CONCLUSION

 

         "When you're working on the Revolutionary War, as I'm doing now, you realize what the French did for us. We wouldn't have a country if it weren't for them," McCullough claimed in his recent interview with American Heritage. And though it is usually fruitless to speculate about "what if's," a look at the facts shows that French support was indeed vital for the success of the American Revolutionary War.

        In February 1762, French foreign minister Choiseul had declared that he had "only one foreign policy, a fraternal union with Spain; only one foreign policy for war, and that is England." [222] He thought that war might come within five years. It took thirteen years, but the shots fired at Lexington and Concord had hardly been heard in Paris when French financial and military aid began flowing to the rebellious colonies via Beaumarchais. Almost 100 volunteers, some more useful than others, provided crucial expertise for American artillery, engineering, and map-making. The victory at Saratoga was won with French guns and French powder. A few months later, in February 1778, France became the first foreign country to recognize the United States as an independent nation; military action beginning later that year occupied British forces from Gibraltar to India and from Senegal to the Caribbean, keeping them from the American theatre of war. In the spring of 1780, the comte de Rochambeau brought over 5,000 officers and men across the ocean and forced the surrender of Lord Cornwallis fifteen months later. Yet the presence of Rochambeau's forces on the American mainland had consequences well beyond its small numbers. By the time most of them departed from Boston in December 1782, they had decided the outcome of the war.

         In July 1780, Rochambeau had arrived with over 5,000 officers and men; the ships that left Boston on Christmas Eve 1782 carried about 1,000 fewer men. About 700 men remained behind, the last of which returned to France in November 1783. A few days later, on January 8, 1783, Rochambeau and a small entourage of officers sailed from Annapolis for France. A final transport of 85 sick soldiers left Baltimore on October 5, 1783. The expédition particulière had come to an end.[223] During the 30 months that the 492 officers and 6,038 men of the expédition particulière had been in, or on their way to and from America, about 600 men (including 70 in the six months following the return in 1783) died, though only about 75 of them from battle or battle-related wounds. Another seven were executed. Some 316 men, of whom only 26 were native Frenchmen, deserted, including 80 men recruited in America.[224] 140, including 30 "American" recruits, were discharged. 31 officers, but only 14 enlisted men, retired with military pensions in the New World. To put these figures into perspective: within six months of returning to France, Rochambeau's units discharged 832 men whose enlistment had expired![225]

        Unlike German or German-speaking soldiers from Alsace or Lorraine, French soldiers rather risked the dangerous transatlantic voyage than stay in America. Despite officially fostered friendhip and numerous addresses of gratitude -- the Boston Gazette and Country Journal claimed in its issue of December 9, 1782, that the "Behaviour of these Troops … sufficiently contradicts the infamous Falsehoods and Misrepresentations usually imposed on the World by perfidious Britons -- Franco-American relations had always remained tenuous at best. The allies simply never trusted each other. Axel von Fersen informed his father in November 1782 that "the time we have passed with them (the Americans) has not taught us to love or esteem them." Even an enlisted man such as Flohr felt the mistrust in an alliance held together only by a common enemy. For mid-December 1782 he reported in his journal: "Since we continued to remain there (in Providence) for some additional time, the Americans never felt quite at ease but continued to believe that the French wanted to make continued use of that area (i.e. permanently occupy it) since they didn't seem to want to move on at all, and thanked us a second time for the aid we had provided." Such fears, as we know, were unfounded, but their continued existence even after the victory was won and after all that France had done in support of American independence, shows how deep-seated and long-living they were!

        Because Rochambeau's troops were not the only French forces to fight in America before, or after, Yorktown. In fact they represent only a fractions of the total number of Frenchmen fighting for American Independence, which historians have estimated at 18,000 soldiers and 31,000 sailors. At Yorktown alone, some 14,000 Frenchmen, including 5,200 Marines in reserve, joined 5,800 American Continentals and 3,000 Virginia militias against 6,000 British and their German allies. It was French expertise in siege warfare, not to mention the French siege artillery brought by Rochambeau's forces, which eventually forced the surrender. The French contribution to American victory becomes even more obvious when we look at the role of the French navy. It was Admiral de Grasse' fleet which kept the Royal Navy from making contact with Cornwallis when it sailed out to meet the challenge in the Battle of the Capes in early September 1781. Without the French fleet, British Admiral Graves might just have succeeded in rescuing Cornwallis from Yorktown. The Continental Navy would have been unable to stop him: in 1781, the Royal Navy had about 140 ships of the line, the French had 67 capital ships, Spain had 58, the Dutch 19, and the United States had none.

