use for' - enough, I contest, to interpret it as the opposite of "a favorable attitude toward a person or thing as having worth or use — used with for in negative constructions" (Webster's Unabridged)

Indeed, the same WUD entrance has two example of this meaning: 'had no use for most sales managers' and 'had very little use for the music of most of his contemporaries', indicating that this meaning is routinely expressed with both 'little' and 'no' in equal measure.

10:52 Mar 20, 2023 

no, that is only 1 meaning of the expression and obviously in a specific context that doesn't fit here. As you should know, most expressions have several meanings that must be read in context.
There is no "dislike" or "bias" indicated here. Just an indication that these American officers are surplus to requirements as they are not in a position to be of much help. For example, having to pass orders via them is going to be time-consuming, hence they are of "little use"= limited usefulness, and thus not needed. So better military practice for the Brits just to ignore them and give the orders directly via the lower officers and men. And pass this off as being the right thing to do militarily, although really resented by the American colonels Here are some examples with that meaning of "not much use" https://glosbe.com/en/en/of little use

14:40 Mar 15, 2023 

Doesn't 'have no use for smth/smb' specifically indicate a bias, dislike, active wish to have nothing to do with someone? So it is not a matter or not knowing how to put these colonels to use.

11:44 Mar 15, 2023 

they had enough of their own, and had little use for the Americans. When the Brits didn't know what to do with something (like machine guns in WW1), they would say "just stick it in somewhere". They might have had nowhere to deploy ("stick in) the Americans. I could say, "I'll send you 50 high ranking officers" and you could say, "that's very kind, but really, we have no use for them".