Transcripts For CSPAN3 Prisoners Of War During The American Revolution 20240713

Book, captives of liberty prisoners of war and the politics of vengeance in the American Revolution history professor t. Cole jones illustrates inhumane conditions inside 18thcentury prison camps and examines how the Continental Congress dealt with the problem of thousands of pows, a population that sometimes outnumbered the American Army. Next, professor jones discusses his book at the American Revolution institute of the society of the cincinnati. Dir. Mccallister clark good evening, everyone. Its so nice to see you here this evening. So many good old friends and new faces. I am ellen mccallister clark, the Library Director at the American Revolution institute of the society of cincinnati. It is my very special pleasure tonight to be the one to introduce t. Cole jones, who us thisspeaking to evening about his new book captives of liberty prisoners of war and the politics of vengeance in the American Revolution, which has just come out from the university of pennsylvania press. We have known professor jones, cole, since 2010, when he received a society of cincinnati scholars grant to conduct research in our library in support of his doctoral dissertation on the administration of enemy prisoners of war in revolutionary america. We have since followed his career and accomplishments with great interest and admiration. He received his phd from Johns Hopkins in 2014, went on to hold postdoctoral fellowships at the American Society and the New York Historical society. Since 2015, he has been assistant professor of history at purdue university. Captives of liberty is an important and thoughtprovoking book that examines how the founding generation of americans grappled with the problems of prisoner treatment. During the eightyear conflict, American Forces captured more than 17,000 british and germanic soldiers. That was 1000 more mariners. In fact, the number of enemy prisoners in american custody often exceeded that of the american soldiers in the Continental Army. These prisoners proved increasingly burdensome for the new nation as the war progressed. What was to become of these men . How would they be confined . Who would pay to house and feed them . When and how should they be released . A series of political issues compounded these logistical difficulties. In his talk this evening, professor jones will take us from the meeting rooms of the Continental Congress to the prison camps of virginia, maryland, and pennsylvania, revealing the factors that coalesce to transform the conflict into a war for vengeance, escalating violence precipitously. So please join me. I am very much looking forward to his talk. Cole jones. [applause] prof. Jones excellent. Thank you for coming out. Ellen, thank you so much for that kind and generous introduction. Im just going to grab my little pointer here. It feels like a homecoming to be coming back here at anderson. The project that ellen just described, and what i am about to talk about, the book that came from that project, was, in many ways, really born here. This is my first archival trip as a historian for this project, when i was working on a dissertation at Johns Hopkins on this issue. I did not know what i was in for. I had a question, i wanted an answer, and i started to find those answers here. It is a great privilege to be back. It took me 10 years from that initial question to come up with this book that we will talk about today. With that, lets talk about it. What is this book all about . In short, as ellen told us, this book examines how revolutionary americans dealt with enemy prisoners. British, hessian, and also american loyalists. In order to figure that out, i had to begin with the premise. The premise was that prisoners of war are problematic. They pose a whole host of logistical as well as political problems. Prisoners of war, in fact, have been a perennial problem in the history of warfare. What do you do in your opponent throws down his arms and stops fighting, begging for his life . Do you even accept that proposition . Do you take prisoners at all, or has that person forfeited his life, and you just kill them out of hand . If you do agree to accept somebodys surrender, then what . Who is going to pay . How will you feed them, clothe them, shelter them, guard them . How long will you keep them . What will you do with them then, will you release them, etc. . Again, it is a logistical nightmare, even in the best circumstances. Its even more problematic when the two sides engaged in conflict do not view each other as equal. If you view your opponent as unlawful, uncivilized, and maybe even subhuman, then what are you going to do with these prisoners. You will see them as criminals, as terrorists, etc. Well have to go very far back in our own history to remember how this issue played out in the opening stages of the war on terror. Last i checked, which was not long ago, gitmo is still very much in operation. Are these people lawful combatants . No. This is a war on terror. They are criminals. Why dont we take them to trial and charge them with a crime . Cant really do that either. People will be held in limbo. My book looks at an earlier conflict. In short, it asks, how did these guys figure out this problem . What would the founders do, was my question. How are they going to deal with the problems posed by the 17,000 plus prisoners captured over an eightyear war . Before the conflict in vietnam, it was the largest war in american history. In order to tell this story, the story of the revolution, we actually