One of the key factors that influenced the outcome of the American Revolutionary War was the British strategy of dividing and conquering the colonies. The main architects of this strategy were General John Burgoyne and General Henry Clinton, who had different views on how to achieve this goal. Burgoyne favored a direct and aggressive approach, while Clinton preferred a more cautious and flexible one. In this essay, I will examine how the war might have turned out differently if either Burgoyne or Clinton had had control of British strategy during the conflict.

Burgoyne's plan was to lead an army from Canada southward along the Hudson River, cutting off New England from the rest of the colonies. He hoped to meet up with another army under Clinton, who was supposed to advance northward from New York City. However, Clinton was reluctant to abandon his base and expose himself to a possible attack from Washington's army. He also had orders from London to send troops to the south, where the British hoped to exploit the loyalist support. As a result, Clinton sent only a small detachment to assist Burgoyne, who faced increasing resistance from the American forces and militia along his route. Burgoyne's army was eventually surrounded and forced to surrender at Saratoga in October 1777, a major turning point in the war that convinced France to enter the war on the American side.

If Burgoyne had had control of British strategy during the war, he might have been able to persuade Clinton to cooperate more fully with his plan, or he might have chosen a different route for his invasion. He could have avoided some of the delays and difficulties that he encountered in his march, such as the need to transport heavy artillery and supplies through rough terrain, or the loss of men and morale due to skirmishes and desertions. He might have also been more alert to the possibility of a French intervention and taken measures to prevent it or counter it. However, even if Burgoyne had succeeded in reaching Albany and joining forces with Clinton, he would have still faced a formidable challenge in subduing New England, which was the most populous and rebellious region of the colonies. He would have also had to contend with Washington's army, which was constantly harassing the British lines of communication and supply. Moreover, Burgoyne's aggressive strategy might have alienated more colonists who were undecided or loyalist, and provoked more resistance and resentment from them.

Clinton's plan was to focus on capturing and holding strategic ports and cities along the coast, especially in the south, where he expected to find more loyalist support and less organized opposition. He also aimed to isolate and weaken Washington's army by raiding its supplies and cutting off its reinforcements. He believed that by controlling the sea lanes and major urban centers, he could eventually force the Americans to sue for peace or accept British authority. However, Clinton faced several obstacles in implementing his plan. He had limited resources and manpower, which he had to divide among several fronts and objectives. He also had to deal with conflicting orders and expectations from London, which often interfered with his decisions and plans. He also underestimated the strength and determination of the American forces and militia, who fought fiercely to defend their homes and territories. Clinton's strategy failed to achieve a decisive victory or a lasting advantage over the Americans. Instead, it led to a costly and prolonged war of attrition that drained British resources and morale.

If Clinton had had control of British strategy during the war, he might have been able to allocate his resources more efficiently and effectively, or he might have pursued a different course of action altogether. He could have concentrated his efforts on one region or objective at a time, rather than spreading them thinly across several fronts. He could have also sought more cooperation and coordination with other British commanders and allies, such as Howe, Cornwallis, or the Native Americans. He might have also been more flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances and opportunities, such as exploiting Washington's weaknesses or taking advantage of French mistakes. However, even if Clinton had achieved more success in capturing and holding key ports and cities, he would have still faced difficulty in extending his control over the vast hinterland of the colonies. He would have also had to deal with constant guerrilla warfare and sabotage from the American forces and militia, who were familiar with the terrain and enjoyed popular support. Moreover, Clinton's cautious strategy might have failed to impress or intimidate the Americans, who were determined to fight for their independence and liberty.

In conclusion, both Burgoyne's and Clinton's strategies had their strengths and weaknesses, but neither of them was able to achieve their ultimate goal of ending the American Revolution in favor of Britain. The war was influenced by many other factors besides British strategy, such as geography, politics, economics, diplomacy, ideology, leadership, morale, etc. Therefore, it is hard to say with certainty how the war might have turned out differently if either Burgoyne or Clinton had had control of British strategy during the conflict.

References:

Blackburne-Daniell A (2019) The American Revolution: A World War (Smithsonian Books)

Ferling J (2007) Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence (Oxford University Press)

Higginbotham D (1983) The War of American Independence: Military Attitudes,

Policies,

and Practice,

1763-1789 (Northeastern University Press)

Middlekauff R (2005) The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution,

1763-1789 (Oxford University Press)

Wood G (1992) The Radicalism of

the American Revolution (Vintage Books)