America's Path Not Taken

During the American War for Independence, then as now, a diversity of viewpoints were held by men on both sides. There were those of the Crown forces, adherents of the Whig party, who were quite sympathetic to the cause of the American Patriots. Such sentiments reached all the way up to the commander of the Crown forces in North America, Lt. General Sir William Howe, to HRH the Prince of Wales. Meanwhile, among the American leadership were those who espoused the eventually successful cause of independence in some sort of republican union but also those, not often remembered, who preferred the goal of greater concessions and self-government within the British Empire and under the ultimate sovereignty of the Crown. One of these men was Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania. Born in Maryland, his family moved to Pennsylvania and young Joseph studied law alongside William Franklin, illegitimate son of the famous Ben Franklin, eventually becoming a lawyer in Philadelphia. Originally a Quaker, he converted to the Church of England and married the daughter of a very wealthy and well-connected family. He became a member of the Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly, later Speaker of the House until 1774 and, again alongside Franklin, was most known for his efforts to have Pennsylvania become a Crown Colony rather than a Proprietary Colony of the Penn family.

As his political career demonstrated, Galloway was no republican firebrand. Indeed, he has more than once been referred to as an Anglo-American nationalist, which would certainly make him unpopular today even if nothing else were known about him. He had objections to the state of affairs in the colonies but, again, like many, his objections were not to the British Empire itself but rather with the subordinate place of the American colonies within it. He believed that the British constitutional monarchy as it was then, was the best system of government in the world and that the British, be they in the home islands or North America, were the best people in the world. He felt that the only problem was that the British subjects in America were not governed in the same way as the British subjects in Great Britain and that if this inequality could be resolved, there would be no further animosity. Indeed, he was convinced that, like himself, most Americans were loyal to the British Crown and were only being driven to disobedience by agitators in America and thoughtless policies on the part of the Parliament in London. In 1774 he had sufficient prominence and popularity to be chosen as a member of the Continental Congress (or Philadelphia Congress) which had no validity as far as the British were concerned but which would be the primary governing body of the colonies during the War for Independence.

In this capacity, Galloway proposed something quite similar to what Benjamin Franklin had previously suggested at the time of the French and Indian War known as the "Albany Plan" ("Join or Die") which was for the unification of the North American colonies within the British Empire. This proposal became known as the "Galloway Plan" or "Galloway's Plan for Union" which called for what would later be termed "Dominion status" in which the American colonies would unite together under a common colonial government but still under the sovereignty of the British Crown. Effectively, under the Galloway Plan, the American colonies would become a self-governing, autonomous partner of Great Britain within the British Empire. The colonial assemblies would appoint representatives to a parliament of their own which would be on equal terms with the parliament in London and would be presided over by a President-General appointed by the King. The American parliament would have jurisdiction over all domestic affairs, including taxation, but the parliaments in both Britain and America would each have veto power over what the other passed so that neither could impose any action detrimental to the other. The British Empire would thus become an Anglo-American partnership of a sort.

Unfortunately for Galloway, Massachusetts enacted an anti-British boycott one month before his proposal came up for a vote which was a boon for the radicals and put moderates such as himself at a clear disadvantage. Nonetheless, in October of 1774, when his plan was voted on, it was defeated only by a single vote with five in favor and six opposed. Worse still, the radicals were worried that this would display a lack of resolve on their part in dealing with the British and so it was agreed that his proposal and the very narrow vote on it, be stricken from the record. Understandably outraged by this, and seeing little hope for a compromise, Galloway left Congress and made his plan public himself the following year. He could see that there would only be two choices allowed to any American colonist; to support the King or to support total independence and, forced to choose, he would take the side of the King. His objections to British tax policy and trade regulations was not so great as his fundamental loyalty to the hereditary monarch of his nation. In late 1776, early 1777 he joined General Howe and the British army in the campaign to take Philadelphia. Once accomplished, he was made chief of police and head of civil affairs, earning praise for his administrative talents and his organization of loyalist militia forces.

The following year, when the British abandoned Philadelphia, he withdrew with them to New York and from there, with his daughter, took ship to England where he became a prominent advocate for the American loyalists and an adviser to the British government on American affairs. Still thinking that this view of American public opinion was the correct one, he asserted to the British authorities that there were many American loyalists in the colonies who could be instrumental in bringing the conflict to a successful conclusion. His advice may well have influenced the southern campaign in which the British had counted heavily on an outpouring of support and volunteers from American loyalists. In the meantime, the same year he left for England, 1778, the Pennsylvania Assembly convicted him of high treason and ordered the confiscation of all his property. His wife, Grace, had stayed behind in Philadelphia in the hope of saving their property (which was actually her property rather than his) but, of course, this made no difference and she was forcibly evicted from their home. In Britain, Galloway was also called as a witness at the trial of General Howe over his conduct of the war in America in which Galloway had few positive things to say about the general. Howe, to be fair, had little positive to say of Galloway either, accusing him of meddling in military affairs during the occupation of Philadelphia.

When the war ended in defeat for the Crown forces, Galloway settled down to a quiet life in England, devoting himself to religious study and literary pursuits until his death in 1803. His plan has mostly been forgotten today but it is notable that something similar would ultimately become quite common within the British Empire as the colonies of Canada and Australia united to become self-governing dominions in due time. Would his plan have worked? It would certainly have worked in keeping the English-speaking peoples united but as we can see across the British Commonwealth today, may well have fallen victim to the liberal laxity which has affected so many others. Yet, the retention of the American colonies within the British Empire may well have brought about a dramatic change in world history in a myriad of ways one can only speculate about today. That, we can never know, but it remains true today that the view of Galloway, and the basis of his plan, that the people of one language and one nationality should be united, are still not without supporters even while so many push against the notion, just as they did in his own time.

The Crimes of King George III

It was on this day in 1761 that Their Majesties King George III and Queen Charlotte of the United Kingdom of Great Britain had their formal coronation. A long-reigning and much beloved monarch who saw his kingdoms through many perils, one would expect King George III to be remembered as one of the greatest of British or English monarchs. He was not severe or lavish, was hard working, prudent and conservative of public funds. He was a devoted father and husband who, unlike his predecessors, never took a mistress. He was a God-fearing man devoted to his duty and who took his obligations to his people seriously.

However, as we know, King George III is not remembered for any of that but rather as the man who "lost" America for the British Empire. If he is ever remembered for anything else it is most likely for being replaced by a regent at the end of his life on grounds of insanity. However, King George III is most remembered as the horrible "tyrant" whose alleged villainy was so great as to force otherwise peaceful and loyal colonists to take up arms against him and ultimately overthrow his authority in the thirteen colonies to establish the United States of America. As part of the propaganda war that ensured this would be the lasting impression of the conflict, the American Declaration of Independence, mostly remembered for a single silly and disingenuous line, included a long list of the "crimes" and examples of the terrible tyranny of King George III which justified the American War for Independence.

