The Battles of Saratoga: Turning Point of the Revolution

By Elaine Marie Cooper

For years in the early 1800’s, the grassy bluff overlooking the Hudson River in Schuylerville, New York, looked like an ordinary field. But the residents of the area knew differently. On October 17, 1777, it was the site where British General John Burgoyne surrendered to the American Army after the Battle of Saratoga—and the course of history changed as the Revolution began its victorious turn toward the birth of a new nation. 

While other historic locales often had granite rocks of remembrance, the site of the surrender in Saratoga was left unmarked. Several citizens of New York State bemoaned the lack of a monument and determined to erect one.

On October 17, 1856 (the 79^th anniversary of the surrender), a group of patriotic gentleman met in the town of Schuylerville to discuss a plan. After a small celebration including a banquet, the group organized a Saratoga Monument Association, with the intent to erect “a fitting memorial on the site of Burgoyne’s surrender.” 

The outbreak of the Civil War in 1861 cast a gloom over the country and suspended all planning for a Saratoga Monument. It wasn’t until 1872 that the association was able to reconvene. In the meantime, several of the association’s original trustees had died—but the dream of creating a monument had not. 

New members joined the cause and petitions were sent to the legislatures of the original thirteen colonies asking for their support. An architect designed a plan for the monument and a letter was sent to Congress requesting an appropriation of funds for this memorial to celebrate the upcoming centennial of the battle.

A petition to the Senate and assembly of the State of New York earnestly entreated support for “considerations of high patriotic duty…to commemorate the centennial anniversary of the great victory.” It was hoped that the laying of the corner stone might take place at that time.

Years of effort were finally accomplished on October 17, 1877, when a two-mile procession, replete with civic, masonic and military pageantry, marched to the site of the surrender where, in front of 40,000 viewers, the cornerstone for the Saratoga Monument was laid. 

When the ground was broken during the memorial’s construction, the architect discovered two bullets from the 1777 battle within a foot of each other. While excavating the same area, workmen dug up two cannon balls. 

Arnold's empty alcove

Finally in 1883, the completed granite obelisk rose to its full height of 155 feet. It is an impressive sight both from a distance and up close. The four sides have arched alcoves, one for each heroic American officer who led at Saratoga in 1777. The niche facing west has a statue of sharpshooter, Colonel Daniel Morgan. The eastern alcove holds a likeness of General Phillip Schuyler and the northern niche, General Horatio Gates. Only the southern alcove is empty, representing Benedict Arnold who was a hero in Saratoga but turned traitor during the American Revolution. It is often said that if Arnold had died of the wounds he received in that battle, he would today be remembered as a hero. Instead his name is synonymous with being a turncoat.

The Saratoga Monument is now overseen by the National Park Service and is open for visitors during the summer months. For more information about visiting the monument and the Saratoga battlefield, you can visit their website here: http://www.nps.gov/sara/planyourvisit/index.htm

Elaine Marie Cooper has two historical fiction books that released this year: War’s Respite (Prequel novella) and Love’s Kindling. Love’s Kindling is available in both e-book and paperback. They are the first two books in the Dawn of America Series set in Revolutionary War Connecticut. Cooper is the award-winning author of Fields of the Fatherless and Bethany’s Calendar. Her 2016 release (Saratoga Letters) was finalist in Historical Romance in both the Selah Awards and Next Generation Indie Book Awards. She has been published in Chicken Soup for the Soul and HomeLife magazine. She also penned the three-book historical series, Deer Run Saga. You can visit her website/ blog at www.elainemariecooper.com

Spy vs Spy: France and England Match Wits During the American Revolution

J. M. Hochstetler

William Eden, Baron Auckland

I’m currently writing Refiner’s Fire, book 6 of my American Patriot Series, set during the American Revolution. In this installment, Elizabeth Howard has been taken to France for safety after an attempt on her life by the British. Since both Elizabeth and the man she loves, General Jonathan Carleton, are spies, I’ve been digging into the intelligence operations of the French and British, and I’m finding it quite amusing.

Long before France signed formal treaties of alliance with the United States in early 1778, the French were already shipping supplies desperately needed by the Continental Army to aid America in her war with England. A main threat to their efforts was Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service. Headed by William Eden, the Service was already in full operation in France by the time England officially declared war on her old enemy.

Benjamin Franklin

After receiving the news of British General John Burgoyne’s disastrous defeat at Saratoga in December 1777, the British began to seriously consider the possibility of reconciliation with their rebellious colonies. Lord North, the British Prime Minister, made a conciliatory speech before Parliament. George III even went so far as to privately recommend opening a channel of communication with Benjamin Franklin. “That insidious man” as he termed him, was at the time ensconced in Paris as the first of the American’s commissioners sent by Congress.

British agents immediately began to filter into Paris to put out feelers as to what peace terms the Americans might consider. Some of the agents chosen were surprising, and perhaps because of it they were undetected, at least by the Americans. In fact, their main agent, and perhaps the one who maintained the deepest cover was an American who was Franklin’s closest and most trusted friend: Dr. Edward Bancroft. He certainly had the most spectacular success.

