Frankly, the Battle of Saratoga is a terrible
point-of-divergence for an alternate history.
The whole idea of sending an army south from Canada to invade the Hudson valley was a bad one, based on the
delusional belief that a majority of the American colonists were Loyalists who
would rise up against the dominant pro-independence faction as soon as a
British army appeared. In practice, General John Burgoyne’s plan was crippled
(though he didn’t know it) by the fact that his commanding officer, General Sir
William Howe, had no intention of sending his army north to meet Burgoyne in Albany. Before leaving
for his attack on Philadelphia, Howe
specifically instructed his second-in-command, Sir Henry Clinton, not to leave
the vicinity of Manhattan.
Thus, even if everything had gone right for Burgoyne, the best he could hope
for was to reach Albany himself before winter
set in, and maintain his army there while his superiors in London decided what to do next. The next year
might bring a resumption of the march downriver or an invasion of New England;
or it might bring orders to abandon Albany and
retreat back to Canada.
As it turned out, the defeat Burgoyne suffered was always a probable event, and
it became a near-certainty after his advance was halted by Horatio Gates’ army
at the Battle of Freeman’s Farm.
So why did Sobel make the Battle of Saratoga his
point-of-divergence? Because the battle is so often called the turning point of
the American Revolutionary War. (In fact, Richard M. Ketchum titled his 1997
history of the battle Saratoga: Turning
Point of America’s Revolutionary War.) It is true that the American victory
at Saratoga
persuaded a wavering King Louis XVI to commit to a formal alliance with the
rebellious colonists. However, absent some total disaster for the Americans, a
French alliance was bound to happen eventually; the chance to detach the
American colonies from the British Empire was
too tempting for the French to pass up. Thus, Saratoga should be thought of as a milestone
rather than a turning point.
For alternate history purposes, the earlier Battle of
Trenton would make a much better point-of-divergence. Washington’s army was on the point of
disintegrating as the soldiers’ terms of enlistment were about to expire. The
attack on the Hessian garrison at Trenton
was a desperate move that depended on large amounts of luck to succeed. If Washington’s luck had
deserted him, his army would have been crushed, and he himself might have been
captured or killed, dealing a serious (perhaps even fatal) blow to the American
cause.
But the Battle of Saratoga is what I have to work with. The
trick is getting Clinton
to move north to save Burgoyne, in spite of his orders from Howe. This is how
I’ve decided to do it:
* * *
(the story picks up after the battle of Freeman’s Farm on
September 19, 1777)
Burgoyne’s campaign, which had begun with such promise, now
teetered on the brink of failure. Burgoyne’s men had expected another victory
on the order of Ticonderoga. Instead, the
rebels had fought them to a standstill. Burgoyne himself had been in the thick
of the fighting, and was under no illusions about the cost that would have to
be paid if he wished to continue the advance on Albany. At this point, he received word from
Clinton, who had written on September 12 that he intended to “make a push at
[Fort] Montgomery
in about ten days.”
Burgoyne now saw a chance to revive his original plan to
catch the rebels between two armies. However, making it happen would require a
carefully phrased request. Clinton
was neither below him nor above him in the chain of command, so Burgoyne could
neither give him orders nor request them from him. Instead, drawing on his
skills as a playwright, Burgoyne crafted an appeal for help. “My situation is
most perilous,” he wrote. “Unless I receive succor, this great Enterprise must founder, and the work of
ending this Rebellion be set back, it may be, years. I may not command it of
you, but I do most humbly beseech you
to come to my aid with what force you may.” [1]
Burgoyne had no way of knowing whether his appeal would
succeed in bringing Clinton north, but he knew that he had no other hope of
victory, so he abandoned his advance and began fortifying his forces along the
battle line that had been established on the 19th. Gates, for his
part, knew nothing of the exchange of letters between the British generals, and
he remained in his own defensive position at Bemis Heights.
