Did the French win the American Revolution?

My, what a dull existence you must lead in your black and white world of factual certainties and absolutes.  Unfortunately the study of history is rarely if ever so cut and dried.

To remind you of what you actually said, �I'll say this though, the rebels were most certainly not on their last throes.  One should be reminded that the French assistance came after the decisive rebel victory at Saratoga.  The British were planning to run through the Hudson Valley of New York, severing the patriot stronghold of New England from the rest of the colonies.  Instead, it was the rebels who did the severing, they prevented the British in Canada from linking up with the British in New York.�

This is certainly one interpretation of events, probably the one favoured by American �nationalistic� school history books, for all I know, but the �facts� are not so clear cut.

After Howe�s capture of Philadelphia, the rebel cause was in fact all but lost, true Massachusetts and Rhode Island were still hotbeds of insurrection, but with the seat of the rebel government and administration having fled to York, Pennsylvania, and thinking of dispersing altogether [as well as plotting to remove the inept General Washington], without the events surrounding Saratoga the rebellion would have collapsed into at best isolated guerrilla bands terrorising the countryside. Certainly the French would not have entered the conflict, and might even have decided to cut their losses supplying their proxies.  
 

As regards the Saratoga campaign, there was never a formal plan to strike down from Canada to cut New England off from the Central colonies in conjunction with an attack from the coast. Such an idea had been mooted several times before but the local British forces lacked the resources to accomplish such a move. Burgoyne, however successfully lobbied Lord Germain to allow him to make the attempt, despite the fact that Howe had expressly written to Germain discounting any such attempt from the coast; his target for the next campaigning season, given the available forces at his disposal, being Philadelphia and the defeat or destruction of the main rebel army.

I don�t intend to dwell on the events of the campaign other than to say despite the efforts and advice of his subordinates; Burgoyne manoeuvred himself into an untenable position, and in the custom and traditions of 18^th century warfare, asked Gates for terms. There was no �decisive victory� at Saratoga, given there wasn�t even a battle there. Gates, faced with the prospect of a fight to the death, as threatened by Burgoyne, which would have caused severe casualties to his forces regardless of the outcome, and aware of a British column of indeterminate strength thought to be advancing on Albany, agreed to a Convention whereby Burgoyne�s force would cease further hostilities and be allowed to leave America providing they did not return for the duration of the conflict. The British laid down their arms in good faith, and were marched off, pending their evacuation.

The rebel Congress subsequently [treacherously and shamefully, in the mores of the time] reneged on the Convention at the instigation of George Washington, [who was desperate to hold on to his position and now saw Gates as a serious rival for C-in-C], and the British troops were subsequently taken prisoner.

Rebel propaganda, it has to be said, brilliantly turned these events into a major crushing victory for the rebellion. This had a devastating effect on both Colonial and British public opinion. It revitalised the rebellion, severely damaged the British Government�s credibility, gave the French the excuse they were looking for to openly enter the war and seemingly �proved� the British were not invincible in open battle. So the American nationalist myth of the Battle of Saratoga was born.

In essence, only facts are relevant in a discussion of history.  Nationalist sentiments are unnecessary, poison good judgment and analysis, and thus should be left behind.