Most people, in either America or Britain, do not remember this part of the Declaration or think much on it and that is certainly all to the benefit of the American 'revolutionaries' as their laundry list of the King's misdeeds would certainly not stand up to scrutiny, certainly today. Of course, that is reason enough for us to do exactly that right here and now.

"Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
Start by casting yourself as the poor, unjustly maligned victim and the King as a horrible tyrant, no one can say that Mr. Jefferson was overly subtle in his style. Upon reflection, one might ask that if the King was so persistent in his crimes, his "repeated injuries and usurpations", why no one in any other part of the empire or his three kingdoms had risen in rebellion before? Needless to say, the word "Facts" should be taken with more than a grain of salt.

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only."
That certainly sounds bad but I cannot be the only one to also find it so vague as to be meaningless. What is being said here basically amounts to, 'he refused to allow good laws to pass and made life inconvenient for legislators'. Care to give any specific examples Tom? No?

"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures."
This, again, I can only find humorous. It really makes the legislators seem a bit on the lazy side doesn't it?

"He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within."
I must confess, I love the description of opposing the King, "with manly firmness". Jefferson, however, is probably offending a great many homosexuals, feminists and trans-gender people with lines like that. Tsk, tsk, tsk Tom...

"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."
Aha! Here we come to some real tyranny; the King was trying to cut back on immigration! The horror! The horror! Of course, as soon as the U.S.A. was established, one of the first laws passed was the Immigration and Naturalization Act but no one likes to talk about that nowadays as it restricted citizenship to 'free White persons of good character'. Very problematic these days obviously.

"He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
Doesn't the second complaint rather contradict the first here? And as for the third, before you feel too sorry for the colonists remember that most of these "swarms of Officers" were assaulted, had their homes destroyed and were driven out of town by the patient and long-suffering colonists when they tried to to their jobs.

"He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
Yeah, who does he think he is, commander-in-chief of the military or something?!

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:"
Yes, he sent troops in to Boston after an armed mob destroyed a huge amount of private property and then allowed a quite fair trial for the soldiers who killed some civilians who were attacking them as part of another angry mob. Far from being a "mock Trial" Tom, one of your own cohorts acted as their lawyer because he believed they were in the right! And he did not cut off trade with all parts of the world unless you mean his closing of the port of Boston which, again, was done in retaliation to mob violence which the local authorities refused to prosecute or even apologize for.

"For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies"
Yes, this is true. It refers to Canada in which, via the Quebec Act, the King allowed the French Canadians to keep their own legal system and allowed them to freely practice their own religion. So what Jefferson is complaining about here is that the King was allowing French Catholics in Canada to administer their province as they wished and to have freedom of religion. What a creep, huh?

"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."
Again, yes, when you started behaving like criminals instead of loyal subjects, he started treating you as such. Yes, he started waging war on you *after* you killed his soldiers, assaulted his administrators and ransacked the property of those who were loyal to him.

"He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands."
Yes, he is fighting a war, a war which the colonists started by, I repeat myself, firing on government troops. As for the part about mercenaries, virtually every army in Europe employed mercenary regiments just as the United States itself would and still does.

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
Here Jefferson is referring to the offer of freedom to any African slaves who escaped their bondage and fought for the King, so Jefferson is blaming the King for any potential slave rebellion. I doubt many would sympathize these days. He also will not win many admirers by referring to the Native Americans as "the merciless Indian Savages". But, it is true, most Indians fought for the British as the King had recognized their right to all the land west of the Appalachians to the Mississippi River, lands which the Americans wanted to colonize. So, again, Jefferson is not entirely wrong here. Those merciless Indian savages did indeed fight for their land not to be taken from them.

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
Not true actually, the colonial petitions for redress, of which there were few, basically amounted to, 'give us what we want or we will break the law and do it anyway and it will be your fault if we do'. It should be clear though why Jefferson was so vague in most of his accusations as, on the rare occasion in which he does give a specific policy or at least be clear enough for the reader to divine what he is referring to, the colonists come off looking more like petulant jerks that "a free people". The King wanted British subjects to buy British goods, to support the British rather than the Dutch economy. He allowed French Catholics to worship as they pleased and he gave Indians the lands they occupied to avoid future trouble with them. When the colonists destroyed property or killed soldiers, the King responded to uphold law and order. That is basically what all of this comes down to but, when all of the Jeffersonian 'spin' is removed, the King doesn't look like such a tyrant, does he?

The Counts America Owes

Everyone knows that success has many fathers but failure is always an orphan. That is as true for the war that won the independence of the United States of America as with anything else. True enough, there are plenty of men without whose contributions the American rebellion would have ended in failure (hurrah for the Tories!) and I have always said that General George Washington deserves his share of credit in as much that, as the commander of the Continental Army, he would have been blamed if it had ended in tears. Therefore, the inevitable and theoretical credit must go to him where it is usually attributed. The actual and immediate credit, however, I would argue must lie with two men who were foreign to American soil and subjects of His Most Christian Majesty King Louis XVI of France. Most historians know the facts about these men and their contribution, however it simply would not do for a (pretended) egalitarian republic to heap all appropriate praise for the independence of America on two aristocrats from a Church-backed absolute monarchy. It doesn't exactly fit the preferred narrative.

The first worthy is Lieutenant General Jean Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, Comte de Rochambeau. He was born in 1725 and was originally a cavalry officer, winning recognition for his heroism at Minorca during the French & Indian War. He had never served in America and spoke no English when he was chosen to command the French expeditionary forces sent to aid the rebel American colonists in their war against Britain. Although he most often does not get credit for it, the fact is that it was the Comte de Rochambeau who proposed and pushed for the move south to take on the British and loyalist forces under Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia. George Washington was more intent on fighting General Clinton for New York, no doubt out of a desire to make up for his earlier, repeated humiliations in that colony at the hands of Howe. With the French army, Washington had the British outnumbered 3-to-1 and was looking for payback but it was Rochambeau who urged the move south, against Cornwallis, as a prize that would be easier to obtain and he was proven completely correct in that regard. As well as being responsible for the basic strategy, the forces under the Comte de Rochambeau also played a significant part in the campaign, contributing just as much, if not more, to the final outcome than Washington's army had. Had he been an American rather than a French aristocrat, he would almost without question be given full credit for the victory over the British at Yorktown.

