Sir William Howe

A Revisionist History Of His Conduct In America

By Brian T. Egan

Preface

The American Revolution was one of the most difficult times in the history of the British Empire. Historians have dubbed it the penultimate crisis to face the Empire, and have characterized the Revolution as "England's Vietnam."

Sir William Howe, in his position as Commander in Chief of His Majesty's Forces in America, was charged with combating a widespread rebellion and promoting conciliation between the mother country and its colonies. As the war escalated to a point that England never imagined possible, the ministry in London changed policy from conciliation to forceful coercion.

Historians have branded Howe, and forever condemned him to remembrance, as a lazy, unimaginative, and wasteful commander. He was harshly criticized for allowing the rebel army to survive as long as it did and for allowing the war to escalate into a Declaration of Independence. Most of this criticism came from embittered Loyalists, who had lost homes and wealth due to the fortunes of war, and from the British government itself, which did not want to be blamed for losing a war and ultimately the thirteen colonies.

This paper will refute the criticism of Sir William Howe that unfortunately has become accepted history, and show that he was indeed a competent military commander. The paper will reveal justifications for Howe's military maneuvers, both from his own writings, and from those of colleagues in the field.

Upon General William Howe's approach to New York in 1776, a Loyalist poet penned these lines:

He comes, he comes, the Hero comes:
Sound, sound your trumpets, beat your drums.
From port to port let cannon roar
Howe's welcome to this western shore.[1]

But less than a year later, another Loyalist wrote that Howe must be a "lubber" or a "great chucclehead" for "a Negro-driver should, with a ragged banditti of undisciplined people, the scum and refuse of the earth", hold the British Army at bay.[2] The paper will assess whether Sir William Howe deserves the criticism of his contemporaries and historians, and will ascertain the reasons for the radical change in public sentiment towards Howe -- sentiment that eventually turned opinion into history.

Sir William Howe

William Howe was born in 1729 to the upper echelons of English society, which centered around the throne in London and radiated throughout the Empire. The Howe family, well connected to the royal family, wielded enormous power in the social circles of the ruling elite in London. Howe's mother was connected to the ruling House of Hanover through three generations of monarchs. She was thought to be the illegitimate daughter of George I and was a companion to one of George II's mistresses. As young William came of age and took his own place in society, she served as a member of George III's household.[3] William was raised as all elite English gentleman of his era were, to be schooled at Eton, and upon graduation to enter the clergy, politics or the military. The males of the Howe family chose the military as their calling, and William entered the army at age seventeen.[4] He was rapidly commissioned to higher office and shortly thereafter would serve in a war that would dramatically alter his view of England's American colonies forever.

His two older brothers were already stationed in America when William joined them in defense of the American colonies from the French and their Indian allies during the Seven Years War. His eldest brother, George Augustus Howe, was serving in the army, with a combined force of British regulars and American provincials, in upper New York. The other brother, Richard, was serving in His Majesty's Royal Navy, sailing with King George III's brother.[5] William served under James Wolfe at the Battle of Louisbourg in 1758. Later he fearlessly commanded the light infantry advance guard that scaled the Plains of Abraham in 1759, opening the opportunity for the capture of Quebec, the death knell for the French in North America.[6] Wolfe called Howe a "modest, diligent and valiant" officer, stating there was "not a better soldier" in the English army during the Louisbourg campaign.[7] Following the war, Wolfe bequeathed 1,000 pounds to him as a salutation.[8]

But the Seven Years War was not without a price for the Howe family. George Augustus was killed at the Battle of Ticonderoga in 1758. William had idolized his older brother, and did not eat for two days after learning of his death.[9] George Augustus was well beloved by the colonists also and as a testimony to his memory the General Court of Massachusetts Bay voted 250 pounds for an obelisk to him in Westminster Abbey. In July of 1762 Richard Howe wrote to the General Court saying he was supervising the erection of the monument and that he had even thought of giving a monument to Massachusetts to express, "...his Gratitude and Respect for that Public and Patriot Voice."[10] The death of George Augustus and the respect paid to him by the colonists had a tremendous impact on the Howe brothers, both politically in England and later as they commanded England's war against that "Patriot Voice."