The two armies continued their defensive postures for the next two and a half
weeks. One of Burgoyne’s officers later wrote, “I suppose seldom two armies
remained looking at each other so long without coming to action.” [2]
Clinton was waiting on
reinforcements from Britain
which did not arrive until the end of September. With an additional 1700 men
added to his army, he sailed up the Hudson
on October 3. Landing three days later south of Fort
Montgomery, Clinton finally received Burgoyne’s plea for
help. The dramatist’s words succeeded in persuading the ordinarily cautious Clinton to move north to Albany. Clinton’s army landed south of the
town on October 8, then bypassed the city, which had been garrisoned with 2000
rebel militia, and marched north along the west bank of the Hudson. General
Israel Putnam attempted to block Clinton’s path
on October 12, but Clinton
was able to surprise Putnam with a flank attack led by General John Vaughan,
and Putnam’s force was crushed.
Burgoyne, hearing no word from Clinton and with his own supplies running
low, attempted a flanking maneuver of his own on October 7 that ended with
another repulse by Gates’ men. Burgoyne might have managed to disengage from
Gates at this point and retreated back to Ticonderoga, but he still pinned his
hopes on Clinton’s
arrival. He led his army north across the Fishkill River
on the night of October 8-9, then dug into a fortified position.
It seemed to Burgoyne that he had lost his gamble when he
learned on October 13 that the rebels had surrounded his army. He sent one of
his men to Gates with an offer to meet the next day to discuss terms of his
surrender, and Gates agreed to a parlay the next morning. During the parlay, however,
Gates issued his own terms, which amounted to unconditional surrender. When
Burgoyne’s officers learned of the terms, they declared unanimously “that they
would rather die than accept such dishonorable conditions.” That evening,
Burgoyne learned that he had won his gamble after all when a messenger arrived
from Clinton
with word of his victory over Putnam. Putnam’s own messengers to Gates lost
their way and never made it to his headquarters at Bemis
Heights, so he remained unaware of Clinton’s approach.
Since Burgoyne had refused Gates’ surrender terms, and
declined to offer his own, the stalemate between the two armies resumed until
October 20, when the arrival of civilian refugees from the south alerted Gates
at last to Clinton’s
approach. Panicking, Gates ordered an all-out assault on Burgoyne’s position
the next morning. A series of charges by Gates’ army was thrown back, and
casualties mounted among the rebel troops. Gates’ headquarters at Bemis Heights
was overflowing with wounded men and in a state of chaos the next day when Clinton’s army broke
through his rear lines. Burgoyne, hearing the sounds of battle to the south,
roused his own men into a final attack. With hostile armies on both sides of
him, Gates fled the battlefield, and organized resistance to the British
collapsed. Most of the rebel militia melted away, returning to their homes. The
remainder of Gates’ Continental Army troops attempted to flee to Albany, which was still
garrisoned by rebel militia. Clinton was able to
pin them against the Hudson,
and on October 25 Gates accepted surrender terms offered by Burgoyne. Both
Gates and his men would be permitted to return to their homes unmolested
provided that Gates pledged never again to take up arms against the Crown.
Gates accepted, and the last organized rebel army in New York province dispersed.
___
1. Henry Mitchell. The Battle
of Saratoga-Albany (London,
1939), p. 98.
2. “The Journal of Lt. William Digby” from Joanna Brooks.
ed. The Face of War: Diaries of the Army
of Nations (London,
1956).
1 comment:
A worthy save of Sobel's scenario,
A few years ago I read a good book on the scale of social revolution in the colonies during the first two years of the revolt. It definitely shook my faith in the plausibility of FWOAN, given the painful and expensive repression that would probably have been needed to get the colonies back under control even after military resistance had collapsed.
In For All Nails I posited that Massachusetts, in particular, was under military occupation for years and only achieved home rule around 1800. (To be followed by a reoccupation by the NC central government and its mercenaries in 1841.) Sobel's idea is that the local elites managed to stay in control in 1778-9 by changing sides back to the Crown early enough, and the most extreme revolutionaries went on the Walk. Theodorick Bland was the clearest example of a Patriot leader who jumped ship in time, and I also stressed the popular resistance to him in FAN, suggesting it was not confined to what we know as WV.
The book, whatever it was, argued that the social revolution was widespread and deep, and I think this means it would have been hard to just co-opt as Sobel posits.
Post a Comment