E 
 
 2S1 
 -TO I 
 
 Nau-jjork historical Sonets, 
 
 MR. BANCROFT'S LETTER 
 
 EXCHANGE OE PRISONERS 
 
 jht.ixi; Tin; 
 
 AMERICAN WAll OF INDEPENDENCE. 
 
Glass __£ 
 Book 
 
Nttu-Uork historical 0ociet|). 
 
 MR. BANCROFT'S LETTER ON THE EXCHANGE OF 
 
 PRISONERS DURING THE AMERICAN 
 
 WAR OF INDEPENDENCE. 
 
 New-York, Feb. 14. 18C2. 
 
 My dear Mr. Bradish : 
 
 The interest that attaches to the question of the exchange 
 of prisoners between our loyal armies and the infatuated men 
 still engaged in hopeless rebellion, has led me to look up the 
 principles adopted by Great Britain in our war of independence. 
 Not that there is any analogy between our war for independ- 
 ence, which was forced upon us by a wrongful policy, and the 
 transient insurrection effected by a few desperate men in the 
 States which knew the general government only by its benefits ; 
 but George the Third was devoted to the maintenance of the 
 regal authority with the intensest bigotry, and by his narrow 
 mind our ancestors were reputed guilty of treason in its worst 
 form. The precedents which he established may therefore be 
 received as no derogation from his claim to sovereignty, and 
 where they incline to mercy, they may be invoked as worthy of 
 our consideration. To that end, leaving aside the vast number 
 of papers on incidental questions, I ask to bring before the New- 
 York Historical Society the few documents which show pre- 
 cisely the rule that was adopted, and to trace it from its 
 source. 
 
2 NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 
 
 On the 13th of August, 1775, Gage, in a letter to Washing- 
 ton, refused to accord to the Americans whom he had taken, 
 the rights of prisoners of war, saying, with the insolence which 
 he thought would he acceptable at court : 
 
 GENERAL GAGE TO GENERAL WASHINGTON. 
 
 " August 13, 177"). 
 " Britons, ever preeminent in mercy, have outgone common examples 
 and overlooked the criminal in the captive. Upon these principles your 
 prisoners, whose lives by the law of the land are destined to the cord, 
 have hitherto been treated with care and kindness, aud more comfort- 
 ably lodged than the king's troops in the hospitals ; indiscriminately, it 
 is true, for I acknowledge no rank that is not derived from the king." 
 
 But Great Britain was unable to carry on the war with 
 troops levied from her own sons. The ministry entered upon 
 measures for obtaining recruits and mercenaries from Germany ; 
 and Sir Joseph Yorke, minister at the Hague, was asked to give 
 his advice on the subject. In his reply, he represented the ne- - 
 cessity of adopting a system of exchanges : — 
 
 SIR JOSEPH YORKE TO SECRETARY WEYMOUTH. 
 
 '■' From the Hague, September 5, 1775. 
 
 " First, as to the procuring Recruits ftom Germany, I really think that 
 if it is not inconvenient to His Majesty to afford us the necessary assist- 
 ance in his Electoral Dominions, we may be furnished with recruits to 
 any number, and at a tolerable easy rate. I have been lately engaged 
 in much discussion and enquiry about the practicability of such apian, 
 at the request of Lord Barrington, and in concert with Gen. Keppel, to 
 whom His Lordship likewise applied, and as he is now upon his return 
 to England, he will be able and willing to give your Lordship all the 
 information possible upon this subject, for he understands it thoroughly. 
 
 " Secondly, as to the military force which princes upon the continent 
 may be engaged to supply in the course of the present contest between 
 Great Britain and her colonies ; that is a point of a much more difficult 
 and extensive discussion. I am to take it for granted that such troops 
 so demanded, would be only meant to serve in Europe ; for I must beg 
 leave to mention an anecdote, relative to the Hessian Troops in Scot- 
 
EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS. 3 
 
 land, in 1745, which was very embarrassing. I mean the difficulty made 
 by them to combat our only enemy, the rebels, for want of a cartel for 
 the exchange of prisoners, a point impossible for us to grant, because we 
 could not treat upon it with rebels, which made the late Duke of Cum- 
 berland (whilst the few who knew it were enjoined secrecy) get rid of 
 them as fast as he could, and never attempt to bring them to action. I 
 am afraid, was it ever intended to send such troops to America, we should 
 not find them more pliable there than in Europe, and their fears would 
 still be greater, as the objects and the ideas they would give rise to 
 would be all new." 
 
 Meantime, the successes of Montgomery in Canada had 
 secured many prisoners of distinction. Congress was anxious for 
 the liberation of Col. Ethan Allen, who had been maltreated, 
 and came, among others, to the following resolutions : — 
 
 " December 2, 1175. 
 