The other French count who deserves credit for the part he played in securing American independence is Rear Admiral Francois Joseph Paul, Comte de Grasse. He was born in 1722 and was a huge, blunt talking, no nonsense sailor with a healthy respect for the Royal Navy of Britain and an understanding of their ways as he had been taken prisoner by them in 1747. He too was a very experienced warrior, having held commands in the Mediterranean and Caribbean Seas prior to his service in American waters. It was the Comte de Grasse who brought 3,000 additional French troops to the front at Yorktown and most critically, he won the Battle of Chesapeake which secured French naval domination of the waters off Virginia, closing Cornwallis in and preventing him from being evacuated by sea or being reinforced by General Clinton in New York. This was just as if not more decisive than any engagement fought on land during the campaign for as long as the Royal Navy held control of the coast (as they were accustomed to), no matter how bad things got, Cornwallis could always slip away to carry on the fight. Comte de Grasse eliminated any other options for the British and they had no choice but to stay bottled up in Yorktown, getting pounded by enemy guns and having their redoubts stormed one by one until they were finally forced to surrender.

We are rapidly approaching the Fourth of July in the United States and Americans will be celebrating the Declaration of Independence and all that goes with it. Yet, all too often we forget that the actual declaration did not really accomplish anything, it was heavy on "enlightenment" progressive rhetoric and contained more than a few outright lies about the British monarch but simply declaring independence does not make independence a fact. That independence that was declared on July 4, 1776 had to be fought for and would not become real, like it or not republicans, until His Britannic Majesty King George III saw fit to accept it. Declaring independence is easy, winning independence is the hard part and that independence would in all likelihood not have been won were it not for the Comte de Rochambeau and the Comte de Grasse, the first in taking the main war effort to Virginia to smash Cornwallis and the second in closing off any avenue of escape or help so that the smashing could be done. Anyone grateful for the existence of the United States of America should be grateful for the service of these two French aristocrats.

The Royal Response to American Independence

The news of the outbreak of the American War for Independence was received in the royal courts of Europe in a way that many today would probably be shocked to know. Post-war perspectives have caused many to take a slanted if not outright false view of how the conflict, and the new country it created, was viewed by the crowned heads of Europe. Most of the major monarchs of Europe actually took a favorable view of the American rebels, each for their own reasons based on the fashionable political trends of the time, their own national histories and, of course, realpolitik. Some of those most would expect to embrace the American cause, actually did not and, contrarily, some of those who did make common cause with the Patriots of America, did so reluctantly and with great misgivings about the whole affair. Simplistic thinking about the period will doubtless cause many to be surprised to know how even the British Royal Family looked at the rebel colonists in North America. It was not what most people probably assume.

King George III

Starting with the royals most affected, the British, the first thing that must be done is to set aside the entire list of crimes cited as “evidence” of the tyranny of King George III in the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson. It is as close as one could possibly get to being completely untrue. King George III was not a tyrant, never acted against the wishes of his government and never overstepped his legal authority. It was only that the King presented an easier target to vilify than the nameless, faceless members of Parliament who passed the legislation which the American colonists objected to. In fact, if one reads his own words on the subject, King George III was at every step leading up to the outbreak of war, always anxious to avoid conflict and resolve the matter peacefully. He was prepared to be reasonable but certainly felt that what was being asked of the colonists was not at all out of order. Once violence did erupt, however, he was the most committed in all of Britain to continuing the war until victory was secured. He threatened, more than once, to abdicate rather than accept American independence or to accept the Whig party into government who would push for such a thing.

As the war went on, the King became understandably bitter and voiced contemptuous views of the American populace, despite the fact that two-thirds were active or passive loyalists. However, as he said to John Adams, the first U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain, while he was the last to agree to the independence of America, he was indeed the first to extend a hand of friendship to the new nation and work to retain it as part of the British trade network and commercial empire. What many would find more surprising though, is that the King’s son and heir, the Prince of Wales and future King George IV, was allied with a political faction that practically cheered every American victory in the war. This group was backed by the Prince of Wales and focused around Charles Fox, the Marquis of Rockingham and Edmund Burke. Members of this group even took to wearing the colors of Washington’s Continental Army to show their solidarity with the American cause and most of these men were wealthy and/or aristocratic which says something about just how “revolutionary” the war in America really was. Fox and Burke would later part company over the much more revolutionary war in France with Fox supporting the revolutionaries and Burke staunchly opposing them.

Ben Franklin meets the King & Queen of France

Of course, no monarchy was more central to the American cause than was the Kingdom of France. Indeed, France would prove the most critical in not only securing the existence of the United States but also establishing the first political divisions in the new country. King Louis XVI was the first foreign ruler to recognize the independence of the United States and then formed a military alliance with the Americans against the British. Yet, at the same time, King Louis XVI was, by almost all accounts, very reluctant to ally his country with the United States. As a Church-backed, absolute monarch brought up to believe in the “Divine Right of Kings”, helping largely republican rebels fight against their own King was very troubling for him. However, as his family had a history of supporting the Stuarts, there were plenty of people to assure him that King George III was no legitimate monarch anyway and anything they could do to weaken the British Empire would be beneficial for France. As it turned out, it gained France very little but the French had been nursing a grudge for some time since their defeat in the French and Indian War and previous conflicts at the hands of the British.

In the end, no one did more than King Louis XVI of France to ensure victory for the United States in the War for Independence. Many Americans were truly grateful for this and never forgot it. Portraits of King Louis appeared in taverns around the country and the town of Marietta, Ohio was named in honor of Queen Marie Antoinette. However, one problem was that the most Francophile of the American founders were also the most radically republican. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, for example, were extremely pro-French but very anti-monarchy, though they did effectively make common cause with Napoleon Bonaparte. On the other side of the political divide, the more conservative Americans such as George Washington remained essentially Anglophiles and never forgot that the French had been pursuing their own interests rather than being truly committed to the American cause. Washington was convinced that the King Louis had been more the enemy of England than a friend of America and so he too, after independence, was quick to be friendlier with the British than the French.

King Louis XVI

Ultimately, the only major impact the war in America had on France was in putting even more strain on an economy that was threadbare to begin with. Ideologically, the two sides had little in common. Some of the French officers who fought in America embraced the Revolution, others remained royalists. The death of King Louis XVI gave the U.S. the opportunity to break off the previous agreements made with France and the first foreign war the U.S. fought, known as “The Undeclared War” was against republican France. George Washington was adamant that the French Revolutionary spirit not be allowed to spread to America. Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was quick to embrace the French Revolution and is the one who purchased the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon. Another Francophile, President James Madison, was the one who started the War of 1812 with Great Britain at a time to coincide with Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, effectively putting America on the same side as Napoleonic France. Unfortunately for Madison, the war was a disaster for the United States. As this illustrates though, the earliest political divisions in the United States were centered on one faction that favored friendship with Britain and another that favored friendship with France. Sadly, none had much time for King Louis, one side because he was French and another because he was a king.