Edward Bancroft

Franklin and Bancroft met in London while both men were living there for some years. In his mid thirties, Bancroft, who was a physician, was also from New England. Genial and accomplished, a man of many interests, he was the perfect companion for Franklin, who installed him the commission’s secretary. He worked hard—at more than the commissioners suspected, actually—and was fluent in French, which Franklin could hardly speak. He not only became indispensable to the commissioners’ work, but also lived with them in the Hôtel de Valentinois, giving him access 24/7. John Adams disliked the man for a number of reasons. But although Arthur Lee, the third member of the commission, was convinced he was a British spy, Adams, along with Franklin, discounted the opinion since Lee was suspicious of everyone. Unfortunately, in this case he was right.

Known in the British spy network as Dr. Edwards, Bancroft was secretly a double agent who spied for the Americans as well as for the British. In serving as secretary to the Americans, Bancroft had access to every detail the British could possibly want to know. His orders were to provide, among other things, the American commissioners’ “correspondence with Congress, & their Agents, & the secret, as well as ostensible, Letters from the Congress to them,” and also “Copys of any transactions, committed to Paper, & an exact account of all intercourse & the subject matter treated of, between the Courts of Versailles & Madrid, and the Agents from the Congress.” In addition he was to provide detailed information on all shipping between France and America.

The method of transferring the intelligence was less than genius: Reports were written in invisible ink and placed in a bottle buried in a hole beneath a designated tree on the south terrace of the Tuilleries Palace in Paris. They were retrieved from there by a Mr. Deans every Tuesday evening at half past nine. Rather primitive in light of today’s technological advances in spycraft, wouldn’t you say? Obviously it wasn’t very secret either, considering how much of the intelligence flowing from Paris to London was promptly intercepted by the French.

Charles Gravier, le comte de Vergennes

In fact, espionage was at times carried on in an almost laughably farcical manner on all sides. One example: Bancroft would send the British a list of cargoes that France was shipping to America to aid the war effort. In short order Lord Stormont, the British ambassador to France, sent a vehement objection to the French Foreign Minister, Vergennes, who then helpfully forwarded Stormont’s protests and cargo lists to the American commissioners—who apparently never noticed how often the items were listed in the exact same order as in their own minutes!

Franklin himself is to a large extent responsible for intelligence leaking out of the commission like water out of a sieve. He had a very casual attitude toward security. In fact, an old friend, William Alexander, who had established a residence in Auteuil, less than a mile from Passy where he would be close to Franklin, warned him against leaving his correspondence openly lying about. A cordial, well-to-do Scot, Alexander was in and out of the Hôtel de Valentinois as frequently as a family member and often roused Franklin at an early hour to converse about scientific subjects. He was outspoken in his contempt for British policy toward America, believed the war to be an appalling blunder on England’s part, and favored full independence for America. And he was a British spy.

Regardless of the regular warnings he received, Franklin maintained that it was impossible to detect all spies, adding that “I have long observed one rule which prevents any inconvenience form such practices. It is simply this: to be concerned in no affairs that I should blush to have made public and to do nothing but what spies may see and welcome.” I’m sure that was cold comfort to the ships carrying war supplies that were sunk by the enemy because of intelligence Bancroft and others passed along.

Bancroft was clearly the most successful of the spies surrounding Franklin and remained undetected by the Americans until years after the Revolution. He was, however, only one of a very large number of British spies who gathered reams of intelligence on French and American efforts during the Revolution. Of course, one can be certain that the French were spying on us as well, even as we were making our own attempts to spy on them and the British!

