Society of the cincinnati. It is my very special pleasure tonight to introduce cole jones will be speaking to us this 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 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 and revolutionary america. We have since followed his career and accomplishments with great interest and admiration. He received his ph. D. From Johns Hopkins in 2014, went on to hold post doctoral 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 thought provoking book that examines how the founding generation of americans grappled with the problems of prisoner treatment. We during the eight year conflict, American Forces captured more than 17,000 british and allied german soldiers as well as thousands more loyalists and british 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 nation as the war progressed. What was to become of these men . How would they be confined . We who would pay to house and feed them . When and how should they be released . A series of thorny political issues compounded these logistical difficulties. In his top this evening, professor jones will take us from the meeting rooms of the Continental Congress to the prison camps of virginia and maryland and pennsylvania. Revealing the factors that coalesced to transform the conflict into a war for vengeance escalating violence precipitously. Please join me and very much looking forward to this top. Coal jones you. Excellent. Thank you everyone thank you so much for coming out. Thank you for that kind and generous introduction. I will grab my point or here. It feels like a homecoming to be back here at anderson house. The projects that ellen just described and the things that i will talk about and the book that came from that project was born here. This was my first archival trip as a historian for this project. I was working on a dissertation on Johns Hopkins on this issue. I did not know what i was looking for. I had a question, i wanted unanswered, i started finals answers here at the society. So it is really a great privilege to be back although i didnt note it has been ten years. It took me ten years from that initial question to come up with this book that we will talk about today. So with that lets talk about it shall we . What is this book all about . In short we, as ellen told us, this book examines how revolutionary americans dealt with enemy prisoners. British, hessians as well as american loyalists. In order to figure that out i had to begin with the premise which was that prisoners of war or problematic. They pose a whole host of logistical and political problems. Prisoners of war in fact have been a perennial problem in the history of warfare. What do you do when your opponent throws down his arms and stopped fighting . Begging for his life. Do you even accept that proposition . Do you take prisoners at all . Has that person forfeited his life . Can you just kill them out of hand . If you do agree someones surrender than what . Who will pay . How will you feed them . How will you clothes them . Shelter them . Guard them . Where we hold them . How long will you keep them . What will you do with them then . Will you just release them etc . Again it is a logistical nightmare in the best of circumstances. But it is even worse and more problematic when the two sides engaged in conflict do not view each other as equals. If you view your opponent as unlawful, uncivilized, maybe even subhuman, then what are you going to do with these prisoners . You will see them as criminals. As terrorists etc. We do not have to go very far back in our own history to remember how this issued played out in the opening stages of the war on terror. Last i checked, not long ago, the Guantanamo Bay prison is very much still in operation. What will you do with these people . Are they lawful combatants . No. This is a war on terror right . They are criminals. Okay. Why do we not send them on trial . Why not charged them with a crime . We cant really do that either right . So what do we do . People will be held in limbo. That is where my book comes in. It looks at an earlier conflict. In short, it asks how did these guys figure out this problem . How did they address it . What would the founders do . That was my question. How are they going to deal with the problems posed by these 17,000plus prisoners captured over an eight year war . Before vietnam, it was the longest 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 and understand how war was practiced in europe. In what we call the age of the enlightenment. This is a 19th century 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 officers actually inviting the english and things like the honor of firing first. It is probably an apocryphal story but it gives you a sense of the culture of this conflict in europe. This will shape and color war in the American Revolution. This age of enlightenment was a period in which philosophers and scientists and men of reason believed that violence could be controlled. That violence was not an inherent thk we that everyone has to deal with. That it could be restrained. That humanity has value, that pain is bad and can be ameliorated. For centuries, society has accepted pain and violence as a way of life. Therefore that will play out in the actual practice of war. They will still fight, a lot. In fact for most of the 18th century europe is at war. But they will fight over limited goals. Historians call this the age of limited war. They will fight with regular standing armies. Not bands of mercenaries or civilians in arms. It will be trained regular troops. While these battles can be very violent, as