have to go back to europe. We have to go back across the atlantic to the middle decades of the 18th century to try to understand how war was practiced in europe in what we call the age of the enlightenment. This is a 19thcentury painting, but i think it captures, in many ways, the culture of war practiced by europeans in the 18th century. Linear tactics. You see the french in the foreground. The french officer is actually, like, inviting the english. Probably on impossible story, but it gives you some sense on the culture of this conflict in europe, which is going to shape and color war in the American Revolution. This age of enlightenment was a period in which philosophers and scientists and men of reason believe that violence could be controlled. Violence was not an inherent thing that anybody could deal with. That it can be restrained. Humanity has value and pain is bad and can be ameliorated. They just accepted pain and violence as a way of life. That will play out in the actual practice of war. They are still going to fight a lot. In fact, for most of the 18th century, europe is at war. But they are going to fight over limited goals. Historians often call this the age of limited war, and they are going to fight with regular standing armies. So not bands of mercenaries or civilians in arms. They will be trained regular troops. And violence, while these battles can be very violent, it is controlled, it is limited to the battlefield. Maybe the siege of the city and or town in the worstcase scenario, but it is limited and controlled. Additionally, when the shooting stops, the violence stops. That is the idea. Violence will be limited to the battlefield, and that prisoners, if taken, will be treated humanely. They use that phrase, humane treatment. They will be treated with humanity. The key to this whole system is the social order of 18th century europe, which is an official which is a social order based on an aristocracy. There is an aristocratic culture, that are at the top of the order, a very hierarchical, patriarchal order in the early that these two men, the british officer and the spanish officer would have happily happy each other to death in the early 17th century over the confessional politics. The religion. One is a catholic, one is a protestant. Here, in the late 18th century, are engaging in gentleman conviviality, enjoying each others comradeship. They have something in common. They share this aristocratic culture of war and their understanding of how war should be fought. That pertains especially to prisoners. Officers like our spanish officer here, if he is captured, he can offer his parole. From the frenchmeaning word, parole of honor, in order to avoid imprisonment. He might go back home, and he might stay in the nearest city until he can be exchanged. Thats a real point of taking prisoners. You want to take your enemy prisoners and exchange them for your own troops who are in enemys hands. You want to do this as quickly as possible. Regular trained troops are hard to come by, and its hard to form a standing army. You want your troops back and especially you want your officers back. So what belligerent nations would do in the 18th century is they would sign a treaty. There is a cartel at the outset of hostility. War starts, france and britain are going at it. They will sign this treaty, and it will agree to how prisoners will be treated and more specifically how they will likely be exchanged. The cartel in place during the seven years war, which we call the french and indian war, that stipulated 14 days, so you would only be attacked at 14 days. So 14 days before you would be released. Now, did it always work that way . No. Things broke down and there were breaches. What happen when there was breaches . What is your side abused a prisoner . How will you rectify that . What is going to happen . New asll invoke with a what they called the law of retaliation. The law of retaliation is part of an expanding purpose of International Law that comes out of the enlightenment, stipulating how different nations should engage one another. If you violate the accepted norms of four, we will abuse that prisoner to the same level. The key here is proportionality. Retaliation is an act of proportional violence. In order to convince the other side that they need to play by the rules. In fact, in the 18th century, it happened very rarely in europe. In part because there is generally a code of honor shared by the officers on both sides of the conflict. And another part because the mere threat of retaliation was often enough to prevent abuse of prisoners. Plus, both sides had invested interest in giving their prisoners back. Orre was no u. N. International court to adjudicate these things. They were done between two men just like that on their word of honor. What about in america . We all know that warfare in america did not look like that. What about in america . In part, for most of the 18th century, the european powers are not sending regular troops, certainly not in large numbers, to north america. Most of the conflict in north america is fought by militia, colonial militias on both sides, new france and new england. In which colonies. So obviously there is a difference right there. They will not have the same standing army. There is no aristocracy in the british colonies in north america that shares those same values. Additionally, and most importantly, north america is also home to an indigenous population. Different native nations who have their own culture of war, their own understanding of what is acceptable violence in