Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/248

 216 The surrender of Saratoga. [m? lines and a fierce attack was made, in which part of the entrench- ments were stormed, and many of the British, among them some of Burgoyne's best officers, fell. Two days later Burgoyne succeeded in moving a few miles to the rear. But every step that he took was attended with loss of equipage, supplies, and, what was most valuable to the captors, ammunition. Burgoyne's force had now shrunk to 3500 men, hardly a fourth of the American army, which was daily increasing. Only about eight days' provisions remained, and the total destruction of Burgoyne's communications made it impossible to obtain further supplies. On October 13, 1777, he opened negotiations for a surrender, and on the 16th these were completed. Burgoyne's conduct was, at his own request, made the subject of a parliamentary enquiry. His main error no doubt was the immense train of artillery with which he encumbered himself. It is clear too that there was no cordial co-operation between Burgoyne and Carleton, who still remained Governor of Canada. Burgoyne might also be justly blamed for want of care in maintaining his communications, inasmuch as the failure of the co-operating force might at any time make a retreat necessary. Yet the main blame must attach to those who planned a combination attended with such manifest difficulty, and took no special measures to guard against failure. Some minor successes on the lower Hudson were no compensation for Burgoyne's defeat. By com- bined action of the fleet and land force, and by conspicuous courage on the part of the British soldiers, two strong forts on the right bank of the Hudson were seized and the navigation of the river was secured. Important as was the surrender of Saratoga from a military point of view, its political effects were still greater. The doubts which the French government had felt as to taking up the American cause were removed ; and on February 6, 1778, two treaties were signed by the representa- tives of France and the United States. The first bound the two nations to commercial unity, and pledged each to protect the ships of the other. The second provided that, if the first treaty led to hostilities between France and England, there should then be an offensive and defensive alliance between France and the United States, and that neither should make peace till Great Britain had acknowledged the independence of the colonies. The difference between an open alliance and that covert help which France had hitherto given to the United States was of vast importance. The command of the sea was an indispensable condition of British supremacy over the colonies. If once that command should cease to exist, even for a short space, a decisive military blow might shatter the British power in America beyond hope of recovery. Yet the victory at Saratoga was not all gain. To shallow thinkers it suggested a contrast between the brilliant and decisive success of Gates and the cautious strategy of Washington ; and it thus furnished