        French expenditures for the war were enormous: Robert D. Harris sets the total French cost for the war for the years 1776-1782 at 928.9 million livres (as opposed to 2,270.5 million livres for the British), with another 125.2 million to be added for the year 1783! At the same time the total ordinary income of the French crown stood at 377.5 million livres for the year 1776. More than half of the cost of the war had to be funded by loans, and by the end of 1782 the total constituted debt of the French monarchy had reached 4,538 million livres. Even if most historians agree today that these additional outlays for the war were not the primary cause of the French Revolution, there can be no doubt that an extra billion livres in expenditures, and annual expenditures of some 207 million livres just to service the debt, did nothing to enhance the financial situation of the French monarchy between 1783 and the outbreak of the revolution in 1789.[226]

        Most of these funds were spent on the navy: the annual naval budget rose from 33 million livres in 1775 to 169 million in 1780 and peaked at almost 200 million livres in 1782.[227] During these same years, however, the army budget increased only marginally from 93.5 million in 1775 to 95 million in 1783.[228] Expenditures on the American war were minimal within the overall French war effort. According to Claude C. Sturgill, "all of the monies directly appropriated for the entire cost" of Rochambeau's little army amounted to exactly 12,730,760 livres or a little over 1% of the total cost of the war![229] In addition the American rebels received 18 million in loans, to be repaid after the war, as well as outright subsidies of about 9 million from the foreign affairs department and other aid for a total of about 48 million livres spent in support of the American Revolution.

        For France, the American struggle for independence was never more than a side-show, a convenient "excuse" for resuming the century-old struggle against British supremacy in Europe and on the oceans of the world. But the financial figures are just one indication for the marginality of the expédition particulière within the French war effort. A look at the number of personnel involved also helps to place Rochambeau's army in perspective. In 1780, the budgeted strength of the French line infantry, cavalry, and light troops stood at some 130,000 officers and men: the 6,000 men of Rochambeau's troops formed but a small fraction of the total French military strength. In 1776, France had stationed 19 battalions of infantry in her Caribbean possessions; in the course of the war she sent another 29 battalions there for a total of 48 battalions. Rochambeau brought all of 8 infantry battalions with him in 1780. At Yorktown, Rochambeau suffered not even 200 casualties in dead and wounded: between March and December 1781, the French navy operating in the Caribbean suffered over 5,000 casualties, the equivalent of almost the entire force under Rochambeau's command. In the disastrous defeat in the Battle of the Saints in April 1782, Admiral de Grasse suffered over 3,000 casualties, more than fifteen times what Rochambeau had lost before Yorktown.

         What did France have to show for all her exertions? The answer is: not much if anything, not least because of the actions of her American allies. Not that she had wanted any territorial gain: in article 6 of the alliance of February 6, 1778, Louis XVI had "renounce[d] for ever the possession of the Islands of Bermudas as well as of any part of the continent of North america which [had been French] before the treaty of Paris in 1763." Besides taking revenge on Britain for that treaty, Vergennes had wanted exclusive fishing rights off Newfoundland, or at the very least keep the British out. But when the time came to negotiate the peace settlement, he found out to his dismay that Franklin and his fellow commissioners had made peace without him in clear violation of article 8 of their 1778 agreement. "Neither of the two Parties shall conclude either Truce or Peace with Great Britain, without the formal consent of the other first (my emphasis) obtain'd."