war. To take a scalp in the native culture of was is an accepted practice of warfare. But in europe, this would be seen as barbarism, savagery. Europeans tended to view their native antagonists as uncivilized. Beyond the pale civilization. Therefore not entitled to the same protection. When European Forces are going to fight against native nations, they will often do so with extreme violence in the 18th century. Additionally, the officers of these colonial American Forces are going to model themselves on the european counterparts. They want to be seen not as mere provincials, which is the official title, they want to be seen as officers of this caste. As gentleman officers of this caste. Here is an example of a new yorker. Commandingnson troops at the battle of lake george. He is restraining his native ally. This mohawk warrior who wants to scalp the poor wounded french officer. He is protecting this french officer from violence. The french officer will be will have given his parole and will be allowed to return to france, and till he is either exchanged or hostility ensues. In 1775, when the angloamerican elite decides to prosecute their grievances against parliament by 1775,of arms in april of it is with this idea of warfare that they enter the conflict. They believe they understand how the enemy is going to fight, and they will fight by these rules. And prisoners, of course, would be treated humanely. Anglo americans see themselves as british and civilized. The british, on the other hand, 3000 miles across the atlantic, had a very different idea. These were not just recalcitrant, colonial subjects, these were rebels. These were rebels and traitors against the king. They pose a direct challenge to the supremacy of parliament, and that cannot be tolerated. The British State and 18thcentury has suppressed no shorter than three major domestic insurrections in britain. And they had done so extremely violently. So rebels are to be punished. They are not to be conciliated, and they are not to be negotiated with. That is very, very clear. When the british army comes over here, they are forbidden, by the colonial ministry, from negotiating with the americans. They are not allowed to negotiate over terms of prisoners of war anything like that. These are rebels in arms, they are criminals, and subject to civil justice. Ok, here is a problem. You can capture 300 guys, maybe you can bring them back to london, try them for treason, and hang some of them. What do you do with 3000 . That is what the british have in the fall of 1776 and new york. What are they going to do with these prisoners . They cant negotiate for their release, because that would be legitimizing the americans. Nor can we send them all back to london. That would bog down our ports forever. What will we do . Guantanamo bay of 1776. We are going to hold them indefinitely. The problem is the british occupied new york city. New york city is burned. The ruin of a city. Where is general howell going to put these prisoners but on troop transport ships . Probably the most famous of these is the jersey. Jersey is only used as a prison ship later in the war, not at first. Nonetheless, the condition on these prison ships which the american soldiers are going to be held and jersey primarily holds sailors. They will be atrocious. You can imagine the filth of the and the disease thats going to run rampant when you put thousands of people on a ship like that, moored in the brooklyn harbor. Consequently, fatalities will mount. Really quickly. That first winter of 1976 and 1776, 1777 is really, really deadly for the americans. Historians estimate that somewhere between 12,000 and 18,000 American Service personnel died in british custody during their eight years of this british revolutionary war. Between 12000 and 18,000. There are between 20,000 and 30,000 americans captured. We dont have great numbers for this. Thats over 50 . That means if youre going to fall into british hands, you have an over 50 chance of dying. And stories of these hellholes , these prison ships are going to spread. American newspapers, propagandists will latch onto this as evidence that the british are the barbarians. We are playing by the rules, we are doing things the right way, they are the ones who are savages and are not civilized people. As one american officer said, genl washington intends to show the british that americans are humane as well as brave. So we are not going to sink to their level. This is ideological and political commitment to the way americans are going to treat prisoners of war. A great example of this is the capture of the hessian per day brigade. Soldiers,hessian german auxiliary troops are captured. Washington specifically for bids his officers and soldiers from abusing these hessians who had themselves paved horribly during the campaign in new york. Often times not taking american prisoners. He specifically for bids this. When they march these prisoners through philadelphia, they began throwing dung at them, throwing rocks, calling them names. Washington instructed his officers to calm the crowds. He allows these hessian prisoners to move to central pennsylvania, reading, york, lancaster area to work, right, instead of being confined in jails. They are going to work on farms in return for meager wages, room and board. They are given a lot of freedom. They are not guarded, certainly not put on prison ships at all. The british are still doing this. There is no headway here on this issue. Americans are still dying. When some are released, William Howell release many of the men. They will come