 " Besolved, That an exchange of prisoners will be proper, citizens 
 for citizens, officers for officers of equal rank, and soldier for soldier. 
 
 " The Congress being informed that Mr. Ethan Allen, who was taken 
 prisoner near Montreal, is confined in irons on board a vessel in the 
 river St. Lawrence : 
 
 " Besolved, That General Washington be directed to apply to General 
 Howe on this matter, and desire that he may be exchanged." 
 
 In obedience to these resolutions, Washington, on the 18th 
 of December, 1775, wrote to Howe, complaining that Colonel 
 Ethan Allen had been thrown into irons and treated like a 
 felon, and threatening retaliation. To this letter he added the 
 following postscript : — 
 
 POSTSCRIPT OF A LETTER FROM GENERAL WASHINGTON TO 
 GENERAL HOWE. 
 
 " December IS, 1775. 
 " If an exchange of prisoners taken on each side in this unnatural 
 contest is agreeable to General Howe, he will please to signify as much 
 to his most obedient, &c." 
 
 To this insinuation, Howe at that time returned no answer. 
 On the following day he wrote to Lord George Germain, as 
 follows : — 
 
NEW- YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 
 
 GENERAL HOWE TO LORD GEORGE GERMAIN. 
 
 "December 19, 1775. 
 " Mr. Washington, commanding the rebel army, presuming upon 
 the number and rank of the prisoners in his possession, has threatened 
 retaliation in point of treatment to any prisoners of theirs in our power, 
 and proposes an exchange, which is a circumstance I shall not answer in 
 positive terms, nor shall I enter upon such a measure without the King's 
 orders." 
 
 Before this letter reached England, the question had been 
 decided. Treaties with the ldnglings of Germany for mercen- 
 ary troops having been signed, and numerous recruits having 
 been enlisted at the various recruiting stations which the British 
 government kept open in the German empire, and the time for 
 the embarkation of the troops having come, Lord George wrote 
 to General Howe : — 
 
 LORD GEORGE GERMAIN TO GENERAL HOWE. 
 
 "February 1, 1776. 
 
 " This letter will be entrusted to the care of the commander of His 
 Majesty's ship Greyhound, who will also deliver up to you the officers 
 of the privateer fitted out by the rebels, under a commission from Con- 
 gress, and taken by one of Admiral Graves' squadron. The private men 
 have all voluntarily entered themselves on board his Majesty's ships, but 
 the officers having refused so to do, it has been judged fit to send them 
 back to America, for the same obvious reasons that induced the sending 
 back the rebel prisoners, taken in arms, upon the attack of Montreal, in 
 September last. 
 
 "It is hoped that the possession of these prisoners will enable you to 
 procure the release of such of his Majesty's officers and loyal subjects 
 as are in the disgraceful situation of being prisoners to the rebels : for 
 although it cannot be that you should enter into any treaty or agreement 
 with rebels for a regular cartel for exchange of prisoners, yet I doubt 
 not but your own discretion will suggest to you the means of effecting 
 such exchange without the king's dignity and honor being committed, 
 or His Majesty's name used in any negotiation for that purpose; and I 
 am the more strongly urged to point out to you the expediency of such 
 a measure, on account of the possible difficulties which may otherwise 
 
EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS. 5 
 
 occur in the case of foreign troops serving in North Amei-ica. T am, 
 &c. 
 
 Howe's letter of the 19th of December, '75, was received by 
 Lord George Germain on the 6th of February ; but it required 
 no attention, for it had been fully answered by the letter of the 
 1st of February. 
 
 Meantime, the siege of Boston had been pressed, and Howe 
 was driven out of New England. It was at Halifax that, on the 
 11th of May, he received the Secretary's letter, directing ex- 
 changes of prisoners to be made, and he took it with him to 
 New- York harbor. 
 
 Soon after the arrival of Lord Howe, General Howe made 
 an overture to Washington, by letter, on the subject of their re- 
 spective treatment of prisoners ; the attempt at a correspondence 
 failed from an error in form ; but on the 20th of July, Pater- 
 son, his Adjutant -General, formally announced that now Gen. 
 Howe had authority to accede to a proposal of exchanging Gov- 
 ernor Skene for Mr. Lovell. As much time had elapsed since 
 the proposal was made, Washington reserved the subject for the 
 decision of Congress. 
 
 "./ufy22, 1776. 
 
 " The Congress took into consideration the report of the committee 
 respecting an exchange of prisoners : Whereupon, 
 
 " Resolved, That the commander-in-chief in each department be em- 
 powered to negotiate an exchange of prisoners in the following manner : 
 One continental officer for one of the enemy of equal rank, either in the 
 land or sea service, soldier for soldier, sailor for sailor, and one citizen 
 for another citizen. 
 