The other monarch which, after France, contributed the most to the eventual American victory was King Carlos III of Spain. His reaction to the war in America was very much similar to that of his cousin in France. Being one of the “Enlightened Despots”, he too was supportive of the American push for representative government, welcomed the colonies being able to trade outside the British Empire and was also anxious to recoup previous Spanish losses to Britain from past conflicts. Yet, he too was rather hesitant about coming to the assistance of the Americans. Unlike France, the Kingdom of Spain still possessed a massive empire in the Americas, stretching from roughly the modern Canadian border to the southern tip of what is now Chile and Argentina. King Carlos III was less concerned about the cost involved as he was that some of his own colonial subjects might try to follow the example of the British-American colonists.

King Carlos III

As it turned out, such fears were unfounded as the Spanish, unlike the French, took a more national as opposed to political view of the conflict. They tended to regard the American colonists as British, regardless of what flag flew over them, and never expected there to be long-lasting animosity between the British and Americans. King Carlos III viewed the British Empire in North America as a threat to his own colonial domains and thus an American victory would divide the forces of the English-speaking world while those of the Spanish-speaking world would still be united under the Spanish Crown. So it was that he entered the conflict as an ally of France rather than the United States directly and rather than sending ships and soldiers to fight alongside the Americans, as the French did, waged his own parallel war against Great Britain which proved very successful, regaining Minorca, Florida and control of most of the gulf coast. The recapture of Gibraltar was the only Spanish operation that did not end in victory for King Carlos III.

Prince Willem V

The other major European power that came to the aid of the Americans, with both recognition and joining in the war against Britain was The Netherlands or, as it was known at the time, the United Provinces. This, however, represents a very different case from France and Spain which had monarchs who were reluctant to help the Americans but eventually came around to giving the United States absolutely vital assistance to the winning of the ultimate victory. The Netherlands was a republic at the time but one which was divided between a more republican faction and a more royalist faction known as the “Orange Party” for their wish to see the Prince of Orange given more power and ultimately to become outright monarch of The Netherlands. The republican faction was whole-heartedly sympathetic to the American cause, for both political and business reasons. American colonists boycotting British goods had been the best of customers to the Dutch merchant class and they were very hostile to the British and the competition in trade the British Empire represented. The Prince of Orange, Willem V, however, took the opposite position. He had succeeded his father as Stadtholder in 1766 and was very much supportive of the British and King George III. The anti-Orange faction had the power and the Dutch government recognized the United States and went to war with Britain but it was very much against the wishes of Prince Willem V who did everything he could to hinder efforts to help the Americans.

Frederick the Great

If it seems surprising that the leading royal figure in a country allied with the United States would be so hostile to it, one might find it even more surprising just how friendly toward the American cause the very absolutist and militaristic King of Prussia was. Britain had traditionally been an ally of Prussia and the attitudes of America certainly did not seem to be aligned with the attitudes of Prussia. However, as with others, America benefited from the intense hatred so many monarchs had for the British. King Frederick the Great of Prussia had previously had Britain as his only major European ally. Yet, when new governments disengaged Britain from the continent to focus on colonial expansion, Frederick the Great took this as a betrayal and never forgave the British for it. He viewed the British as false, duplicitous and thoroughly treacherous and never made much secret of his sentiments. He was, of course, not in a position to help the Americans or go to war with Britain but he nonetheless was jubilant to see Britain lose the largest portion of her empire (as it existed at the time) and cheered every American success. He was so exuberant that he later sent George Washington an ornate sword with a greeting, in his words, “from the oldest general in Europe to the greatest general in the world” which shows that “Old Fritz” was letting his enthusiasm for the American cause run into extreme exaggeration. No doubt this zealous moral support also played a part in some Americans considering the Prussian monarch’s younger brother, Prince Heinrich, as a potential ‘King of America’.

In the neighboring Kingdom of Denmark, a major power at the time, the war in America coincided with a political division between proponents of absolutism and constitutional government as well as a lack of royal leadership due to the insanity of King Christian VII. There was widespread support for the Americans among the Danish public and even more in the Danish colonies which, of course, was a cause for concern by those in the government. The outpouring of support in the press for the Americans was also embarrassing given that Denmark was, at the time, allied with Great Britain. Those pushing for constitutional government naturally sympathized with the Americans but there was also economic realities to consider. Denmark was, for example, a major importer of rice from South Carolina and this caused considerable resentment against the British for the Royal Navy blockade of the American coast. These facts had an impact on Danish popular opinion but it likely would have amounted to nothing more were it not for another royal friend of the United States which was Empress Catherine the Great of Russia.

Catherine the Great

Here again was a case of sympathy for America being driven by a hatred of the British. King George III had tried to enlist the Russians as allies on more than one occasion as well as trying to hire Russian troops as mercenaries to fight the American rebels. The Russian Empress responded to all such requests with an adamant “nyet!” The feeling was largely mutual as King George III remarked about how uncivil the Russians were in their response and spoke condescendingly of them as a barbaric and uncivilized people. The Russian Empress was likewise never slow to speak out about how much she detested King George III and found fault with all he did. While being careful to suppress any American political ideas in Russia, Empress Catherine was determined to do all she could, short of war, to hinder Britain and aid the United States. The Russians really played a major part in making sure that Britain was diplomatically isolated while American envoys were able to freely make appeals across the continent.

It was the Russian Empress who organized the League of Armed Neutrality to thwart the Royal Navy blockade of the American colonies as well as other countries at war with Britain. Many of these countries had little to no trade with the American colonies directly but they did do a great deal of business with France and Spain. Ultimately the League included Denmark (and Norway), Sweden (and Finland), Prussia, Austria, Portugal, Naples and even Turkey along with Russia. The Netherlands was set to join but the British acted first, seizing a Dutch ship and prompting The Netherlands to declare war on Britain, making them a participant in the war rather than a neutral. This made life very difficult for the Royal Navy which was trying to enforce a blockade but was hindered by the threat of making enemies out of all of these neutrals if they did so. As a result, of all the neutral powers of the time, the Russian Empire was doubtless the most helpful to the Americans in ultimately winning the independence of the United States. As it happens, when that came about, Empress Catherine derided King George III for recognizing American independence, which she had done all she could to help, saying that she would sooner commit suicide than to grant such recognition to any rebellious subjects of her own.

Emperor Joseph II

For a fledgling republic, the struggling United States actually had more monarchial support than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland did. However, while still neutral, one major monarchy that was most sympathetic to Britain was one many might find surprising; Imperial Austria (nominally the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, but by that time *very* nominally). The Empress-Mother, Maria Theresa, wrote to King George III, offering him moral support and Emperor Joseph II was even more vociferous, saying to the British ambassador in Vienna that, “The cause in which England is engaged…is the cause of all sovereigns who have a joint interest in the maintenance of due subordination…in all the surrounding monarchies.” Just as the American cause was fairly popular with elites in Britain, it may surprise some that a monarch known as “the People’s Emperor” was so opposed to the idea of American independence but Joseph II, while regarded as an “Enlightened Despot” was very much a royal absolutist and feared that the example of America might be followed by people in his own domains, particularly the Austrian Netherlands, what is today Belgium.

