Status of American Revolution POW's

[Chogy]

I was reading of the account of the naval engagement of the U.S. Ship Bonhomme Richard vs. Serapis, a British man of war, in 1779. This was the famous engagement whereby John P. Jones declared "I have not yet begun to fight."

The Bonhomme Richard won - barely - and the rebel crew carried the day.

I was wondering if the opposite were true... Serapis is triumphant, and the crew of the B.R. become captives. I know in New York, the British maintained some prisoner ships that were floating hell holes, and being a prisoner on either side was never pleasant; yet, in 1779, the colonies and the war were still looked upon as British subjects in abject rebellion. The normal treatment for a revolutionary, a rebel, is to be promptly hung after a kangaroo courts-martial.

What stayed the hand of the British in the Revolutionary war? I would have expected more field-expedient executiuons of rebels, yet the British seemed moderate in their treatment of colonial captives. Anyone have any insight into this? Normally, Great Britain was intolerant of rebellion, sedition, or mutiny.

[zraver]

I was reading of the account of the naval engagement of the U.S. Ship Bonhomme Richard vs. Serapis, a British man of war, in 1779. This was the famous engagement whereby John P. Jones declared "I have not yet begun to fight."

The Bonhomme Richard won - barely - and the rebel crew carried the day.

I was wondering if the opposite were true... Serapis is triumphant, and the crew of the B.R. become captives. I know in New York, the British maintained some prisoner ships that were floating hell holes, and being a prisoner on either side was never pleasant; yet, in 1779, the colonies and the war were still looked upon as British subjects in abject rebellion. The normal treatment for a revolutionary, a rebel, is to be promptly hung after a kangaroo courts-martial.

What stayed the hand of the British in the Revolutionary war? I would have expected more field-expedient executiuons of rebels, yet the British seemed moderate in their treatment of colonial captives. Anyone have any insight into this? Normally, Great Britain was intolerant of rebellion, sedition, or mutiny.

Based on British treatment of Jacobites in 1745, the rank and file would face random decimation and even most of those so condemned would be commuted to transport or servitude. Execution by and large was reserve for officers, deserters and scoundrels. Hanging farmers come rebels only really means you have to face their sons in 20-25 years.

[Albany Rifles]

Chogy,


At the beginning the Crown was trying to keep a lid on things and was hoping to defuze the situtation so the colonies would remain loyal. recall there was also still a significant portion of the population loyal to the Crown. Don't forget there were also a large number in Britain who agreed with the American position. William Pitt and others like him railed against the Crown over their efforts in America.

Also what stayed their hands was the Americans had a large number of British and German EPWs. Of particular note was Burgoyne's entire army surrendered after Saratoga in 1777. And the surrendered Crown soldiers held by the Continentals had a nasty habit of deserting to the Americans.

That said, being a POW was a horrible experience. And if you were a Loyalist who fell into Patriot hands? Well, just read about the aftermath of the Battle of King's Mountain.

Battle of Kings Mountain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These links have some more info.

Convention Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prisoners in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The reaction to the Jacobites was different for many reasons.

1) There had been a millenium long fight between what became Scotland and England.

2) The Jacobites were directly threatening the Crown and were led by The Pretender, Bonnie Prince Charlie.

3) The Americans had been stout Loyalists in a myriad of conflicts starting with the Pequot War of 1637. America militia turned out regularly time and again to defend the Crown's interests for 150 years prior to the Revolution. In fact the largest and most succesful war for Great Britain was started by a Virginia militia officer named Washington. Because of these past contributions we were cut a little more slack. Our rebellion was not seen by the majority of Britains in the same light as the Rising of the Clans.

Again, the Wiki helps

Colonial American military history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[zraver]

AR, even with the old and bad blood between the crown and the Scots, the treatment of the ran and file soldiers was pretty mild compared to what could have been meted out.

[Chogy]

AR, even with the old and bad blood between the crown and the Scots, the treatment of the ran and file soldiers was pretty mild compared to what could have been meted out.

This is what had me wondering... the potential for harsh retribution existed, and at the rank and file level, the officers (I doubt) are not thinking of long term, geopolitical stability, nor of what the future might hold in a generation. All they know is that the "rebel scum" have killed their men, and being caught in armed rebellion against their king, the chances of being hung or shot were not small.

Thanks for the replies.

[zraver]

This is what had me wondering... the potential for harsh retribution existed, and at the rank and file level, the officers (I doubt) are not thinking of long term, geopolitical stability, nor of what the future might hold in a generation. All they know is that the "rebel scum" have killed their men, and being caught in armed rebellion against their king, the chances of being hung or shot were not small.

Thanks for the replies.

I think half the hangings of enlisted jacobites were deserters from the English Army. I think once you surrendered the mores of the age probably acted as a strong disincentive for battlefield executions. High Justice was the prerogative of the King/ Parliament. Colonel Tarraington's (sp?) brutality in the revolutiob stood out because of how abnormal it was.

[desertswo]

I haven't contributed to this thread before but as a guy who teaches counter-terror and counter-insurgency, the battle of wits and brutality between Banastre Tarleton and Francis Marion is one of those "kids, don't try this at home" lessons in what happens when "families" fight. Ironically, I was aboard USS Cowpens (CG 63) earlier this afternoon. A former protege is the CO. The lad has done well. He gave my 15-year old son and I the special tour. It was good to be back aboard something haze gray, even if not underway, although my knees (which, along with both hips are due for total replacement) are letting me know they are not happy with me right now.

