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 the cincinnati scholars grant to conduct research in our library in support of his doctoral dissertation on enemy prisoners of war in 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 American Society and the New York Historical society and 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 during the eightyear conflict. American forces captured more than 17,000 british and allied germanic soldiers as well as thousands more loyalists, civilians 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 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 thorny 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 and maryland and pennsylvania, revealing the factors that could coalesced, escalating violence precipitously. Please join me. Im very much looking forward to his talk. Cole jones. [ applause ] excellent. Everyone, thank you so much for coming out. Ellen, thank you so very, very much for that kind and generous introduction. Im going to grab my little pointer here. It feels like a homecoming to be back here at Anderson House. The project that ellen just described and what im about to talk about, the book that came from that project was really in many ways born here. This was my first archival trip as a historian for this project. When i was working on a dissertation at Johns Hopkins on this issue. I didnt know what i was looking for. I had a question. I wanted an answer. I started to find those answers here at the society. It is really a great privilege to be back. Although, i did note its 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, as ellen told us, this book examines how revolutionary americans dealt with enemy prisoners, british, american loyalists. To figure that out, i had to begin with a 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 have been a perennial problem in the history of warfare. What do you do when your opponent throws down list arhis and stopping fighting, begging for his life . Do you accept that proposition . Do you take prisoners . Has that person forfieited his life . You can kill them out of hand . If you agree to accept somebodys surrender, then what . How do you feed them, clothe them, shelter them, guard them . Where are you going to hold hem . How long will you keep them . What will you do with them . Are you going to release them . Its a logistical nightmare in the best of circumstances. Its even worse, even 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 are going to see them as criminals, terrorists. We dont 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. When last i checked, not long ago, the gitmo prison is still very much in operation. What are you going to do with these people . Are they lawful combatants . No. This is a war or terror. Right . They are criminals. Okay. Why dont we send them to trial . Charge them with a crime. Cant really do that either. So what do they do . People will be held in limbo. Thats where my book comes in. It looks as an earlier conflict. In short, it asks, how did these guys figure out this problem . How did they address . What would the founders do . That was my question. How are they going to deal with the problems posed by the 17,000 plus prisoners captured over an eightyear war which before the conflict in vietnam 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 in europe and what we call the age of the enlightenment. This is a 19th century painting. 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 f foreground. They are inviting the english if they would like the honor of firing first. It gives you some sense of the culture of this conflict in europe, which is going to shape and color war in the American Revolution. This age of enlightenment are when men of reason believed that violence could be controlled. Violence was not an inherent thing that anybody can have to deal with. It can be restrained. That humanity has value and pain is bad and can be ameliorated. Europeans had accepted pain and violence as a way of life. So therefore, thats going to 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. They are going to 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. Its these trained regular troops. Violence, while these battles can be very violent, as the poor french guardsmen in the front realized here, its controlled to the its limited to the battlefield. Maybe the siege of a city or town. But violence is limited and its controlled. Additionally, when the shooting stops, the violence stops. That is the idea is that 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 a social order based on an aristocracy. Theres an aristocratic culture, at the top of the social order. That these two men, a british officer and a spanish officer spanish on the left, who would have happily hacked each other to death in the early 17th century over the differing the confessional politics, religions. One is a catholic. One is a protestant. Here are engaging in gentlemanly c conviv conviviality. They share this culture of war. And their understanding how war should be fought. War should be fought. And that pertains, especially to prisoners. Officers like spanish officer here, hes captured, he can offer his parole from the french meaning word. Parole of honor and order to avoid imprisonment, right . He might go back home, he might stay in the nearest city until he can be exchanged. Thats the real point of this of taking prisoners, is you want to take your enemy prisoners and then exchange them for your own troops in enemy hands. You want to do this as quickly as possible. Because regular trained troops are hard to come by and it takes a long time to form a standing army, and you want your troops back. Especially you want your officers back. And so what nations would do in the 18th century is they would sign a treaty, known as a cartel, and the outset of hostilities. The war starts, france and britain going at it, theyre going to sign this treaty and it is going to agree to how prisoners will be treated and most specifically how quickly they will be exchanged. And the cartel that was in place during the seven years war, we call it over here the french and indian war, stipulated 14 days. So you were only captive 14 days before being released. Now, did it always work that way . No. Right. The things broke down and there were breaches, et cetera. What happened when there was 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 as the called the law of retaliation. And 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, right. So if you violate the accepted norms of war, you abuse your prisoner, were going to take another prisoner and were going to abuse that prisoner to the exact same level. And the key here is proportio l proportionali proportionality. So retaliation is an act of proportional violence. In order to convince the other side that they need to play by the rules, right . In fact, in the age it happened very rarely in europe. In part because of the gentlemanly code of honor shared by the officers on both sides of the conflicts, and another part because the mere threat of a retaliation was often enough to prevent abuse of prisoners. Plus, both sides had a vested interest in getting their prisoners back. So there was no u. N. 