In this, Emperor Joseph II was not wrong as toward the end of his reign the Catholics and liberals in that land came together to depose him and declare independence as “The United States of Belgium”, the first bid for Belgian independence which Joseph’s brother and successor later suppressed. However, realpolitik also played a part in the Austrian attitude toward America and the rather cold reception that John Adams received when he came to Vienna to make the case for the Patriot cause. The Austrians had been trying to improve relations with Great Britain so as to isolate the Kingdom of Prussia which Emperor Joseph II had fought, unsuccessfully, early in his reign. However, the issue was complicated by family politics. The Emperor’s little sister, Marie Antoinette, was, after all, Queen of France which was America’s strongest ally. That marriage had been arranged to bind together France and Austria and the last thing the Austrian Emperor wanted was for Britain and France to be at war, since he desired friendship with both.

Emperor Joseph II

The result of all this was that while Emperor Joseph II was the most supportive of King George III among the crowned heads of Europe, he was prevented from taking any actual steps to help him and rather urged the British and French to make peace but that peace could only be obtained along with American independence so it really placed the Hapsburg monarch in an impossible situation from his point of view as the circumstances came together to favor the Franco-American cause at the expense of Britain. Another monarch, as he was at the time, was Pope Pius VI who had been a consistent critic of Emperor Joseph II (the effects of which were seen in Belgium to be sure) and while he certainly was opposed to many of the principles behind the American war, regarding it mostly as a feud between Protestants and, in the end, could hardly be very critical considering that the biggest foreign supporters of the United States were the Catholic kingdoms of France and Spain, whose support the Pope needed particularly since his relations with the Austrian Emperor had been rather strained. Catholic Poland sent soldiers of fortune to help the Americans and the Church had long supported the Irish in opposition to Great Britain (though the French Revolution would change attitudes dramatically on that front). It was at the invitation of the papacy, interestingly enough, that papal ports were opened to American trade in 1784 and the Pope later gave permission for the establishment of a U.S. consulate in Rome in 1797.

So it was that, among the crowned heads of the world, the United States of America was met with more support than opposition. King George III did not want it to come to war but, of course, pressed the fight zealously when it did. King Louis XVI of France and King Carlos III of Spain, after some initial hesitation, backed the Americans and gave absolutely vital support to the winning of independence for the United States. The Dutch backed the Americans though the Prince of Orange supported Britain, the King of Prussia cheered the Americans and the Empress of Russia worked to isolate Britain and make the United States acceptable in the halls of power across the Old World. The Austrian Emperor sympathized with Britain but more than anything else wanted there to be peace between Britain and France which could only benefit America. King Gustav III of Sweden was quick to recognize the United States, making Sweden the first neutral power to do so. Part of the reason for this was what was politically fashionable at the time but realpolitik proved the bigger factor as did the extent of the unpopularity of the British. British success had garnered a great deal of jealousy, past British victories left many thirsty for revenge and British policies had alienated former friends such as Prussia.

St Mark's republic

The Europe of the 18th Century was, of course, a very monarchial place but not exclusively so. What is just as interesting as the outpouring of royal support for the fledgling United States is the reaction of the European republics. The Dutch, as mentioned, gave staunch support but, interestingly enough, the oldest significant republic in Europe did not. That was, of course, the “Most Serene Republic of Venice” in Italy. The Venetian ambassadors in France and Spain met with the American envoys but, perhaps surprisingly, the Republic of Venice refused to recognize the independence of the United States or to have any formal correspondence with the Americans whatsoever. One effort at formal communication was made, by the Americans, but this was ignored by the Venetian government. The Republic of Genoa did finally come around to recognizing the United States, after independence was won, in 1791 but the Republic of Venice never did the same. There has been some speculation as to the reason for this but the most likely reasons are the opposition of Austrian Emperor Joseph II to American independence and the extent of trade ties that Venice had with the British Empire. In any event, we are presented with the rather humorous fact that an American Patriot like John Adams had more praise for the government of the British Empire than he did for the Republic of Venice, the oldest significant republic in Europe.

Washington at the raising of the Grand Union flag

What does all of this boil down to? At the time of the outbreak of the American War, Britain seemed to be on top of the world and one thing that always accompanies the top spot is the fact that there is no shortage of those wishing to bring you down and who are quick to blame every misfortune of their own on your success. Spain, France, Germany, and more recently the United States itself has been in this position and faced similar opposition. The war in America offered all the major powers other than Britain an opportunity to advance themselves or at least see British power reduced and supporting the United States was the way to make that happen. If this seems to reveal a glaring lack of solidarity on the part of the monarchies of the world, one should also keep in mind that because monarchy was the dominant form of government in the late 18th Century, most did not suspect that the institution itself was in any great danger. The Americans, moreover, were not behaving as the French later would. King George III faced the threat of a loss of territory and prestige, not the loss of his throne or his life and there was no drive to wage an ideological war against the monarchies of the world, again, as the French would later do. On the contrary, the American leaders tailored their message to its audience and actively sought recognition and support from the crowned heads of Europe. As we have seen, they overwhelmingly received it. And, for those monarchs who looked with disdain on the republican Americans, they were confident enough in the superiority of monarchy to assume that the American experiment would soon fail on its own while they, upheld by the hand of God, would endure forever. That, however, is another story for another time.

The Kingdom of Spain in the American War for Independence

In any history of the American War for Independence the emphasis tends to be placed on the fight in what became the United States, which is probably because of how powerful the U.S.A. eventually became. However, the British Empire was the strongest power in the world at the time and, unfortunately, one thing that comes with being on top is that everyone else is looking to take you down (something modern day Americans should be able to understand very well). Before it was all over, the Kingdom of France, the Kingdom of Spain and the United Provinces of the Netherlands had all decided to take advantage of the opportunity the war in America presented by going to war against Great Britain. Even the Empress of Russia was quick to recognize the United States as they too, at that time, had interest in North America. While the focus is usually on battlefields along the American east coast, the fighting actually carried over to the periphery of the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean, Europe and even as far away as India. While the contribution of the French, at least in regards to the fighting in North America, is fairly well known, the part played by the Kingdom of Spain is seldom mentioned.

King Carlos III

At the time of the outbreak of rebellion in the British American colonies, Spain was under the rule of His Catholic Majesty King Carlos III, who came to the Spanish throne in 1759, already famous for his conquest of Sicily and Naples in southern Italy. He brought about a revival in Spanish fortunes with his, sometimes positive and sometimes negative, style of “enlightened absolutism”. So, he fostered greater freedom of speech, opinion and inquiry, private property rights, more freedom of religion and a greater emphasis on science and practical knowledge in education. He lowered taxes, promoted trade and business, furthered industrialization, which were good things, but he also banned bullfighting, considering it a brutal and barbaric sport, and expelled the Jesuits from Spain, partly due to accusations against them and probably influenced by a dispute he had with the Pope over his gaining of the crown of Naples and Sicily. Nonetheless, he was a devout Catholic which no one ever doubted. When war broke out in the British colonies, King Carlos III was, like King Louis XVI of France, reluctant to look favorably on the rebel colonists for fear that his own colonial subjects might follow their example but he was ultimately persuaded to join their cause.

