Burgoyne's Invasion of 1777: With an outline sketch of the American Invasion of Canada, 1775-76. — John Shaqi
Burgoyne's Invasion of 1777: With an outline sketch of the American Invasion of Canada, 1775-76.Drake, Samuel Adams
History
Burgoyne's Invasion of 1777: With an outline sketch of the American Invasion of Canada, 1775-76.
Drake, Samuel Adams
Burgoyne's Invasion, 1777; Canadian Invasion, 1775-1776
So many specific causes have been assigned for Burgoyne's failure, that
it is hardly practicable to discuss all of them within reasonable
limits. The simplest statement of the whole case is that he allowed
himself to be beaten in detail. It seems plain enough that any plan,
which exposed his forces to this result, was necessarily vicious in
itself. Moreover, Burgoyne wofully misestimated the resources, spirit,
and fighting capacity of his adversary. With our forces strongly posted
on the Mohawk, St. Leger's advance down the valley was clearly
impracticable. Yet such a combination of movements as would bring about
a junction of the two invading columns, at this point, was all essential
to the success of Burgoyne's campaign. To have effected this in season,
Burgoyne should have made a rapid march to the Mohawk, intrenched
himself there, and operated in conjunction with St. Leger. His delays,
attributable first, to his unwise choice of the Fort Anne route, next,
to Schuyler's activity in obstructing it, and lastly, to his defeat at
Bennington, gave time to render our army so greatly superior to his own,
that the conditions were wholly altered when the final trial of strength
came to be made.
What might have happened if Sir W. Howe had moved his large army and
fleet up the Hudson, in due season, is quite another matter. The writer
does not care to discuss futilities. In the first place, he thinks that
Burgoyne's campaign should stand or fall on its own merits. In the next,
such a movement by Howe would have left Washington free to act in the
enemy's rear, or upon his flanks, with a fair prospect of cutting him
off from his base at New York. Of the two commanders-in-chief,
Washington acted most effectively in reenforcing Gates's army from his
own. Howe could not and Carleton would not do this. From the moment that
Burgoyne crossed the Hudson, he seems to have pinned his faith to
chance; but if chance has sometimes saved poor generalship, the general
who commits himself to its guidance, does so with full knowledge that he
is casting his reputation on the hazard of a die. As Burgoyne did just
this, he must be set down, we think, notwithstanding his chivalrous
defence of himself, as the conspicuous failure of the war. And we assume
that the importance which his campaign implied to Europe and America,
more than any high order of ability in the general himself, has lifted
Burgoyne into undeserved prominence.
PRELUDE
I.
THE INVASION OF CANADA, 1775.
[Sidenote: Canada's attitude.]
England took Canada from France in 1759, and soon after annexed it to
her own dominions. Twelve years later, her despotic acts drove her
American colonies into open rebellion. England feared, and the colonies
hoped, Canada would join in the revolt against her. But, though they did
not love their new masters, prudence counselled the Canadians to stand
aloof, at least till the Americans had proved their ability to make head
against the might of England.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account