Henry Clinton

Canadian-born British general

• Born: April 16, 1730
• Birthplace: Newfoundland, Canada
• Died: December 23, 1795
• Place of death: Gibraltar

Clinton, the most successful British general during the American Revolution, drafted strategic plans that if properly implemented could have saved Britain’s North American colonies. Yet Clinton’s failure to command his subordinates was one major reason for Britain’s defeat.

Early Life

Henry Clinton was born in the British province of Newfoundland, where his father, British naval officer George Clinton, was governor. This accident of geography made Henry Clinton the only senior British general in the American Revolution to have a natural connection with North America.

In 1743, after intense lobbying by his influential kinsman, the duke of Newcastle, George Clinton was named governor of New York. Young Henry Clinton attended the Reverend Samuel Seabury’s School at Hempstead, Long Island, and entered military service as a lieutenant of fusiliers in the New York militia when he was fifteen. In 1746, he was promoted to captain and served with troops garrisoning Louisbourg, the important fortress at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River captured from the French. Clinton volunteered for an expedition to Prince Edward Island, where the British were ambushed by the French and their Indian allies; he escaped only by abandoning his weapons and swimming to a nearby British ship.

The exploit did not dampen Clinton’s enthusiasm for a military career. In 1749, he left for England and in 1751 was commissioned captain-lieutenant in the elite Coldstream Guards. In 1756, he was appointed aide-de-camp to Sir John Ligonier, commander in chief of the British army. Although Clinton’s duties were largely ceremonial and he spent much of his time in London, his career continued to advance, and in 1758, he was promoted to lieutenant colonel in the First Regiment of Foot Guards.

As the Seven Years’ War (known as the French and Indian War in North America) reached its climax, Clinton’s regiment was sent in 1760 to fight in Germany. Clinton distinguished himself as aide-de-camp to Prince Charles of Brunswick, was promoted to colonel in June of 1762 and was wounded at the Battle of Johannisburg in August of the same year. It was in Germany that Clinton learned military strategy and tactics; during this same period, future generals such as John Burgoyne and William Howe were learning quite different lessons on colonial battlefields. This difference in professional background later caused problems for the British during the American Revolution.

Returning to England, Clinton continued his rise. In 1764, he was named groom of the bedchamber to William Henry, duke of Gloucester (the king’s favorite brother), and so acquired another influential patron to go with his Newcastle relatives.

Clinton’s appearance was far from imposing. Described by one historian as “smallish, paunchy, and colorless,” his portraits show a man of average height for the period, with a round face, large and rather expressive eyes, and double chin. His contemporaries and biographers have noted that while Clinton had many acquaintances, he had few close friends.

On February 12, 1767, Clinton married Harriet Carter, a young woman of a good but hardly distinguished family. There is speculation that she may have been pregnant at the time. It is certain that the Clintons had four children following the marriage: two daughters, Augusta and Harriet, and two sons, William Henry and Henry. Both of the sons followed in their father’s footsteps by pursuing careers in the military and, like him, rose to the rank of general and were inducted into the Order of the Bath.

The flexible attitudes of the time permitted Clinton, an army officer, to participate directly in politics, and in 1772, he was both promoted to major general and elected to Parliament. However, in August, he was plunged into despair when his wife died after giving birth to their second daughter. The event was a catastrophe from which Clinton never fully recovered. For a time, his friends feared for his sanity, and it was perhaps with a sense of relief that Clinton received orders in 1775 to embark for America, where the colonies were in open rebellion.

Life’s Work

In May, 1775, one month after the Battles of Lexington and Concord, Henry Clinton joined British commander in chief Thomas Gage in Boston. The American Continental army had laid siege, and Clinton argued for a swift seizure of Dorchester Heights, which commanded Boston from its position south of the city. Gage rejected this advice and the next month, when American troops seized Breeds and Bunker Hills north of Boston, was forced to launch a frontal attack against them. Clinton personally led a column in the final attack that cleared the hills.

Clinton was promoted in September to the local rank of lieutenant general and made second in command to the new commander in chief, William Howe. The two generals were soon at odds, a situation that Clinton frequently found himself in throughout his career. In part to resolve this conflict and also to advance British strategy, Clinton was sent south to seize Charleston, South Carolina.

The expedition was a fiasco. The sea approach to Charleston was protected by a partially built fort of palmetto logs on Sullivans Island. The infantry under Clinton landed north of Sullivans Island to outflank the Americans while the British fleet bombarded them from the sea. However, an unfordable inlet prevented Clinton from attacking, and the cannonballs of the ships proved useless against the soft palmetto wood. After receiving severe punishment from the fort, the fleet retired, and the British returned to Boston.

Despite this setback, Clinton was again promoted, this time to the local rank of full general. He was outstanding in the New York campaign of 1776, providing exceptional leadership in the Battle of Long Island and subsequent actions in Manhattan and New Jersey. He continued to press his suggestions on Howe, who again sent him on an amphibious expedition, this time a successful movement against Newport, Rhode Island.

However, Clinton, still haunted by the Charleston debacle, returned to England and threatened to resign. The government responded by awarding him a knighthood, inducting him into the Order of the Bath, and promoting him to lieutenant general. Clearly, Clinton was valued for his military skills and abilities as well as for his powerful connections.