William joined his brother Richard in Parliament, by assuming his deceased brother's seat for Nottingham in 1758, which he held until 1780. William never voted consistently with any one coalition or belief, and only firmly followed his brothers lead in political voting.[11] Howe shared his brother's attitude toward the Anglo-American dispute, especially his affection for Massachusetts, and his confidence that negotiations could preserve the Empire.[12] Richard voted against the ministry of George Grenville by refusing to vote for punishing pro-colonist advocate John Wilkes for verbally attacking the King in Parliament. Later he again broke with Grenville in the minister's attempt to exact revenue from America through a Stamp Tax.[13] During William's reelection for the Nottingham seat in 1774, he condemned the ministry's American policy as "unnecessarily harsh" and promised to vote for the repeal of the Massachusetts Acts. He also publicly doubted that the whole "British Army could enforce" the ministry's policies.[14] It is these beliefs and attitudes towards America that for the context of Howe's military conduct during the Revolution. It is also worthy to note, that simultaneous to Howe's public pro-American statements, the ministry debated about widening the war in the colonies and considered appointing a more ambitious Commander in Chief for His Majesty's forces in America.

Frustration with the situation in the colonies was growing in London with every dispatch from America. A rag-tag group of provincials had delivered a shocking blow to the army on the retreat from Lexington and Concord and now had England's finest troops surrounded and virtually prisoners in Boston. The ministry felt they needed someone more ambitious in the office of Commander in Chief than the incumbent, Lieutenant General Thomas Gage.

Lord George Germain, Secretary of State for the American Colonies, believed that Howe's "...name as well as abilities would be instrumental to restore discipline and confidence..." at Boston.[15] They felt Howe's experience with "irregular warfare", from his service with the light infantry during the Seven Years War, would be well suited to the type of war that needed to be fought in America. But critics were quick to point out that he would be fighting against the very people who had erected a monument to his brother. Moreover, he promised during his election of 1774 that he would not command against the colonists.[16] Conversely, by January of 1775, he had a change of heart for he privately let Lord North, the Prime Minister, and his advisor Lord Dartmouth know that he would be willing to go to Boston as second in command.[17] This change in heart probably came from Howe's professionalism as a soldier, feeling it to be his duty to serve his Monarch. It is also logical to assume that Howe knew that Gage was unpopular, and that if Howe accepted his position in Boston, there was a good chance that he would be elevated to Commander-in-Chief. That command would then give him prodigious control over the conduct of the war and in shaping British policy.[18] This power would be decisive later in the war, as his pro-American beliefs would be critical in defining his conduct of the British Army in the colonies.

It is with this background of great affinity towards the American people that Howe set sail from London to assume his new position in Boston as second in command. His Whiggish attitudes governed the way Howe conducted the war and even determined the strategies he used in individual battlefield maneuvers. His carefully executed maneuvers were a product of Howe's desire to lessen the amount of blood spilt on both sides.

Major General William Howe arrived in America to find the British Army trapped in Boston and surrounded by a hostile people in a rebellious country. A few months after Howe arrived, the rebels began to fortify a hill on Charlestown peninsula in Boston Harbor, known as Breeds Hill. The colonists were observed scurrying up and down the hill constructing an entrenchment of some sort on the crest of Breeds Hill. The British were in no direct danger from the earthworks, but British honor could not let the rebels so flagrantly thumb their nose at the greatest army in the world. Accordingly, the British high command decided an action was needed to counteract the colonials efforts.