the four french guards realize, it is controlled and limited to the battlefield. We may be the siege of the city or a town in the worstcase scenario, but violence is limited and controlled. Additionally, when the shooting stops, the violence stops. That is the idea. That violence will be limited to the battlefield and if prisoners are taken they will be treated humanely. They use that phrase. Humane treatment. Treated with humanity. The key to this whole system is the social order of 18th century europe which is a social order based on an aristocracy. There isnt an aristocratic culture at the top of the social order, a very high article and patriarchal order. A british officer and spanish officer. The spanish officer on the left, who wouldve happily hacked each other to death in the early 17th century over the differing politics and religions. Here in the late 18th century they are engaging in gentlemanly conviviality. Comradeship. They have something in common. They share this aristocratic culture of war. They are understanding of how war should be fought. That pertains, especially to prisoners. Officers like our spanish officer, if these captured he can offer his parole. Parole of honor in order to avoid imprisonment. He might go back home. He might stay in the night near city until he can be exchanged. That is the real point of taking prisoners. It is you want to take your enemy prisoners and then exchange them for your own troops who are in enemy hands. You want to do this as quickly as possible because regular trained troops are hard to come by. It takes a long time to form a standing army. You want your troops back. Especially your officers. So what belligerent nations would do in the 18th century is strident sign a treaty. A cartel at the outset of hostilities. France and britain are going at it and they will sign this treaty which will agree to how prisoners will be treated. More specifically, how quickly they will be exchanged. The cartel that was in place during the seven years war, we call it the french indian war, stipulated 14 days. You are only to be a captive 14 days before being released. It did not always work that way. Things broke down and there were breaches etc. What happened when there was a sort of breach of etiquette . What if your side abused a prisoner . How are you going to rectify that . What is going to happen . Well, for one thing they will invoke what they knew or called the law of retaliation. The law of retaliation is part of an expanding corpus of International Law that comes out of the enlightenment, stipulating how different nations should engage one another. So if you violate the accepted norms of war, if you abuse your prisoner, then we will take another prisoner and we will abuse that prisoner to the exact same level. The key here is proportionality. Retaliation is a in act of proportional violence in order to convince the other side they need to play by the rules. In the 18th century it acted very rarely in europe. In part because of this gentlemanly code of honor shared by officers on both sides of these conflicts. Another reason is the mere threat of retaliation was often enough to prevent abuse of prisoners. Plus both sides had a vested interest in getting their prisoners back. There was no un or 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 right . What about in america . In part, because for most of the 18th century the european powers are not sending regular troops. Certainly not in large numbers. Most of the conflict in north america is fought by militia. Colonial militias on both sides. New france and new england. English colonies. There is a difference right there. You will not have the same standing armies. There is no aristocracy in the british colonies in north america that share the same values. Additionally and most importantly, north america is also home to the 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 war is an accepted practice of warfare. In europe this would be seen as barbarism, savagely. Europeans tended to view their antagonist as uncivilized. Beyond the pale of civilization is what they would say and therefore not entitled to the same person 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 observed these colonial forces have modeled themselves on their european counterparts. They do not do not want to be seen as more credentials, which is the term, they want to be seen as gentleman officers of this same cast. Heres an example of a new yorker, sir william johnson, a new york provincial troop. Hes showing himself restraining his native ally. This mohawk warrior who wants to scalp the four wounded french officer. He is protecting his fellow gentleman officer from violence. The french officer will have given his parole and be allowed to return to france until hes either exchanged or a cessation of hostilities ensues. So in 1775, when the Angle American elite decide to prosecute their grievances against parliament by force of arms in april. It is with the idea of warfare that they entered the conflict. They believe that they understand how their enemy is going to fight and they will fight by these rules. Prisoners of course would be treated humanely. Angle americans see themselves as british and civilized. The british on the other hand, 3000 miles across the atlantic have a very different idea. These were not just some recalcitrant colonial subjects, these are rebels and traders against the king. They pose a direct challenge of the supremacy of parliament and that cannot be tolerated. The British State in the 18th century had suppressed no shorter than three major domestic insurrections