[Pharmboy]

Although they were motivated more by their hatred for the English than their love for our emerging Republic, they were there for us then, supplying men, money, arms and expertise (for example, our military engineering was essentially, non-existent at the time, while the French were perhaps the best back then). A strong argument can be made that sans les Français we would still be singing "God Save the Queen."

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

>> A strong argument can be made that sans les Français we would still be singing “God Save the Queen.” <<

It’s quite possible. Although the French had other motives, they sure were helpful.
There’s a monument to François Joseph Paul de Grasse not to far from where I live...

[davisfh]

A strong argument can be made that sans les Français we would still be singing "God Save the Queen."

You're absolutely right. But, we must remember that any successful military strategist is successful because he used the resources available at the time and that includes political as well as physical resources. The French had the resources to prevent the British's resupplying themselves (physical)and they hated the British (political).

[Hiddigeigei]

A British army was defeated in New York at Saratoga.
Washington crossed the Delaware and captured the troops of Johann Rall quartered in Trenton.
In the South, the British could defeat an American army at Camden, but, shortly thereafter, large British detachments were annihilated at Kings Mountain, Blackstock farm, and the Cow Pens, forcing Cornwallis to move out of the Carolinas.
There was a large peace party growing in the English Parliament. The war was costing Britain enormous sums.
All this without French aid.
With or without French aid, the Americans were going to win eventually.