During my War College days, one of my classmates was an RN Commander who did a paper on the Revolution from the British point of view. It really was interesting because as Americans, we tend to think it's all about us, but he did a really good job of making us understand that this was just one part of what was really a world war for all intents and purposes. It's a spin that is really healthy in my view.

[Officer of Engineers]

Funny how nobody remembers Benedict Arnold's disastrous attack on Quebec.

[Albany Rifles]

Funny how nobody remembers Benedict Arnold's disastrous attack on Quebec.

Errr, not sure why you say that in this thread, sir.

The Montgomery-Arnold attack on Quebec was doomed to failure from the start. Fought too late in the year, overly ambitious in scope, beset with the usual amateur failings of the Americans early in the war and for very dubious goals, it was, never the less an amazing story of tenacity and pure guts.

Kenneth Robert's Arundel, while a novel, does a masterful job describing the anabasis which Arnold's troops underwent in their slog across Maine in the fall of 1775. And while not as arduous Montgomery's journey faced numerous hardships of its own.

The British and the Americans, and our allies, generally treated each other better than most of the worlds armies in the 18th Century.

But as for American v American? Absolutely brutal. And not just in the South. It was that way anytime Loyalists and Patriots squared off. While most folks are "aware" of this based on the horrible movie, The Patriot, it was by no means restricted to the Southern theater of war.

Read what happened across New Jersey during the campaigns of 1776-1777 or around Newport, RI, durign operations there. Absolutely brutal.

[Officer of Engineers]

Errr, not sure why you say that in this thread, sir.

To point out that not all of British North America was in on the Revolution and that within the scheme of things, the Brits lost a few provinces, not the whole pie.

[Albany Rifles]

To point out that not all of British North America was in on the Revolution and that within the scheme of things, the Brits lost a few provinces, not the whole pie.

Okay, tracking now Sir.

However, England did lose the more consequential segment of North America when we declared independence. While the US would be tied economically to GB for much over the next century there were definitely constraints placed on her once the mercantilism system was gone.

[desertswo]

Okay, tracking now Sir.

However, England did lose the more consequential segment of North America when we declared independence. While the US would be tied economically to GB for much over the next century there were definitely constraints placed on her once the mercantilism system was gone.

Not sure I agree entirely. Mercantilism as we knew it died, yes; but a new thing, capitalism, sort of sprang up over the following decades to take it's place. I would wager trading firms and factory owners in Great Britain made as much money, if not more, in America over the ensuing years than they did before. Whether a colony, or a jumped up independent member of the Anglosphere, America was a cash cow for Great Britain. Something people like Pitt understood, even if George III (who was actually a pretty bright guy when not in the throws of dementia), couldn't bring himself to admit it.

Our daliance with the French was never going to last; they're French after all!;) US and British interests were far more mutual than we like to think. One fact that is driven home to us at the Naval War College is that the US prospered and became a global trading power on the largess of the British tax payer and their support of the Royal Navy. In many ways, they were the first "Global force for good," because they protected the SLOCs on which the world's economy depended. We had a nice little navy, but we couldn't come close to matching what the Royal Navy could cover the globally. Yeah, there were some hiccups like British press gangs and the War of 1812, but overall, they did right by us.

[Officer of Engineers]

Okay, tracking now Sir.

However, England did lose the more consequential segment of North America when we declared independence. While the US would be tied economically to GB for much over the next century there were definitely constraints placed on her once the mercantilism system was gone.

Compared to India? We were pig farmers.

[astralis]

desertswo,

Mercantilism as we knew it died, yes; but a new thing, capitalism, sort of sprang up over the following decades to take it's place. I would wager trading firms and factory owners in Great Britain made as much money, if not more, in America over the ensuing years than they did before. Whether a colony, or a jumped up independent member of the Anglosphere, America was a cash cow for Great Britain. Something people like Pitt understood, even if George III (who was actually a pretty bright guy when not in the throws of dementia), couldn't bring himself to admit it.

the short-term effect of the Revolution was great for GB-- the colonies were a huge money suck. it wasn't so great for most of the individual british trading firms, though, because the new united states put up high tariff walls.

however, for the former colonies it was an economic disaster, pretty much setting back the place by almost two generations.

the funny thing is that the LONG-TERM economic effect of the Revolution was muted. these days we can consider the UK to be a Dominion of the United States :) had the colonies remained with the UK, that would STILL have been true.

and it's something interesting to think about. the British developed their rickety naval Empire largely because they didn't have the manpower to go toe-to-toe with the Continental powers. had the colonies remained firmly British instead of squabbling with the UK for past a century, i'm pretty sure most of the world would still be colored a British red today...:)

[Albany Rifles]

SWO, it could well be argued that the Americans were already well entrenched capitalists prior to the war. Freedom from England meant the US was free to trade with whomever we wanted. While we were tied to British banks and industry for quite some time, we also became a robust trading partner not too long after the war. Timber and naval stores were critical to the survival of the Empire and we continued to be a prime source for those supplies. Also before too long not only Southern cotton but also Northern and Western wheat as well as the fisheries of the Georges Bank were to be critical to the success of Great Britain's growth in the 19th Century.

And those very tariffs did help nascent industries in the US start to take hold and grow. Yes there was initial pain but after those 2 generations and the opening of the West and the Mississippi watershed America blossomed and began its growth to an econmic powerhouse.