back to their communities. They will be diseased and traumatized by the experience of these prison ships. They are going to tell their families and anyone who will listen about how barbaric the british had been. This will search the port for the revolution. For many people who are on the fence it will now say this is wrong. Additionally, people are going to start saying, its time. We have played nice too long. Its time, as one Citizen Rights to congress, he said its time to revenge the innocent blood of your murder children. The british are going to put the men on ships so we should put their men on ships. Retaliation is proportional. That is tolerated by the laws of war. But this call for italian nation going to spiral into demands for vengeance. Vengeance is not proportional. It is an act of revenge. I call this process the politics of vengeance. As it turns out, George Washington does not have a monopoly on violence. He does not control. Yes limited control over the northern armies that he commands, but that is it. He does not control the states. He does not control state militias. A very little control outside of his individual area. In the states themselves were now responsible to their constituents, are going to enact retaliatory measures that will spiral to vengeance against first loyalists, those americans to sign thelling oath of allegiance to the new states, they are going to be punished and then britain as well. Loyalists have a particularly hard well past parttime passing the declaration of independence. Paradoxically, once independence is declared, if you are loyal to the government under which you were born, suddenly independence happens and now you are a traitor to your state. And all 13 states are going to make treason laws that punish loyalists. Capital crimeac of all 13 states. Not every state will use capital punishment, but most willing gauge in persecution. In particular, confiscation of land. But also execution as well. And most of these executions are going to be extralegal. They will not use the apparatus of the courts to do it. It will be more like mob and vigilante justice. A group will come to your house, drag you out, and string you up. In fact, one american officer from virginia, a guy called charles lynch, became so famous for hanging loyalists that they called it lynchs law. He would hang them according to lynchs law. So the act of hanging a loyalist became lynching. To lynch a loyalist. Loyalists themselves will respond with violence and increasing violence against their oppressor. Whenever they can, they will rise up in rebellion and do so and retaliate on a similar scale. But its not enough just to target loyalists. You also have to target the british. And that is really where they see the british are the epicenter of patriot animosity. They have become barbarians beyond the pale of civilization. Revolutionists will get an opportunity for revenge on a grand scale in october of 1777, when American General Horatio Gates captures british general john Burgoynes Army at saratoga. We know this is the turning point of the American Revolution. What we probably dont think about too often is that they were both british officers. They both served together in the same regiment when they were 13 years old. They were old friends. Gates is going to sign what is known as a convention. Burgoyne will not surrender. He will sign a treaty of convention with a cessation of hostility that will allow him to go back to england on parole. As long as his men dont fight in america, his whole army can go back. This is part of that gentlemanly culture of war that we talked about in the european context. But you can imagine, if you are an american in milford, connecticut, and your brother died on a british prison ship, and suddenly you have 6000 british and brunswick prisoners in your custody, now is the time to put them on a prison ship. Right . Now is the time to obtain vengeance, justice for your murdered loved ones. So ordinary americans are infuriated by the treaty. They are going to petition congress, demanding that they do something. In fact, that is exactly what will happen. In january of 1778, congress will repudiate the convention of saratoga. They will say we will not agree to this until the parliament of Great Britain does two things. The parliament of Great Britain must agree that the United States is a sovereign nation. They are not going to do that. Thats the point of the war. Ok . So they are not going to do that. Then the British Crown will reimburse the American Congress for all of the expenses of the prisoners up to that point. And it was a vastly exaggerated amount of money that they demanded. So of course, parliament is going to say no, but parliament will also stop sending supplies to these prisoners. If they arent going to be released, let the americans pay for them. Congress does not have the power of the purse. Parliament cannot pass, it have to ask states for requisition. Massachusetts has had enough of these guys and they cannot stay here anymore. Congress orders them to march in wintertime. You will march from boston, massachusetts to charlottesville, virginia. That is an unpleasant walk. You can imagine, especially if you have already marched from canada. Along this way, prisoners will suffer every town they go through. They are pelted with stones, harassed, some murdered, etc. They are furious because of the way that burgoyne had fought that campaign. He had employed native american allies, particularly the mohawk nation. The native american auxiliaries and not played by those gentlemanly rules. In