in britain. They had done so extremely violently. Rebels are to be punished. They are not to be conciliated or negotiated with. That is very clear. The british army comes over here and are forbidden by the Colonial Ministry from negotiating with the americans. They are not allowed to negotiate over terms of prisoners of war or anything like that. These are rebels in arms. Criminals. Therefore they are subject to civil justice. Heres a problem. You can capture 300 guys, maybe bring them back to london and put them on trial for treason and hang some of them. What do you do when you captured 3000 . That is a fact that is exactly what the british will do in the fall of 1776 in new york. What will they do with these prisoners . They cannot negotiate for the release because that would be legitimizing the americans. They cannot do that. Nor can we send them back to london. That would bog down our courts forever. What are we going to do . Guantanamo bay, 1776, we are going to hold them indefinitely. The problem is, new york city is burned. It is a ruin of a city. Where is general how going to put these prisoners where is general howe going to put these prisoners . Troop transport ships. The most famous is the jersey. Its only used as a prison ship later in the your. But nonetheless, the conditions on the prison ships for these american soldiers are going to be jersey primarily holds sailors are going to be atrocious. You can imagine. The filth, the disease when he put thousands of people on a ship like that moored in the brooklyn harbor. Consequently, fatalities are going to mount really quickly. That first winter of 7677 is really, really deadly for the americans. Historians estimate somewhere between 12000 and 18,000 American Service personnel died in british custody during the eight years of the revolutionary war. There were perhaps between 20 and 30,000 americans captured. We do not have great numbers for this. Thats over 50 though. That means if you will fall in british hands, you have over 50 chance of dying. Stories of these hellholes, these prison ships, are going to spread. American newspapers, propagandists, are going to launch latch on to 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. They are not civilized people. As one american officer says, general washington intends to show the british that americans are humane as well as brave. That we are not going to sink to their level. There is in 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 brigade at trenton on christmas 1776. About 900 hessian soldiers, german exhilarates troops, are captured. Washington specifically forbids his officers and soldiers from abusing these haitians. They themselves had behaved horribly during the campaign in new york. Oftentimes not taking american prisoners. He specifically forbids this. When they march these prisoners through philadelphia, crowds flock to the prisoners and begin flinging dung at them, flinging rocks and calling them names. Washington instruct his officers to calm the crowds. He allows these haitian prisoners to move towards central pennsylvania to work instead of being confined to jails. They will work on farms in return for meager wages and room and board. They are given a lot of freedom. They are not guarded, certainly not put on prison ships. Yet the british are still doing this. There is no headway here on this issue. Americans are still dying. When some are released, william how will release many of the men he captures, it will come back to their communities and they will be diseased and traumatized by the experience of these prison ships. Theyre going to tell their families, and anyone who will listen, about how barbaric the british can be. This will search support for the revolution. People who are on the fence are going to say this is wrong. Additionally, people are going to start saying it is time. Weve played nice too long. It is time. As one Citizen Rights to congress, it is time to revenge the innocent blood of your murdered children. If they put our men on ships we should put their men on ships. Retaliation. Proportional. Right . That is tolerated 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. As it turns out, George Washington does not have a monopoly on violence, he does not control. He has a limited control over the Northern Army that he commands but that is it. He does not control the states. He does not control the state militias. He has very little control outside his individual area. The states themselves who are now responsible to their constituents are going to enact retaliatory measures that will spiral into vengeance against first loyalists, americans who do not or unwilling to sign the oath of allegiance to state. It will be punished and then eventually britain as well. Loyalists have a particular hard time after the declaration of independence. Paradoxically, once independence is declared, loyalists will become,. All 13 states are going to make treason laws to punish loyalists. Not every state will use capital punishment, but most will engage in persecution of some kind. In particular, confiscation of land. Also executions as well. Most executions will be extra legal. 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. One american officer from virginia became so famous for hanging loyalists that they called it lincehs law. So the active hanging a loyalist became lynching. Loyalists 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. The british are the epicenter of patriot animosity. Becoming barbarians upon the scale of civilization. Revolutionist will get an opportunity for revenge on a grand scale in october o