King Carlos III had signed the “Family Compact” with the Kingdom of France and the results of the relatively recent French and Indian War had made him very nervous about the British. He feared that the British Empire was growing too powerful, that it would upset the balance of power in Europe and that a victorious Britain would conquer the Spanish colonies in America just as they had taken Canada from France in the last war. On May 8, 1779 the Kingdom of Spain declared war on Great Britain and Ireland, though as an ally of the Kingdom of France rather than the fledgling United States outright. The goal of the King of Spain was to weaken Britain on the world stage and recover lands that the Spanish had lost to Britain in the French and Indian War. His troops did not fight alongside the American colonists as the French did but the Spanish declaration of war had a major impact on the American cause. It greatly enlarged the scope of the conflict for Britain, removed the comfortable supremacy the British had enjoyed in the naval war and forced the British military to mostly go on the defensive in America while they redeployed forces to guard against attacks from the Spanish around the world.

The Anglo-Spanish conflict got off to a good start for Spain when, in September of 1779, Spanish troops and Louisiana militia seized the British garrison at Baton Rouge, taking them by surprise as they had no idea as yet that Britain and Spain were at war. A large Franco-Spanish fleet, filled with soldiers, had actually assembled that summer with the intention of invading Britain but, while they gave the British authorities a good scare, they ultimately called off the expedition. They were confident that they could defeat the British and land their forces but were not so confident that they could maintain naval supremacy and feared losing their whole invasion force if they were left isolated in enemy country. The longest and most intense military operation of the conflict began almost as soon as Spain issued its declaration of war which was the siege of Gibraltar. The British rushed help to the embattled garrison but it only arrived in early 1780, after the garrison had endured a brutal winter in miserable conditions. The two sides remained locked in combat in what would be the longest siege British military forces have ever endured.

Don Bernardo de Galvez

On the North American mainland, the leading Spanish official was the Governor of Louisiana, Don Bernardo de Gálvez. His mission was to secure Spanish control of both banks of the Mississippi River (of which the seizure of Baton Rouge was a good start) and to reclaim for the Spanish Crown their lost province of Florida. Fortunately for Spain, Gálvez proved to be a very capable man. He had good contacts with the Americans, had sold them guns, powder and loaned them money for other supplies. He was in touch with the American leadership and, perhaps most importantly, he had an established network of spies and informants thanks to his uncle, the Spanish Minister for the Indies, so that he was quickly made aware of British activities in the Caribbean and the Gulf coast. After organizing the first cattle drive in Texas history, moving 10-15,000 head of cattle from Goliad to Louisiana to feed his army, Gálvez launched a successful offensive against the British in the region. Throughout 1779 and 1780 his Spanish troops captured Natchez, Louisiana and Mobile in what is now Alabama.

At the same time, Gálvez was the primary source of munitions and supplies for the American expedition into the Midwest led by George Rogers Clark. The British had few military resources in the region but Governor Hamilton worked to rally the Indians to supplement his small force of redcoats to deal with the Americans as well as to attack Spanish outposts in the region. In 1780 a force of around a thousand Indians under British command attacked St Louis, Missouri, Fort San Carlos, defended by around 300 Spanish troops, mostly militia, under Captain Fernando de Leyba, the lieutenant governor. Although greatly outmatched, the Spanish had worked to fortify the area and with the support of the local French population they managed to repel the Indian attack and so secured Spanish control of the upper Louisiana territory from the British for the rest of the war. The following year the Spanish launched a counter-raid into British territory taking Fort St Joseph in what is now Niles, Michigan, probably the farthest north that Spanish forces ever fought in the Americas.

Capt-Gen of Guatemala Matias de Galvez

The British, however, did not rest solely on the defensive although they were limited due to the large number of enemies they had to guard against. In 1780 an expedition was planned by the Governor of Jamaica to use limited resources to achieve a dramatic result. His plan was to attack the Spanish in Central America, moving up the San Juan River to Lake Nicaragua to attack Granada, cutting Spanish America in half and giving Britain access to the Pacific Ocean. The Spanish had only a minimal military presence in the area and would be vastly outnumbered by the British led by Colonel John Polson in charge of the land forces and a young Lt. Horatio Nelson commanding the naval escort. In April they attacked Fort San Juan (aka Fortress Immaculate Conception). The Spanish held off superior forces for some time but finally surrendered, however poor planning meant that the British began to run out of vital supplies and tropical disease took a heavy toll with most of the Blacks and Miskito Indians they had recruited to provide the bulk of their manpower abandoning the expedition. In the end, the British failed to reach Lake Nicaragua and the whole expedition was abandoned and thereafter deemed the costliest failure of the entire war with Spain.

That same year, Don Bernardo de Gálvez made an effort to take Pensacola, Florida, the last major prize yet to be won in his campaign along the gulf coast. However, a hurricane intervened and ruined the expedition. 1781 was to be different. Of course, students of U.S. history will remember that it was in that year that the American War for Independence reached its climax with the siege of Yorktown, Virginia. Most know that the siege would not have been won without the assistance of considerable land and naval forces from the King of France but not many are aware of the Spanish contribution. Direct military assistance was not possible (nor needed obviously) but it was the Spanish who managed to raise funds amounting to 500,000 silver pesos in Havana, Cuba to buy vital supplies for the American forces and to pay the Continental Army (which had long been a huge hardship for the fledgling American government). The surrender of the British army under Lord Cornwallis was a devastating blow to the British war effort but was even worse for morale at home. It was the largest mass surrender of British troops in history up to that time and would remain so until World War I but in the aftermath Britain still held all of the most vital, strategic points in the American colonies.

Spanish troops at the siege of Pensacola

Because of the intervention of the French, Dutch and Spanish, however, Britain had more than the thirteen colonies to worry about and the people at home and certainly the politicians were weary of the conflict. Nor was it the only disaster London had to deal with. Prior to the siege of Yorktown, Gálvez had managed to reform his invasion fleet in Cuba that had been scattered by a hurricane the previous year. In February, with a force of about 7,000 men, Gálvez set out to capture the port of Pensacola. His army consisted of about 1,300 regular soldiers (including several hundred Irish exiles) as well as a great many militia from Cuba (including mixed race African-Cubans), New Orleans and Mobile. Opposing him was British General John Campbell who had 3,000 regulars but fewer troops overall with the remainder numbering only a little over 500, most of whom were Indians but including a few American loyalists as well. Gálvez conducted a classic siege operation, engineers digging trenches to advance his lines, heavy use of artillery, grenades and so on as the attackers inched ever closer to the British fortifications. Gálvez himself was wounded by enemy fire and had to turn over command to Colonel Jose de Ezpeleta.