fact, they had murdered a jane mcrae. So people are furious and demanding revenge. Turns out people of virginia are , none too fond of these prisoners. They will wear out their welcome thee, and eventually governor of virginia will stop paying. You are congresss problem, we have no money for you anymore. No money means no food. They are kept in these pens in these camps where there is no food. If you are starving you are more likely to contract a disease. Imagine 6000 people in an pen with a hut to shelter you. One british surgeon at a camp in pennsylvania said the prisoners are falling sick so fast they are not man enough to attend them to bury the dead. He said the army is at the very jaws of death. Here they are entering captivity. After the war, they are not so cheerful. There is the return of some of the prisoners of war showing prisoners who had died, had disease, etc. The Convention Army will never be officially released until the end of the war. They are held for fiveandahalf years. Congress will never agree to terms of the convention. And the british will never agree to the american demands. They will be held until the treaty of paris ends the war in 1783. By that point there are about 20 of them left. Many have run away. Some have enlisted in the American Army to avoid the horrible conditions of the prison camps. And others have died. Washington is totally horrified by this. This is not the war he wanted to fight. Washington is an exemplar of the virginia gentlemen. He wants to play by european rules. He is thinking of his mentor, general braddock. He wants to live up to those standards. But each of the states is not only fighting against a foreign foe, they are also fighting internal civil wars with their own subjects that are rising up and rebelling in the name of the king to try to challenge their authority. Their own citizens are demanding they do something. They have to answer their constituents. And many, even in Washingtons Army by 1779, 1780, are demanding we fight british fire with fire. The gloves are off. This has gone too far. Washington, however, throughout the war fights that impulse. Constantly fighting the impulse for revenge. Trying to talk people off the ledge. Trying to reason with congress. Congress will want to throw some hessian officers in a dungeon. And he says, please, lets new lets not do that, lets not be rash, etc. Washington gets his opportunity to show he is in fact a europeanstyle officer deserving of that title in october of 1781, when another british general, this time charles cornwallis, will surrender his army at yorktown, another roughly 6000 men. So those are the two big captures of the war, yorktown and saratoga. In the presence of the french are very punctually us ctilious aboutun protocol, washington is able to demonstrate his magnanimity. He can offer wallace exceedingly generous terms. Not as generous as gates offered burgoyne. They will be prisoners of war but cornwallis will be allowed to return to england on parole. Almost all the officers of the army will go back to new york on their parole of honor not to fight until the exchange. The rankandfile will be marched into virginia, the interior where they will be provided the same rations and clothing as the Continental Army. They are protected against retaliation. It is in the surrender documents that these prisoners cannot be retaliated upon. That is really very magnanimous of him. You can imagine how the angry farmer in milford, connecticut whose brother is sitting on a prison ship feels about that. Not great. Even more so, the population of the southern states, cornwalliss army had spread terror, violence, etc. Provoking loyalist insurrections, freeing enslaved people, etc. So there is great demand for revenge. The delegates from South Carolina to the Continental Congress want to recall cornwallis. They petition to have cornwallis recalled to philadelphia so he may be hanged in front of congress. They are like, that is what we need, we want him hanged. And you can imagine how that would play out. Congress cant afford to feed these guys any better than the army. What are they going to do with these people . They are bringing them to the same camp. They are bringing these prisoners to the same camp as the army in virginia and pennsylvania and maryland eventually. And according to one of the prisoners, a guy named roger lamb, he wrote this after the war i love what he wrote in , here. Lord cornwalliss army was shut up here like a toad in a whole and full of venom. They are not pleased by the situation whatsoever. No surprise, because yellow fever is going through philadelphia in the summer of 1781, so before they are captured. And it will spread to the camps in pennsylvania and begin taking the lives of these prisoners at rate, to the point a fairly goodve record of the yorktown prisoners, who again were never exchanged. They are held until the treaty ends the war in 1783. The spring of 1783. So the numbers, the mortality rate of the british prisoners of cornwalliss army in american custody is over 30 , which is higher the mortality rate of Union Prisoners at confederate prison andersonville in the civil war. Now, we dont have photographs from the American Revolution, but that is what starvation and disease does to the human body. And that paints some picture, i think, of the suffering these prisoners endured. Eventually they dont have enough food to keep even the emaciated ones alive. So they agree to sell the hessians into indentured servitude. Anyone who refuses or resists being sold is sent to philadelphia, to the new