In his essay on the significance of D-day, “D-day: What It Meant” (May/June), Charles Cawthon writes that had “the British [won] at Saratoga … oppression would have had a further run.” But the effect of Saratoga was catastrophic for those now commonly referred to as Native American (itself a Eurocentric term). Unlike the colonists, the British crown, if it treated the native tribes as subject, did attempt to protect their rights. I doubt if any Cherokee aware of his heritage considers it as a blessing of liberty that a true Democrat, Andrew Jackson, had the final say on their interests rather than William IV. Further, slavery was abolished in the British colonies during William’s reign; Saratoga helped to delay emancipation in these colonies by some thirty years.
This is of course not to question the substantive thesis of the article as to D-day; there can be few instances in history where there was so demonstrably an evil that had to be stopped. But it adds little to the argument to compare it to the relatively benign rule of the House of Hanover.