In July of 1777, Clinton returned to New York as Howe’s second in command at a time when Britain’s most ambitious plan to suppress the revolution was under way. General Burgoyne was advancing south from Canada, and Howe struck against the colonial capital of Philadelphia. Kept on the defensive by Howe’s orders, Clinton finally won approval to mount an expedition in support of Burgoyne against American positions along the Hudson River. It was well conceived and conducted but too late; before it was over, Burgoyne had surrendered at Saratoga and the revolution had passed its turning point.

Clinton succeeded Howe as commander in chief in May, 1778. The government in London gave him secret orders to abandon Philadelphia, go on the defensive in the northern colonies, and concentrate his efforts in the south where there were believed to be substantial numbers of Loyalists. On his return to New York, Clinton fought and won the Battle of Monmouth on June 28, 1778, the last major engagement of the revolution in the northern colonies.

For the next year, Clinton remained on the defensive, partly in deference to his orders from London and partly because the French, encouraged by Saratoga, had entered the war on the American side. Clinton successfully dispatched strong raiding parties to harass the countryside. A single expedition destroyed more than œ300,000 (roughly $600,000) worth of property along the Chesapeake. Had such naval-land tactics been continued, they might have turned the tide in favor of Britain; however, that was not to be the case.

In the summer of 1779, Charles Cornwallis arrived as Clinton’s second in command and was already designated as Clinton’s successor. In this difficult situation, Clinton sailed south in December and attacked Charleston in early 1780. He was brilliantly successful, bottling up American general Benjamin Lincoln and his army of almost five thousand, which surrendered on May 12. The campaign was Clinton’s masterpiece, for the British had destroyed a major American army, captured a vital port city, and opened the way into the presumably Loyalist south with a loss of less than three hundred troops.

Leaving Cornwallis in command in the south, Clinton returned to New York. Against Clinton’s wishes (although, significantly, Clinton did not expressly forbid it), Cornwallis embarked upon an aggressive strategy that led to major British defeats at Kings Mountain (October 7, 1780) and Cowpens (January 17, 1781). Cornwallis then headed north into Virginia, where he was brought to bay at Yorktown and forced to surrender on October 20, 1781. Although Cornwallis must bear the major portion of blame for the disaster that lost the war for the British, Clinton’s indecisiveness and contradictory orders certainly contributed to the result.

In May, 1782, Sir Guy Carleton succeeded Clinton as commander in chief, and Clinton returned to England where he was widely blamed for the disaster at Yorktown. He had a falling out with Newcastle and lost his seat in Parliament only to regain it on his own initiative in 1790. Although his reputation may have been marred, his career was not destroyed: He was promoted to full general in 1793 and the next year appointed governor of Gibraltar. He died there on December 23, 1795.

Significance

According to military historian Mark Boatner, Henry Clinton held a crucial position longer than any general on either side except George Washington, and he has been hailed as “the most successful British general in the War of Independence” by no less an authority than John Keegan. Yet, in the end, Clinton proved unequal to the task of subduing the rebellious American colonies. There are several reasons for this failure.

The first is military. Except at the very beginning of his campaigns, Clinton lacked the strength to either defeat the American army in open battle or capture and hold key strong points, most of them ports, that would have cut off supplies and reinforcements from Europe. The second is political. Inconsistent policies by the British government, especially its favoritism of subordinates such as Cornwallis, deprived Clinton of the authority he needed to implement a consistent strategy that might have proven effective.

The most damaging reason, however, was psychological. Although Clinton was a talented and imaginative soldier, as second in command, he was unable to have his plans adopted; as a commander, he could not impose his plans upon his subordinates, most notably Cornwallis, who persisted in campaigns that ruined Britain’s American empire. Known throughout his career for his quarrels with his fellow officers, Clinton’s most fatal quarrel seems to have been with himself.

Bibliography

Boatner, Mark M. Encyclopedia of the American Revolution. New York: David McKay, 1975. The biographical entry on Clinton is supplemented with more detailed examinations of specific campaigns, such as his foray into the New York highlands and his great victory at Charleston in 1780. The numerous cross-references are extremely helpful.

Bobrick, Benson. Angel in the Whirlwind: The Triumph of the American Revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997. Although written from the American point of view, this volume contains a clear and fair account and assessment of Clinton’s role, including his successes and failures, during the conflict.

Fortescue, John, Sir. The War of Independence: The British Army in North America. Vol. 3 in History of the British Army. London: Greenhill Books, 2001. Reprint of the nineteenth century history compiled by a British military historian. This comprehensive survey of Britain’s role in the American Revolution includes information about Clinton’s failures in New York and his Charleston campaign.

Keegan, John, and Andrew Wheatcroft. Who’s Who in Military History: From 1453 to the Present Day. New York: William Morrow, 1976. In addition to a brief biography of Clinton, this volume also offers valuable cross-references to help the reader place the general within the context of the American Revolution.

Willcox, William B. Portrait of a General: Sir Henry Clinton in the War of Independence. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1964. The most extensive individual work on Clinton and his role during the revolution, especially as commander of the British forces during most of the war. Willcox argues that Clinton was psychologically predisposed to failure through feelings of inadequacy.