jail in philadelphia where yellow fever , is rampant. A group of 128 men who are confined there in philadelphia for one year, of the 128, 20 of them perished in philadelphia. That gives you some sense. So washington was deeply, deeply upset by this. And he could not control it. They could command his army, but not command congress. He was a subject of congress. And congress was answerable to the states. So he had no power over that. He continually tries to arrange informal exchanges with the british, to no avail. They continue trying and trying and trying, they just can never because terms, largely the states are discarding the prisoners not giving them back to washington. No, they are our prisoners now. We will hold them in exchange for our guys. Washington has to confess he feels deeply embarrassed on the issue of prisoners. That so prisoners so prisoners on both sides are going to languish in captivity until the treaty of paris. This is an image done of american prisoners on the famous Jersey Prison ship. Showing the sunken faces of these men. We dont have any images for the british prisoners, but british pension applications, the survivors who made it through the captivity and made it home to apply for a pension, they read like a laundry list of misery, suffering and woe. Just a few quotes from enlisted prisoners were in these camps , talking about how their confinement left them really suffering, bearing the scars of their captivity for life. Many dont actually live very long after they returned home. When british survivor, when he wrote in his diary he said, the treatment of prisoners in general during the american war was harsh, severe, and in many instances inhuman. That is a pretty sad story. N upsetting story. What are we going to make of that . How does this make us rethink the American Revolution . I think it forces us to confront an uncomfortable reality, which is the American Revolution was tragic for many people. We have this triumphant, nationalist narrative of this revolution that belies the tragedy at the core of the eightyear civil war that divided these people. Many scholars recently observed this was a bloody, contradictory, divisive civil war, and too often we forget those horrors. The tale of these prisoners confirms that. But perhaps most importantly, the wartime experiences of these prisoners demonstrates that americans commitment to the restraint of violence, wartime violence was fragile. , it was complicated and then eroded by the experience of the war itself. So the act of waging this war degraded that prewar commitment to restraining violence and treating prisoners humanely. So in short, i conclude its we stop talking about the war for american independence. I hate this term, and we need to Start Talking about the American Revolutionary war. Because this was a revolutionary war. It was fundamentally different from the practice of war before. It was every bit as revolutionary in character as the french revolutionary war of the late 18th century. So while the American Revolution itself did not devolve into the terror of the french revolution, and i have lots of ideas about why it did not, it could have. And in places where the loyalists and the british actually posed a Severe Threat to the revolution, it did, it did devolve into cycles of vengeance and terror. So much like the case of the french revolution, revolutionary political change, getting rid of monarchy and creating a republic based on popular sovereignty at popular sovereignty, had the unintended consequence of removing war from the hands of these elite gentlemen, and escalating its violence along the way. Prisoners on both sides suffered. So from the Vantage Point of these prisoners the American Revolution looks like a cautionary tale, not an inspirational one. And i plead with you to emulate the aspirations of the founders, and other actions. We can do better. We must do better. Thank you very much. [applause] i am happy to entertain some questions if we have time. Yes, please. I have wondered for quite some time, you mentioned the hessians in trenton went to the reading area in pennsylvania. In maryland, frederick, we have a building commonly referred to as the hessian barracks. I am wondering, in your study did you find out which hessians were imprisoned there . Professor jones yes. Frederick, as well as Fort Frederick which was a separate entity further away, where the sites of these internment camps throughout the war. Frederick is used for british prisoners as well as hessian prisoners. There were many different regiments who would have cycled through there, because again maryland will refuse to pay , after a while. So then they have to go over the border to virginia or pennsylvania. I believe brunswick troops from Burgoynes Army were there for a while. We call all german auxiliary troops hessian. But in fact they came from many different principalities within what is now germany. So brunswick was one of the larger contingents that were captured at saratoga. Yes . [inaudible] sure. Sor jones charlson is an interesting case. Because sir Henry Clinton decides he wants to do Something Different than howe did. People parole the entire militia. But then these paroled militiamen will go off and join the forces, break their parole and he will become enraged because they did not play by the rules. When cornwallis takes over, he will retaliate on those prisoners violently. The Continental Army troops are initially kept in the barracks in charleston. But then, once these violations of paroles happen, the british commander, i believe its nesbitt