•  
  •  
 

Abstract

The topic of prisoners of war in any war is often controversial and convoluted. The American Revolution is no different. The problem surrounding prisoners of war during this era is the lack of official policies regarding care and exchange. For centuries, armies had relied on a gentleman’s agreement, often made on the battlefield or in the immediate days following, by commanders, most often Washington and Gage or Burgoyne and Lee. Washington frequently deferred to the Continental Congress, which had no issue expressing its opinions on matters such as provisions and the locations where prisoners were held. The British, for their part, often viewed American soldiers as treasonous rebels and therefore did not always afford them the traditional care that prisoners of war received. Cartels of exchange were technically official policies, but the means to enforce them were not always available. These cartels laid out the general terms of care and exchange. For example, one of the terms was that no officers or soldiers would be exchanged for civilians; instead, officer for officer, enlisted for enlisted, civilian for civilian. For accommodations, local towns often maintained British officers and soldiers in their homes, taverns, or anywhere they could be “hosted.” The same could not be said about the American captives; instead, these soldiers often languished in damp jail cells or aboard prison ships, and some were forcefully transported to England and housed in dark and overcrowded prisons. Washington went out of his way to ensure that British captives were treated with all manner of civility, as urged by Hancock, whereas the British treated American captives as mere rebels. The policy of a gentleman’s agreement between warring commanders embedded itself into the fabric of American military history until an official policy was codified during the American Civil War.

Download

Share

COinS