Did Howe Intentionally Hold Back Against Washington and his Patriots?

It’s an interesting question and one I would never have considered until I read Thomas J. Fleming’s 1964 article “The Enigma of General Howe,” in American Heritage magazine.

Fleming’s argument, essentially, is that Sir William Howe was not incompetent, but instead intentionally held back at crucial moments — more than once obviously — and allowed Washington time to rebound or react when Howe could have moved in for the kill. I must say Fleming’s argument is convincing. Here’s the gist of it:

The evidence starts with the Howe family who, according to Fleming, “were Whigs, members of an opposition to George III’s harsh colonial policy.” They were already sympathetic to the Patriot’s cause and according to what I read, Fleming is correct.

Next, after the Battle of Bunker Hill which was Howe’s first fight he noted that during the bloodletting, where countryman fought countryman,  he witnessed “…a moment I never felt before.” Though he never described that moment as far as we know, Fleming makes a solid argument that it was not about facing possible defeat or death, Howe had experienced those before. It might have been the carnage he witnessed and the emotions he felt witnessing the events, and all because of the King.

Looking at the evidence this point of view places the events in a different light for me. For example, The Battle of Long Island started so brilliantly for Howe. He schooled Washington, outflanked him, and nearly routed the hapless Patriots chasing them all the way to Brooklyn Heights. Yet with the ultimate prize within Howe’s grasps he suddenly loses his nerve? Hardly, according to Fleming. Howe did not want to crush them. He sympathized with them. He hoped for peace.

Time and again, as Fleming discussed in his article, Howe has moments of brilliance and then suddenly seems incompetent? Not true.  For years I was always taught that Howe was just incompetent. Yet after reading this fine piece, I have a reasonable doubt.