 " That each State hath a right to make any exchange they think 
 proper, for prisoners taken from them or by them." 
 
 "July 24, 1776. 
 " Besolved, That General Washington be empowered to agree to the 
 exchange of Governor Skene for Mr. James Lovell." 
 
 Washington sent to Lieutenant-General Howe a letter, July 
 30, 1776, conforming to these votes ; and on the first of August 
 
G NEW-YOKE HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 
 
 General Howe, addressing his letter to Washington, in his ca- 
 pacity as General, wrote as follows : — 
 
 GENERAL HOWE TO GENERAL WASHINGTON. 
 
 "August 1; 1776. 
 " Wishing sincerely to give relief to the distresses of all prisoners, I 
 shall readily consent to the mode of exchange which you are pleased to 
 propose, namely, ' Officers for officers of equal rank, soldier for soldier, 
 citizen for citizen,' the choice to be made by the respective commanders 
 for their own officers and men. You must be sensible that deserters 
 cannot be included in this arrangement ; and for the mode of exchange 
 in the Naval line, I beg leave to refer you to the Admiral." 
 
 This is the way in which a system for the exchange of prison- 
 ers was established. During the progress of hostilities, various in- 
 cidental discussions and interruptions took place, as for example : 
 it was questioned whether stragglers were to he considered as 
 prisoners of war ; whether exchanges should be immediate after 
 captivity. When Lee was taken, Howe regarded him as a de- 
 serter ; and in this way exchanges were checked, till the govern- 
 ment directed Lee to be treated as a prisoner of war. When 
 the army of Burgoyne surrendered, a difficulty arose respecting 
 the validity of the convention, unless it should be ratified by the 
 authority of the king ; but essentially the rule of proceeding 
 remained unchanged during the war of Independence, as estab- 
 lished on the part of Britain by the letter of Lord George Ger- 
 main, of February 1, 1776. 
 
 There is a point in that letter to which I wish particularly 
 to call your attention. In the direction for effecting exchanges, 
 no distinction whatever is made between captives taken onboard 
 privateers, and captives taken in battle or in garrison. It even 
 happened, that the first opportunity for entering upon exchanges 
 is stated by the Secretary himself to proceed from the possession 
 of prisoners " taken from a privateer, fitted out by the rebels, 
 under a commission from Congress." Our Government need 
 not fear to be as forbearing as Lord George Germain and George 
 the Third. 
 
EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS. 7 
 
 But on this subject of privateering, I beg leave to add one 
 single suggestion. "Letters of marque," says Heffter, and 
 there is no better authority, " are a legacy of the middle age and 
 of its system of reprisals," and he regretted that the barbarous 
 practice had not been renounced. By the famous declaration of 
 the 16th of April, 1856, privateering was abolished for ever alike 
 by Britain and by France, and so many powers gave their ad- 
 hesion to the declaration, that to use the words of Heffter's 
 French translator, " it can henceforward be regarded as the 
 general law of Europe." This being the case, the right of con- 
 tinuing the system can belong only to those powers which were 
 in possession of it when the declaration was made, and which 
 have not acceded to the declaration. It does not follow that a 
 new power coming into existence subsequent to that declaration 
 has a right to resort to the system. The application of this 
 view to our present unhappy domestic strife is obvious. Since 
 the United States have forborne the use of privateers, the 
 privateers of the insurgents ought not to have been admitted at 
 all into the harbors of France or England, or other powers who 
 were parties to the noble declaration of April, 1856. 
 I remain, my dear Mr. Bradish, 
 
 Ever yours, very truly, 
 
 GEOKGE BANCKOFT. 
 Luther Bradish, LL.D., 
 
 President of the Neiv-York Historical Society. 
 
MR. BANCROFT AND HIS BOSTON CRITICS. 
 
 [From a Boston Newspajxr, Feb. 1862.] 
 "MR. BANCROFT, THE POLITICIAN. 
 
 " Since the outbreak of the rebellion little has been heard of Mr. 
 Bancroft; but now that the tide has turned, and we seem to be ap- 
 proaching the end of our troubles, he appears again on the stage. On 
 the 14th of this month of February he addressed to the President of 
 the New York Historical Society a letter, of which we have read a 
 printed copy, " On the Exchange of Prisoners during the American 
 War of Independence." On the 19th of December, nearly two months 
 earlier, the Massachusetts Historical Society had accepted a report 
 on precisely the same subject, presented by a committee of which Mr. 
 Sparks and Mr, Everett were members, but prepared, as was under- 
 stood, by Mr. G. T. Curtis. The Massachusetts report, which exhausted 
 the subject, and is written ivith a statesmanlike ability and clearness, 
 was at once published both in a pamphlet form and in the newspapers, 
 and was certainly known and noticed in New York soon after its date. 
 Mr. Bancroft has added nothing to its statements or arguments of the 
 slightest value; but he has not, in any way, recognized its existence. 
 Such things are unusual. Perhaps Mr. Bancroft believes that he has 
 acquired a right of eminent domain over all matters relating to the his- 
 tory of the United States, or that the Massachusetts Society has been 
 poaching in his manorial preserves. But, however ^this may be, one 
 point is worthy of notice. The Government of the United States, some 
 weeks before the date of Mr. Bancroft's letter, had instituted exchanges 
 with the so-called Confederate States, and, as everybody knows, is still 
 
