The Library Director at the American Revolution institute of the society of cincinnati. It is my pleasure to be the one to introduce t. Cole jones, who will speak to us 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 john hopkins in 2014. , went on to hold postdoctoral fellowships at 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 again 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 . You take prisoners at all, or 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, close the 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 prisoners 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. Our 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. Humanity has value and pain 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. This is called the age of limited war, and they are going to fight with regular standing armies. They are not not bands of mercenaries or civilians in arms. They will be trained regular troops. 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. 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 entry is any europe, which official order based on an aristocracy. There is an aristocratic culture theey are at the top of order, a very hierarchical, patriarchal order 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 to prisoners. Officers like the spanish officer, if he is captured, he can offer his parole. Word,he frenchmeaning 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 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 an army. You want your troops back and especially you want your officers back. So what those nations would do in the 18th century is they would sign a treaty. There is a cartel 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 how quickly they will be exchanged. The cartel in place during the seven years war, which we call the french and indian war, 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 . What is going to happen . One thing they invoked was the law of retaliation. It is part of an expanding purpose of International Law that comes out stipulating how different nations should engage one another. If you violate the war, 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. Both sides had a vested interest in getting their prisoners back. There is no u. N. Or International Court to adjudicate these things. It was done between two men 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 , france and england, english 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 acceptedf was is an practice of warfare. But in europe, this would be seen as barbarism, savagery. Europeans tended to view their antagonists as uncivilized. Beyond the pale of civilization, is what they will say, and 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. You see the commander of the you seeal troops, and him restraining his native ally. To mohawk warrior who wants scalp the french officer. He is protecting this french officer from violence. The french officer will be allowed his parole, to return to france until he is either exchanged or hostility ensues. In 1775, when the angloamerican elite decides to prosecute their grievances of force of arms in april of 1875. It is with this idea of warfare that they entered 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 diplomacy 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 by thehey are forbidden, 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. Here is a problem, you can capture 300 guys, maybe 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 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 they them all back to london. That would bog down the 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. New york city is burned. A city. Sort of ruin of going togeneral howell put these prisoners but on troop transport ships . The most famous of these is the jersey. It is the only use of the prison ship later in the war. Nonetheless, the condition on these prison ships which the american soldiers are going to be held and jersey primarily holds this. They will be atrocious. You can imagine the filth of 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. That first winter of 1976 and 1977 is really, really deadly for the americans. Historians estimate that somewhere between and 18,000 12,000 American Service personnel died in british custody. 18,000. 12000 and there are between 20,000 and 30,000 americans captured. We dont have great numbers for this. Thats over 60 . That means if youre going to fall into british hands, you have an over 60 chance of dying. And stories of these hellholes in 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 and , we are doing things the right way, they are the ones who are savages and are not civilized people. As one american officer said, general washington says that americans are humane as well is as brave. We are not going to sink down to their level. There is an ideological and political commitment to the way americans will treat prisoners of war. A great example of this is that capture of the hessian brigade in trenton. About 9000 hessian soldiers, german auxiliary troops, are captured. Washington specifically forbids his officers and soldiers from abusing these hessians, who had themselves behaved horribly during the campaign in york. He specifically forbids it. When they march these prisoners through philadelphia, crowds gathering, throwing rocks at them, and calling them names. Washington instructed his officers to calm the crowd. He allows these prisoners to move to central pennsylvania, reading, york, lancaster to work , right, instead of being confined in jail. They are going to work on farms in return for meager wages, room and board. They are given a lot of freedom. But theygarden guarded, are 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 Howard released some, they will come back to their communities , and they will be diseased, and they will be 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 have been. This is going to stir up support for the revolution. This is, for many people who are on the fence, will now say, no, no, this is wrong. Additionally, people will start saying, its time. We played nice too long. Its time. As one citizen writes, he says, its time to revenge the innocent blood of the children. If they will put our men on ship, we should put their men on ships. Retaliation, proportional. Thats by the laws of war. But this call for retaliation is 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. Because, as it turns out, George Washington does not have a monopoly on violence. He does not control he has limited control over the Northern Army that he commands, but thats it. Right . He did not control the states. He does not control the state militias. He has a very little control outside of his individual area. The states, who are now responsible for their constituents, are now going to act retaliatory measures that will conspire the vengeance against loyalists. Those americans who are unwilling to sign the oath of allegiance to the new state are going to be punished and in that eventually britons as well. If you are loyal to the government under which you were born, suddenly independence happened, and now you are a traitor to your state. And all 13 states are going to make treason laws that are going to punish loyalists. Not every state will use capital punishment, but most willing engaged in persecution of some kind. In particular, confiscation of land. But also, of course, executions as well. And most of these executions are extralegal. Ng to be they will not use the apparatus of the courts to do it. It will be more like mob or 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. 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. Become barbarians beyond the pale of civilization. Revolutionists will get an opportunity for revenge on a grand scale in october of 1777, when American GeneralHoratio Gates captures british general Burgoynes Army at saratoga. We know this is the turning point of the American Revolution. They were both british officers, they both served together in the same regiment. They were old friends. Gates is going to sign what is known as a convention. Burgoyne will not surrender. He will sign a treaty 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 o