balfour, put them month prison ships to punish them for the violations of the rules. Yes . Thank you for your work. Its very novel and interesting. Professor jones thank you. How do you tell intentional harm when you are a prisoner versus gross negligence . It is at least gross negligence. And i think you can make an british, a lothe of them, arguably it was gross negligence and they did not understand how diseases work. Clearly at least gross negligence. But you have cited some angry words by americans, but how did they really translate into the intentional harm, or was it mostly just the lack of funds, and they were not well organized when it came to money and raising money, the appreciation of money . Professor jones thats a great question. It is a sliding scale. Professor jones where does gross negligence and cruelty begin . I would argue from the position of a prisoner if you are starving in a camp, it doesnt matter what the intentions were. But there were actually violent intentions. In fact, for much of the war the british are willing to swap american sailors captured on the prison ships informally with the americans. And washington wants to do it. He wants to make these exchanges to release the prisoners. But congress cannot do that because they are under demand from the states to hold these prisoners for the purposes of retaliation. So they use that language, we , we willng these men not exchange them, we will keep them locked up the punish the british for what they have done , and show them they cannot push us around anymore. So from the perspective of individual states, as well as many delegates in congress, it is intentional. They could have released british prisoners, and gotten american prisoners in exchange, but they dont. Individual states will do it. Washington is able to get people exchanged through his contacts and informally negotiating with howe. There are no largescale major exchanges. In your research, have you come across examples of how the british treated the irish rebels prior to the revolution . When i was in ireland, they said ofor to the easter uprising 1916, they said there had been 17 or 18 previous rebellions, big and small, and the unifying characteristic was that the officers all got hanged. Did you find anything like that in your research . Professor jones yeah, so, what i was discussing in my book was British Attitudes toward how you suppress the rebellion and what do you do with the captives, it is actually scotland and the jacobite rebellion of 1715 and 1745. The british army will do that effectively. They will capture the officer corps, they will be tried for treason and executed as a symbolic gesture. But they also drive the ordinary, common highland scots out of their homes. Many are sold into indentured servitude, etc. So they are using extreme violence across the rebellion. It is my understanding that the british were doing the same thing in ireland, particularly in 1798 with the major rising in ireland then. Because rebellions pose an existential threat to the state. They call call the legitimacy of the state into the question. You cannot negotiate with rebels without undermining the very foundation of government. And in britain, the foundation of government is not the god or the king. It is a parliamentary monarchy, so any challenge to the parliament is as a next attentional threat is an existential threat that has to be punished. The fact that these are gaelic speaking, primarily, many catholics. It will make them seem uncivilized or alien to the british army, which is going to exacerbate this trend of violence. We see that is less so in the american case, which is a mitigating factor for many of these british officers. Yes . [inaudible] professor jones right. I cant quite recall the reference in the book to that, but the issue here at play, i think, is that the americans are shocked. They had not seen war like this. It is worth keeping in mind that most of the American Revolutionary war is fought right along the coast the most , settled places in north america. War used the be peripheral, distant. It was on the frontier, western pennsylvania, western new york, canada, the west indies. They did not have them in bordentown, new jersey. They had not been major fighting since 1675. So war comes to these communities, and they have never seen war. Maybe one or two of the men in town had fought during the french and indian war, but many had not. So they had this idealized vision of what war should be. It is like a picture, it is like a painting. That is what war looks like in europe. It is pretty. There are flags, and drums. That is not what happens in the American Revolution. Back there . Ironically, the revolution brought about the emancipation of many slaves. Lord dunsmore, who committed the desk commanded the british, so who commanded the british, so many of the loyalists allowed the emancipation of the slaves. It was chaos. Upwards of 20,000 enslaved americans had joined forces with the british. I was wondering if there is much documentation on what happened . Professor jones it is a very sad story, predictably. Dunmore issues this emancipation proclamation saying if you are a slave belonging to the revolutionaries, the rebels, if you are enslaved by the rebels, you may for yourself by joining the british by rallying to my standard. Initially just men to raise for his regiment, and then eventually after 1779 there becomes a general emancipation for the property of rebel masters. What happens when they are when they joined the british army and they are captured by americans . In 1775 at a