The Spanish assault on Pensacola

The siege began on March 9, 1781 and was a long and brutal affair. General Campbell did not simply remain on the defensive but launched several attacks of his own on the Spanish lines. As time dragged on, bad weather forced the Spanish fleet to withdraw, there were supply shortages and heavy rains forced the men to fight in trenches flooded with water. Somewhat to his surprise, Gálvez was approached by a number of Indian chiefs offering to sell food to the Spanish army, even though many Indians of the same tribes were fighting with the British. Gálvez accepted their offer and also asked them if they might be able to persuade their countrymen to abandon the British and stop attacking his lines! They would have been well advised to escape as the Spanish received reinforcements, bringing their total number up to about 8,000 men, and began the formal assault on Pensacola on April 30 with a large-scale artillery bombardment. On May 8, a shell hit the magazine in Fort Crescent, killing many British troops. Spanish light infantry (los Cazadores) charged forward, through the smoke and debris and captured the fort, moving in canon to fire on the two adjacent British forts. The concentration of firepower soon convinced General Campbell that Fort George could not hold.

British troops sortie at Gibraltar

On May 10, 1781, after suffering 200 casualties, Campbell surrendered his remaining 1,100 troops along with Ft George, the Prince of Wales redoubt and all of West Florida to the Spanish. It was the crowning achievement for Don Bernardo de Gálvez and his campaign along the gulf coast. For his victory, King Carlos III promoted him to lieutenant-general and awarded him the governorship of west Florida along with that of Louisiana. All throughout the Americas, Spanish forces had been successful in their major operations while also managing to defeat British attacks on their own territory. Closer to home, the “Great Siege” of Gibraltar continued to drag on with no sign of the British defenders cracking (many of the defenders were Germans from Hanover) but the island of Minorca was a different story. From August 1781 to February 1782 a Franco-Spanish force landed on the island and besieged the main British garrison at Fort St Philip. The fight was largely a massive artillery duel but eventually British defenses were reduced and, more critically, the garrison began to fall victim to scurvy and other symptoms of privation until finally their commander agreed to surrender.

The embattled garrison was shown great honor and respect by the Franco-Spanish forces and many wept in sympathy as they marched out of the ruined fort, haggard and sickly but with their heads still held high. The commander of the Spanish forces, Louis des Balbes de Berton de Crillon, duc de Mahon (a Frenchman but serving in the Spanish army) was then chosen by King Carlos III to take charge of the still on-going efforts to regain Gibraltar. That would ultimately end in disappointment but an unauthorized Spanish attack on The Bahamas was successful, the British garrison surrendering without a fight. Gálvez had also planned an ambitious effort to conquer Jamaica but a British naval victory followed by the British agreement to end the war put a stop to this. In the subsequent Treaty of Paris, the British were able to mitigate their losses to Spain somewhat by granting more favorable terms to the Americans, such as in ceding the North American Midwest to the United States, keeping it out of Spanish hands. The Bahamas were handed back to Britain by Spain in exchange for East Florida, which, combined with the Spanish conquest of West Florida, saw the entire region restored to the Spanish Crown.

The King & Queen of Spain visit Washington's tomb

In the end, Spanish involvement in the American War for Independence had been a brilliant success. With the exception of Gibraltar, which successfully withstood the Spanish siege, King Carlos III had gained everything he had hoped to achieve by backing the United States against Great Britain. Florida had been regained, as had Minorca and while the lands east of the Mississippi had been ceded by Britain to the United States, Spanish territory had been secured from the British, the British threat to Spanish dominance of Central America had been defeated and Spanish holdings in the Caribbean escaped unscathed. Spanish attacks on British positions, particularly those which the Americans could never hope to have threatened, played a major part in the winning of independence for the United States, as did the contribution of funds, military supplies and foodstuffs to the American forces. Although not often as well remembered, the Spanish contribution was ultimately as vital to the American victory as was the more well known assistance of the Kingdom of France.

Saratoga: When Britain Lost America

The campaign which, ultimately, helped decide the fate of a continent during the American War for Independence was fought in and around upper New York in 1777. It came one year after the American declaration of independence, following a string of brilliant but inconclusive British victories. The colonial rebels were down but not out and at the end of the previous year two inconsequential but much lauded successful skirmishes had boosted rebel morale. The Crown authorities in London wanted an end to these troubles and a decisive victory for the British Empire in America. One man claimed to have a plan to bring that about and that man was General “Gentleman Johnny” Burgoyne. He was a well known figure in British high society, known for his gambling, charm and flamboyant attire. The plan he put forward, however, was not truly his own but rather an elaboration on a plan developed earlier by General Sir Guy Carleton, the governor of Canada but which Burgoyne was happy to present as his own. If it all worked out, he was confident it would effectively end the rebellion in America once and for all.

"Gentleman Johnny" Burgoyne

The plan was a basic “divide and conquer” strategy. Identifying New England as the nest of revolutionary activity in North America, Burgoyne’s plan called for cutting off the New England colonies from the middle and southern colonies so that each could be more easily pacified in turn. To do this, there was to be a three-pronged invasion of New York. General Burgoyne would lead the British army in Canada south along Lake Champlain and the upper Hudson, a smaller diversionary column would launch raids and enlist native support along the New York frontier to draw rebel attention and at the same time the main British army under General Sir William Howe would march north, up the Hudson and join forces with Burgoyne at Albany. This would cut New England off from the rest of the colonies and Burgoyne expected to benefit from the sizeable loyalist population in New York as well. It was, on the whole, an excellent plan but one that required proper coordination. General Burgoyne submitted his plan to the secretary of state for America, Lord Germain, who approved it and it was well received by King George III himself. Ever the gambler, before setting off for America, General Burgoyne wagered a sizeable sum that he would return victorious as the man who had won the war in North America.

Unfortunately for the British, the coordination the plan required was lacking from the start. General Sir Guy Carleton was offended that Burgoyne had taken credit for his plan and been appointed to command the expedition south over him. As a result, he was not prepared to be very helpful in carrying it out. Likewise, General Howe was not prepared to submit himself to being directed by an officer who was his junior and, in any event, had his own plan to march on the rebel capital at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It would be wrong, however, to blame General Howe for what was to come but rather more of the responsibility must fall on the shoulders of Lord Germain who, for some reason, authorized General Howe to move on Philadelphia which sent the main British army moving south when Burgoyne’s plan, which Germain had just authorized, depended in large part on Howe moving north to join forces with Burgoyne in Albany. There was simply no way that Howe could have done both. Upon arriving in Canada, General Burgoyne was informed that Howe was moving on Pennsylvania as well as being told that General Carleton was not prepared to assist his operation. Nonetheless, Burgoyne the gambler decided to roll the dice and set out on his campaign anyway.