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 didnt look like that, right . What about in america . Well, in part, because for most of the 18th century, european powers are not sending regular troops, certainly not in large numbers, to north america. So most of the conflict in north america is fought by militia, colonial militias on both sides, france and new england. English colonies. So there is a difference right there, right . You wont have the same sort of standing armies. There is no aristocracy in the british colonies in north america, that shares the same values. Additionally and most importantly, right, north america is also home to indigenous population, right . Different native nations who have their own culture of war, their own understanding of what of what is acceptable violence in war. So to take a scalp and the native culture of war is an accepted practice of warfare. Right . But in europe, this would be seen as barbarism. Savagery. So europeans tended to view their native antagonists as uncivilized, beyond the pale of civilization is what theyll say. And therefore not entitled to the same protections. So in European Forces going to fight against native nations, they often do so with extreme violence in the 18th century. Additionally the officers of these colonial American Forces are going to model themselves on their european counterparts. They want to be seen not as mere provincials, the official title, they want to be seen of gentleman officers of this same cast. Here is an example of a new yorker, sir William Johnson here, commanding new york provincial troops at the battle of lake george. You see hes showing himself restraining his native ally, right . Mohawk warrior wants to scalp the poor wounded french officer. Hes protecting his fellow gentleman officer from violence. The french officer will have given his parole, and will be allowed to return to france until hes either exchanged or a cessation of hostilities ensues. So in 1775, when the Anglo American elite decides to prosecute their grievances against parliament by force of arms, in april 1775, right, it is with this idea of warfare that they enter the conflict. They believe that they understand how their enemy is going to fight, and theyre going to fight by these rules. Prisoners, of course, will be treated humanely. Anglo americans see themselves as british and civilized. The british on the other hand, 3,000 miles across the atlantic, had a very different idea. Right. These were not just some recalcitrant colonial subjects. These are rebels, right. These are rebels and traders against the king. They oppose a direct challenge to 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 and had done so extremely violently. So rebels are to be punished. Theyre not to be conciliated and not to be negotiated with. That is very, very clear. The british army comes over here, they are forbidden by the Colonial Ministry from negotiating with the americans. Theyre not allowed to negotiate over terms of prisoners of war, right, or anything like that. These are rebels in arms, criminals, and therefore subject to civil justice. Okay. Well, here is a problem. As you can capture 300 guys, maybe you can bring them back to london and put them on trial for treason and hang some of them, right . What do you do when you capture 3,000 . Thats exactly what the british will do in the fall of 1776 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. Cant do that. Nor can we send them all back to london. That would just bog down our courts forever. So what are we going to do . Guantanamo bay 1776, right. Were going to hold them indefinitely. Problem is the british occupied new york city, new york city has burned, it is a 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 used as a prison ship later in the war, not at first. Nonetheless, the conditions on these prison ships or american soldiers are going to be held and jersey primarily holds sailors, are going to be atrocious, right . You can imagine the filth and the disease that is going to run rampant when you put thousands of people on a ship like that. Moored in the brooklyn harbor. And so consequently fatalities are going to mount. Really quickly. That first winter of 76 77 is really, really deadly for the americans. Historians estimate that somewhere between 12 and 18,000 American Service personnel died in british custody during their eight years of the revolutionary war. 12 to 18. There are perhaps between 20 and 30,000 americans captured. Dont have great numbers for this. But thats over 50 though. That means if you fall into british hands, you have an over 50 chance of dying. And stories of this these hell holes, right . These prison ships are going to spread. American newspapers, propagandaists theyre going to latch on to this as evidence that the british are the barbarians, right . Were playing by the rules. Were doing things the right way, theyre the ones who are savages, right. 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 were not going to sink to their level, there is an ideological and political commitment to the way americans are going to treat prisoners of war. Great example of this is the capture of the heshen brigade, 900 soldiers, german auxiliary troops are captured. Washington specifically forbids his officers and soldiers from abusing these heshans who had behaved horribly during the campaign in york. Very oftentimes not taking american prisoners. He specifically forbids this. When they march these prisoners through philadelphia, crowds flock to the prisoners and begin throwing dung at them and he allows the prisoners to move to what is now central pennsylvania, reading, york, lancaster area to work, instead of being confined in jails. Theyre going to work on farms and return for meager wages and room and board. Theyre given a lot of freedom. Theyre not guarded. Theyre not put on prison ships at all. Yet the british are still doing this, right. This is there is no headway here on this issue, right. Americans are still dying and when some are released, William Howell released many of the men he captured, theyre going to come back to their communities and theyre going to be diseased, and theyre going to be traumatized by the experience of these prison ships. And theyre going to tell their families and anyone who will listen about how barbaric the british had been. And this is going to surge support for the revolution. For many people who were on the fence, are now going to say no, no, no, this is wrong. Additionally, people are going to start saying, it is time, right . We played nice too long. It is time to as one citizen writes to congress, he says it is time to revenge the innocent blood of your murdered children. The british are going to put our men on ships, we should put their men on ships, right. Retaliation, proportional, right, thats tolerated by the laws of war. But this call for retaliation is going to spiral into demands for vengeance, right . 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 limited control over the Northern Army that he commands, but thats it, right . Does not control the states. He does not control the state militias. He has very little control outside of his individual area. And the states themselves who are now responsible to their constituents are going to enact retaliatory measures that will spiral to vengeance against first loyalists, americans who dont who are unwilling to sign the oath of allegiance to the new state. Are going to be punished and then eventually britons as well. Loyalists have a particularly hard time after the declaration of independence because paradoxically once independence is declared, loyalists will become, if youre loyal to the government under which you were born, suddenly independence happens and now youre a traitor to your state. And all 13 states are going to make treason laws to punish loyalists. It becomes a capital crime in all 13 states. Now, not every state will use capital punishment, but most will engage in persecution of some kind. In particular, confiscation of land. But also, of course, executions as well. And most of these executions are actually going to be extra legal. Theyre not going to use the apparatus of the courts to do it. It is going to b