Gage convened a meeting with Howe and Generals John Burgoyne and Henry Clinton. Burgoyne and Clinton were dispatched to Boston with Howe and accompanied him on his voyage across the Atlantic. All believed the fortifications to be minimal and agreed with Clinton's observation, "...that the hill was open and easy of ascent and in short that it would be easily carried."[19] They agreed that a frontal assault would be the best way to carry the hill. Howe, as senior Major-General under Gage, would command the expedition.[20]

On June 17, the landing by the army on Charleston Neck went flawlessly and Howe had little doubt that his force would be successful. As they formed in lines to begin their ascent up the hill, Howe addressed the troops saying that he was honored to command them and he did not want one of them, "to go a step further than where I go myself at your head". He kept his promise to them, for in the grand tradition, he fought conspicuously in the front ranks the entire battle.[21]

The Americans held their fire as they watched as the British slowly marched up the hill in parallel columns to the redoubt. The British officers wondered when the Americans were going to start firing, and as they drew closer speculated if one solid bayonet charge might drive them from their earthwork. Then a murderous musket fire erupted from the Americans trench. The British lines wilted and viciously recoiled under the barrage. Hundreds of men were wounded in that opening barrage alone. Howe later wrote to the Adjutant General that, "there was a moment I had never felt before."[22] The British broke to the base of the hill, where officers, including Howe, rallied them back into their ranks to face the musket fire again. The British again marched up the hill and were repulsed. Again and again they tried to dislodge the Americans. A lieutenant in the 5th Regiment, who was in the front ranks of the engagement, wrote that, "the oldest officers say they never saw a sharper action."[23] Lieutenant General Burgoyne, observing the battle from a rooftop in Boston, wrote that, "Howe's disposition was exceedingly soldier-like, in my opinion it was perfect."[24]

Eventually the American, with their ammunition exhausted, abandoned their earthworks and fled the British bayonets. The victory cost the British dearly: of about 2,400 men engaged, 1,054 men were shot, including 92 officers. Of that total 226 were killed.[25] A testimony to Howe's bravery, as well as his luck, was that in keeping his promise to fight in the front ranks, he was accompanied by his staff officers, and all twelve of them were wounded by enemy fire.[26] After the battle Howe wrote: "I freely confess to you, when I look at the consequences of it, in the loss of so many brave officers, I do it with horror."[27]

The specter of the Battle of Bunker Hill (as it was later inaccurately named) would haunt Howe in every battle he would fight. For the rest of the war, Howe avoided a direct frontal attack on any American position, preferring to use flanking maneuvers instead. Despite his critics charges, fear and lethargy were not elements in why Howe did not again frontally assault American positions. The flanking maneuvers come from Howe's understandable reluctance to again endure such massive casualties. In addition, Howe was well aware that, "His troops, highly trained and at the end of a pipeline stretching all the way across the Atlantic could not be replaced quickly, if at all."[28] This battle also reinforced his respect for the colonists that Howe's superiors in London lacked. Ignorance of the American character permeated London, and is typified by Nicholas Cresswell, who wrote that he was baffled that a mere "tobacco planter" and his "ragged crew" could hold the mighty British army at bay.[29] This ignorance of the true state of affairs in America contributed to the demise of Howe's reputation in London, as his influential critics could not believe that a group of farmers could strike such a blow to the finest army in the world.

Another criticism that was leveled against Howe was that he did not chase the rebels after the battle, thereby following up his success completely by crushing the rebels by a close pursuit. The blunt fact is the rebels actually retreated faster than the British could keep up. The "... British Army of the eighteenth century was [very susceptible] to loss and confusion unless kept well in hand."[30] A pursuit would have completely exposed the flanks of half-destroyed and exhausted regiments. Five days after the battle of Breed's Hill, General Howe wrote a dispatch to London about the engagement. He must have anticipated this criticism, for he wrote, "The soldiers were so much harassed, and there were so many officers lost, that the pursuit was not followed with all the vigor that might be expected."[31] The rebels could just break up and run, but for the British to break ranks in contradiction to their strict training would have ended in complete chaos. The European criterion of good tactical management was the maintenance of order and alignment, and Howe could not have been expected to perform any less.[32]