place called great bridge, virginia, immediately the revolutionaries are confronted. What kind of know what we need to do to these british soldiers. We are less sure about the white loyalists. And what do we do about the slaves . Desirere is an initial to murder them right on the field of battle. One of the commanders has to intercede and prevent them from being murdered. He does this not out of humidity or the goodness of his heart, he wants to sell them and get the profit from it. Many masters petition and say they want their property back, say this is my property, i want it back. Even washington has to sign some of these. He does not seem to think it is a big problem, sending property back. Throughout the war, africanamericans in arms captured could be summarily executed on the spot. More often than not they are sold into slavery somewhere else. Sold into the west indies. Put on ships. Privateer vessels. There is a salt and a lead mine in western pennsylvania where they sent black loyalists, virginia does, to work there. It is even more horrific than for the White British soldiers. Yorktown,at [inaudible] professor jones yeah, its a real problem. The reason washington does not want to touch it is because, if you are born of the states, you are considered a citizen of that state after july 4, 1776. And if you are caught in arms against that state, that is insurrection and treason, which is punishable by death. So washington cannot override the treason laws of the individual states. That is what he does not want to touch that whatsoever because he doesnt have the power to do that. Effectively he is constrained. , in reality, most loyalist prisoners are returned to the states. Some are tried. But again the same thing within , britain. You cannot try 500 people for treason. This is an inchoate government. They dont have the resources to do that. So there are some exemplary exclusions executions, and a lot of per rollin aroling. We will take your property. Get your property and leave. Go back to british occupied new york and things like that. It is a mix of exemplary terror not unlike in the irish and scottish cases, and some form of pardon and disenfranchisement. Our last question right here. I know in the case of a lot of the german soldiers, like soldiers like roger lam as well, they settled in america. Do we know a rough estimate of how many pows actually stayed , even after the peace treaty . Professor jones the short answer is no, we dont. What we do know is there has persistently been a long story, which is these poor hessian mercenaries. They were sent over here, they were captured, and they were shown the bounty of this american land, all this freedom and liberty and land to farm. So they settled and prospered and became active members of the community, especially in central pennsylvania. There is a large germanspeaking population. That is the story. That one makes us feel good at night. It is actually much more complicated than that. Congress and washington will actively try to make that happen. They will try to encourage the hessians to desert and join the American Army, to settle down. Just dont go back to the british. Found,t my colleague has he has gone over to germany and gone through the must roles of a lot of these regiments, the muster rolls of a lot of these regiments, and a lot of these guys come back. They do. They enlist in the wreck and army. They enlist in the American Army. When they get close to new york city they will run away. They will rejoin the regiment. We had this idea the germans were forced here and miserable and maltreated and had no loyalty. Princes sent them for money. It is not really true. These are regular, basically professional soldiers. They have a sworn oath. They feel a duty, and they want to get home at the end of the war. We dont really know. But it is much more complicated than we would like it to be. Thank you for joining us this evening, and thank you to dr. Jones for his talk this evening. Professor jones thank you. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] history tvamerican on cspan3, we are each weekend we feature 48 hours of grahams exploring our nations past 48 hours of programs exploring our nations past. Q a, a prominent member of the Coronavirus Task force. When you deal with the interface of politics, policy and medicine, the thing i have found to be very effective his beacon system, be totally honest, and dont tell people things you think they might want to hear. Tell them the truth that is even on evidence, because though politicians, be they in the administration or in the congress, may not be happy with what you tell them because a disappoints them, they will respect you if after a while, it is clear to them you are telling them the truth based on scientific evidence. Anthonyofiled dr. Faucher, director of the National Institute of allergy and infectious diseases, his personal life, relationships with past residents end his career fighting infectious diseases, hiv, sars, h1n1 and now the global coronavirus pandemic. Watch a profile of dr. Anthony fauci sunday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspans q a. The United States Public Health service originated with in 1798 forngress the relief of sick and disabled seamen. The role and responsibilities of what is now called the commissioned corps of the u. S. Public Health Service has changed and evolved over the years since then. Fromon reel america, the work of the Public Health 1936, service. This Public Health service film shows activities of the diseasefighting service. This Program Includes hi