        But that was exactly what Franklin and his colleagues had done when they signed the Preliminaries of Peace in November 1782, thereby forcing the French hand. Franklin told Vergennes that his negotiations with Britain behind Vergennes' back were "a mere breach of etiquette," but the Frenchman was under no illusion that if he would not agree to end the war on British and American terms, the Americans would sign a separate peace treaty with Britain, leaving the French to continue the war by themselves. France did not even gain the exclusive fishing rights she had wanted. In article 3 of the preliminaries the United States and Great Britain had agreed "that the People of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the Right to take Fish of every kind on the Grand Bank, and on all the other Banks of Newfoundland; Also in the Gulph of St Laurence, and at all other Places in the Sea where the Inhabitants of both Countries used at any time here-tofore to fish." An embittered Vergennes wrote to the Chevalier de la Luzerne, French representative in Philadelphia, that if "we can judge the future by what passes presently before our eyes we shall be paid badly for what we have done for the United States of America, and for having assured them of that title."[230]

         In the short run it seemed as if Vergennes' prediction would come true. The alliance of 1778 had been an alliance of convenience, which had served its purpose once American independence had been won. In 1793, now President, Washington abrogated the 1778 treaties in light of the events of the French Revolution and the French declaration of war on Austria. The United States must not, and would not, get drawn into European affairs, the "foreign entanglements" of Washington's Farewell Address.

        Seven years later, in December 1800, the United States rather unceremoniously cancelled the "Perpetual Alliance" of 1778 and subsequent agreements altogether since they were not "able to agree at present" as to what the treaties implied. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 reaffirmed American isolationism, and for the remainder of the century America looked west, to the Pacific Ocean, rather than east across the Atlantic.[231]

        Events in Europe in the second decade of this century forced the United States to look to the Old World and to abandon her isolationist stance, at least temporarily. It was then that Vergennes too was proved wrong. In 1783, Count de Aranda, Spanish Ambassador to France, had written to Louis XVI that in America a "federal republic is born a pygmy but a day will come when it will be a giant, a colossus, formidable for this country.".[232] That day came in 1917. Almost 135 years after France had helped ensure American independence, America "paid her debt to Lafayette," first in 1917/18, and again in 1944, when American troops under General Dwight D. Eisenhower helped liberate France..[233]

        France honored General Eisenhower and his men with a Voie de la Liberté tracing their route from the beaches of Normandy to Paris and victory. Maybe the time has come for America to honor the comte de Rochambeau and his men -- French, German, Irish, Dutch, Swiss and Swedish, Black and white -- with a Voie de l'Indépendance tracing their route from Newport across Connecticut to Yorktown and victory.

        


[222] Quoted in Eccles, "French Alliance," p. 148.
[223]Noailles, Marins, pp. 407-408.
[224] Some of these deserters seem to have found America not to their liking: In July 1785, French consul Martin Oster wrote from Virginia that he had granted passports to 13 of them to return to France under an amnesty granted by the king earlier that year. J. Rives Childs, "French Consul Martin Oster reports on Virginia, 1784-1796" Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 76, (1968), pp. 27-40, p. 37.
[225]All figures are taken from the various articles published by Sam Scott cited above. More than 1/4 of all desertions in the French forces occurred during the last three months before departure.
[226]All figures from Harris, "French Finances," pp. 233-258. For a refutation of claims that a transfer of the ideology of the American Revolution played a significant role in the French Revolution of 1789 see the articles by Samuel Scott cited above.
[227]Dull, Navy, pp. 346/47.
[228]Sturgill, "French War Budget," p. 182, and Sturgill, " Money," p. 24.
[229]Sturgill, "Observations," p. 183.
[230]Quoted in Eccles, "French Alliance," p. 161.
[231]During the 1860s because of the attempts by Emperor Napoleon III of France to place Maximilian on the throne of Mexico, France and the United States came to blows over the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine. It is one of the ironies of history that the French 99th Regiment of Infantry, the successor regiment to the Royal Deux-Ponts, whose standard then, as well as today, had the name "Yorktown" embroidered on it, would fight against American troops in Mexico in support of Emperor Maximilian of Habsburg.
Ibid., p. 162.

[232]Ibid., p. 162
[233]At least the United States did not forget the ill-fated Louis XVI. On bicentennial of the execution of the king in 1993 the United States' government layed a wreath at his tomb; the French government on the other hand very pointedly ignored the occasion.

BACK TO TOP