For all our technological advances in spycraft today, it’s certain that the other side is employing corresponding countermeasures. One has to wonder whether in reality we’ve advanced all that far. Please share your opinions as you observe the charges flying back and forth over the Russians attempts to compromise our elections, Chinese hackers, and more!

~~~

J. M. Hochstetler is the daughter of Mennonite farmers and a lifelong student of history. She is also an author, editor, and publisher. Her American Patriot Series is the only comprehensive historical fiction series on the American Revolution. Northkill, Book 1 of the Northkill Amish Series coauthored with Bob Hostetler, won Foreword Magazine’s 2014 Indie Book of the Year Bronze Award for historical fiction. Book 2, The Return, received the 2017 Interviews and Reviews Silver Award for Historical Fiction and was named one of Shelf Unbound’s 2018 Notable Indie Books. One Holy Night, a contemporary retelling of the Christmas story, was the Christian Small Publishers 2009 Book of the Year and a finalist in the Carol Award.

Washington Under Siege: The Conway Cabal

By J. M. Hochstetler

General George Washington,
by Charles Willson Peale, 1776

George Washington’s reputation is so great in this country that it’s hard for us today to imagine that he had detractors who actively worked to remove him from command of the army during the Revolution. But in the winter of 1777–1778, a number of senior army officers, congressmen, and other influential men did just that. Among them were Dr. Benjamin Rush, a respected army physician today known as the father of American medicine; Samuel Adams; James Lovell; Richard Henry Lee; General Thomas Mifflin; Major General Horatio Gates—and Brigadier General Thomas Conway, for whom the cabal came to be named.

General Horatio Gates,
by Gilbert Stuart, 1793-94

The campaign of 1777 ended in a series of military setbacks for Washington that included defeats at Brandywine and Germantown and the British Army’s subsequent capture of Philadelphia, which forced Congress to hastily relocate to York, Pennsylvania, for the duration. Never a good political move. And what made it worse is that the Northern Army, commanded by Gates, Washington’s chief rival who had many allies in Congress, won a stunning victory at Saratoga, NY, capturing British General John Burgoyne’s entire army. Many historians credit the victory to Benedict Arnold’s leadership on the battlefield rather than “Granny” Gates’ efforts, but the 1777 campaign was the catalyst that caused an increasing number of officers in the army and members of Congress to question Washington’s abilities as commander in chief.

General Thomas Conway

Conway was an Irishman who was educated in France, served in that country’s army, and eventually enlisted in the Continental Army with the rank of brigadier. He and Washington weren’t bosom chums, and his condescending attitude put other officers off, too, but he did serve with some distinction during the Philadelphia campaign. That October he began lobbying Congress for a promotion to major general, and he added criticisms of Washington to his letters. He also corresponded with Gates, and in a private letter wrote, “Heaven has been determind to save your Country; or a weak General and bad Councellors would have ruined it.”

General James Wilkinson

Fatally, Gates’ aide, General James Wilkinson, happened to visit General William Alexander, Lord Stirling’s headquarters. Evidently while drunk, he quoted Conway’s comment to one of Stirling’s officers, who in due course relayed the matter to his commander. Stirling in turn felt obligated to alert Washington that his subordinates were scheming against him behind his back and sent his own letter quoting this comment. Washington, of course, wasn’t blind to Gates’ political connections and popularity, enhanced by the success at Saratoga. He was also very well aware of the broadsides, letters, and talk questioning his abilities and congressional maneuvers already under way to remove him as commander. So Conway’s remark fueled the fire. Washington immediately fired off a terse letter to Conway in which he quoted his comment back to him. One can imagine him writing the missive with gritted teeth.

Conway’s response was to protest that he had never called Washington a weak general—a patent falsehood—and to go on to say tactlessly that, although Washington’s advice in council was “commonly sound and proper,” he was influenced by men who weren’t his equal in knowledge or judgment, nicely disparaging Washington and his staff in the same breath.

General Thomas Mifflin

Learning from Conway what had happened, Mifflin, a man Washington also distrusted, informed Gates of the leak. So Gates hastily wrote to Washington that he had sent the letters to the president of Congress, Henry Laurens, not to him, and that they had been stolen and copied by people he didn’t know. Not only didn’t this improve the relationship between him and Washington, it also confirmed that Gates and Conway had been exchanging disparaging correspondence with others behind Washington’s back!

The war of letters wasn’t going well in Congress either. Washington’s opponents succeeded in appointing Mifflin and Gates to the board of war, with Gates as its president. Over Washington’s opposition, Conway was promoted to major general and assigned to the new post of army inspector general, which rankled the commander in chief to no end. To add insult to injury, Conway was to work alongside Washington but to answer only to the board.

Alexander Hamilton,
by John Trumbull, 1806

Some historians suggest that Washington was oversensitive to criticism. Although the participants in the controversy engaged in a war of letters, making accusations and protesting innocence, no one ever formally requested Washington’s removal as commander. But he felt threatened enough about what was going on behind his back to inform congressional leaders that if his performance continued to be questioned, he would resign. Many officers including Washington’s aide, Alexander Hamilton, actively supported him throughout the affair, mobilizing to assist him politically and threatening to defend his reputation with their swords if necessary.

In January 1778, Conway and Gates appeared before Congress in an effort to clear their names, but they refused to reveal the letter that started the controversy. And I wonder why! General Lafayette, as though he was speaking for the French court, implied that France could not conceive of a commander other than Washington. At that point Congress saw the handwriting on the wall, and in the end, fully supported Washington. The cabal collapsed, with the consequence that Mifflin and Wilkinson both resigned from the board of war; Gates apologized for his part in the affair and slunk back to his own command; and Conway, who was transferred to a subordinate command, resigned from the army in protest. The Conway Cabal was the only serious threat to Washington’s command during the war, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Considering today’s political machinations, the writer of Ecclesiastes seems to have it right: There’s nothing new under the sun. Does any of this seem familiar to you in today’s political scene? Certainly no one enjoys being criticized, but do you think legitimate criticism of our leaders can be beneficial to the health and welfare of our republic, depending on how it’s handled? How might the suppression of all criticism be harmful? Please share your thoughts!

~~~

J. M. Hochstetler is the daughter of Mennonite farmers and a lifelong student of history. She is also an author, editor, and publisher. Her American Patriot Series is the only comprehensive historical fiction series on the American Revolution. Northkill, Book 1 of the Northkill Amish Series coauthored with Bob Hostetler, won Foreword Magazine’s 2014 Indie Book of the Year Bronze Award for historical fiction. Book 2, The Return, received the 2017 Interviews and Reviews Silver Award for Historical Fiction. One Holy Night, a contemporary retelling of the Christmas story, was the Christian Small Publishers 2009 Book of the Year.