Lt Col Barry St Leger

On June 17, 1777 General John Burgoyne set out from St John’s, Newfoundland bound for Lake Champlain with 7,000 troops (British regulars and Hessian mercenaries from Germany) plus artillery, 400 Native Americans and a smaller number of Canadian and American loyalist militia. Altogether, he had about 7,700 men and 138 cannon which was certainly not large enough to be completely invulnerable but which was large enough to be difficult to move through the heavily forested and mountainous regions he would have to cross. Still, Burgoyne trusted his luck and in the early stages things seemed to go well. On July 5, 1777 the Crown forces re-captured Fort Ticonderoga, the “Gibraltar of America” without firing a shot. At the same time, Lt. Colonel Barry St Leger led a detachment of British troops down Lake Ontario and surrounded Fort Stanwix on the upper Mohawk River. Just as predicted, the rebel forces responded and soon a rebel army of about 740 colonials plus 100 allied Native Americans were coming to confront his column of 500 British, loyalist and Native American soldiers. In the Battle of Oriskany, the quality of the Crown forces was shown and St Leger defeated the rebels and forced them back, inflicting heavy losses on the colonials. However, despite winning the battle, more rebel troops were on the way and Colonel St Leger had no choice but to retreat or be overwhelmed by numbers and wiped out completely

One of the Americans sent to relieve Ft Stanwix was General Benedict Arnold and he played a key part in forcing St Leger to back off, making the British believe that he had far more troops than he actually did. This news caused most of the Native Americans to abandon the British and left St Leger with no other option but to retreat. In command of the rebel troops gathering to oppose Burgoyne were generals Philip Schuyler and Horatio Gates. Neither were much to write home about. Schuyler had planned the first patriot invasion of Canada, which had failed miserably and after he lost Ft Ticonderoga without a struggle he was replaced by Horatio Gates, a man who would become known for taking credit for victories won by his subordinates before later in the war being humiliatingly defeated in the south at the Battle of Camden when he abandoned his army and ran for his life. However, Gates had some subordinates who were prepared to fight, none more so than Benedict Arnold. General Burgoyne, for his part, was starting to feel the wilderness closing in around him. His troops were woefully short of provisions and this was prompting many of his men to desert, driven by hunger. With his small army becoming ever smaller, Burgoyne decided to remedy this situation by sending a detachment of Hessian mercenaries under Lt. Colonel Friedrich Baum to raid Bennington, Vermont for supplies.

Bennington Flag

Unfortunately for the Germans, their raid ended in a confrontation with a much larger force of colonial militia on August 16. The Battle of Bennington was a clear rebel victory, the Germans suffering much heavier losses, including Colonel Baum, though his top subordinate, Lt. Colonel Heinrich von Breymann, survived the ordeal. The operation cost Burgoyne around 900 men killed or captured which he could not afford to lose, had gained him no provisions for his army and more rebel troops were moving in on his position with each passing day. North of Albany, the rebels had an army of about 6,000 men entrenched in a long line on Bemis Heights, blocking the way for the British. Burgoyne had gathered about 8,500 men by this time but that still was not enough to make a frontal attack on a fortified position. As the American line extended into some woods to the west, Burgoyne decided to target that area and flank the rebels on their left. On September 19, at the Battle of Freeman’s Farm, he sent his attack force in (the battle was named for the nearby farm of John Freeman, who happened to be a loyalist). Benedict Arnold suspected such a move and with great difficulty persuaded Gates to send some forces there and they ran into the attacking column of British General Simon Fraser.

American riflemen picked off the British officers and artillerymen but the British and German troops fought stubbornly. The battle flared off and on all day until finally, as darkness approached, the rebels retreated, leaving the field to the British. Burgoyne had won a minor victory but had lost twice as many men as the colonials doing it and had not managed to achieve his ultimate goal. His army had been reduced and every day brought more rebel troops to oppose him and his logistical situation grew ever worse. The prudent thing to do would have been to abandon the campaign and retreat to Canada immediately. However, that was not Burgoyne’s style and he decided to press on and fight it out no matter the odds against him. Unfortunately for the Crown forces, the luck of Burgoyne the gambler had finally run out. On October 7, Burgoyne mounted another attack on the American left at Freeman’s Farm with 1,650 troops but, this time, his forces were repulsed and driven back by the colonial rebels. The tide had turned and the British were forced to retreat. However, in their weakened state, it was extremely difficult to disengage and move away quickly. More and more rebel militia arrived and moved around to encircle the British army. Near Saratoga, New York General Burgoyne found himself surrounded by 17,000 men. He had only 5,000 in his own command by that time and these were weak and growing weaker.

Burgoyne surrenders to Gates

With no other option available, on October 17, 1777 General John Burgoyne surrendered his army to General Horatio Gates. The Crown forces laid down their arms as the colonial bands played “Yankee Doodle Dandy” and Burgoyne was the guest of General Gates, each toasting the enemy side. General Burgoyne was paroled and returned to England where he abandoned the Tories for the Whigs and was later made commander-in-chief of Ireland when they came to power. General Gates was lauded as the “Hero of Saratoga” in spite of the fact that he had not directed the battle and, indeed, usually opposed every move argued by Benedict Arnold that ultimately brought victory. Arnold was wounded in action but survived to become the most infamous “traitor” in American history. Ironically, if he had died on the field at Freeman’s Farm, he would have been a war hero and pigeons would be relieving themselves on statues of Arnold all over New England to this day. It would take another campaign and a disastrous, ignominious defeat before the American public learned just how overrated General Gates was as a battlefield commander. Meanwhile, far to the south, British forces under General Sir William Howe won the Battle of Brandywine and captured the rebel capital of Philadelphia but the surrender at Saratoga proved more significant.

Burgoyne’s capitulation at Saratoga marked the first time that a British army was forced to surrender to the American rebels and, indeed, it was really the first decisive victory the colonials had won. It was most decisive because it proved to the very reluctant King Louis XVI of France and his advisors that the Americans just might be able to win and this, along with the cajoling of Benjamin Franklin, at last persuaded the Kingdom of France to recognize the independence of the United States of America and form a Franco-American alliance against Great Britain. Had Burgoyne not lost at Saratoga and had the French not subsequently joined in support of the American rebels, it is almost certain that the War for Independence would have ended in a British victory, at least of some degree. In short, as much as some might not want to admit it, without the aid of the Kingdom of France there would be no United States of America and had Burgoyne not been defeated at Saratoga, there would likely have been no aid from France. It was the one American victory that ultimately mattered the most in determining the outcome of the war.