2 
 
 carrying on such exchanges, taking for the basis of its proceedings the 
 principles so well laid down and so clearly proved and worked out to 
 their consequences in the Massachusetts report, which was prepared for 
 this especial purpose, and which, immediately after it was printed, was 
 laid before the chief person in the Administration. The same is true of 
 Mr. Bancroft's suggestion at the end of his pamphlet, that captured 
 privateersmen should be put on the footing of prisoners of war. The 
 Government had done it some time before he vouchsafed the advice; 
 and the principles on which it could be done were drawn from the 
 precedents exhibited in the report of the Massachusetts Historical 
 Society.*' 
 
 The foregoing is a specimen of what a certain sort of men 
 in Boston, as elsewhere, can be guilty of in the way of personal 
 malevolence. We are Letter able to estimate what Mr. Ban- 
 croft has clone than that which (the writer intimates) lie has 
 failed to do ; but of one thing we arc certain, and the evidence 
 is on the record — Mr. Bancroft's loyalty and entire devotion to 
 the cause of the Union. If he has omitted some of the noisier 
 demonstrations of patriotism, which seem popular with such 
 writers as his critic in Boston, we feel confident that men of in- 
 telligence will not fail to recognize his influence in affairs dur- 
 ing this time of trial. 
 
 The article above, however, is so gross a misrepresentation as 
 to demand a correction. We cannot be suspected of being de- 
 ficient in respect for the " Massachusetts Historical Society," or 
 the distinguished gentlemen who signed the report of the 19th 
 December, on the " Exchange of Prisoners," &c, when we 
 deny, as we do most decidedly, that it "exhausted the subject." 
 None of its signers would claim that for their work. "While we 
 have no disposition to challenge the statement that it was 
 " written with statesmanlike ability and clearness," we decid- 
 edly maintain that it did not exhaust the subject. The evidence 
 of this fact is in the report itself. The writer says — we epiote 
 the report : 
 
 " We have seen that Sir "William Howe, in December, 1775, when 
 in command at Boston, did not feel himself authorized to make an ex- 
 
change of prisoners without the King's express orders. We shall see, 
 however, presently, that in January, 1777, he had for some time, to use 
 his own language, some ' agreement with the enemy for exchange of 
 prisoners.' What was this agreement ? and on what authority did he 
 make it ?" 
 
 Neither of these questions is answered in the report, al- 
 thongh they are obviously the most important points in the 
 whole subject. The nearest approach to an answer in the re- 
 port is as follows : 
 
 " It is not to he supposed that Sir William Howe assumed an au- 
 thority in 1776 which he did not consider that he possessed in 1775, or 
 that he acted without the King's permission . . . although we cannot 
 trace in any of his published correspondence with General Washington 
 any reference to a new authority on the subject of exchanging prisoners, 
 there can be no rational doubt that he had received such authority, and 
 that a search in the London War Office would disclose it." 
 
 Now, with all deference to the distinguished writer of this 
 report, we submit that this must be a slip of the pen — the Lon- 
 don War Office is not the place to look for such material. This 
 is, however, of no present importance. 
 
 Mr. Bancroft knew where to look for the rule and its his- 
 tory, and he has given what the report did not give in that 
 respect, and in our judgment, has added a valuable contribution 
 to the history of the subject. And we regard the point taken 
 by Mr. Bancroft, respecting the privateers, as being quite as in- 
 teresting and important as any of the points made in the report. 
 As to the influence of any or all of them with the National 
 Government, we do not ascribe any great importance to it; but 
 we may add our private opinion that the well-known and wide- 
 ly-circulated letter of Judge Charles P. Daly has been quite as 
 serviceable to the Government as any of them in this connection. 
 
 As to Mr. Bancroft's omission to refer to the report of the 
 Massachusetts Society, he had no occasion to notice it. We 
 happen to know that Mr. Bancroft wrote the letter at the re- 
 quest of a person interested in the subject, who knew that the 
 
Massachusetts Committee had failed to present the main points 
 which are presented in Mr. Bancroft's letter, and the only refer- 
 ence he could have made must have been to its deficiencies in 
 that respect. There is nothing, then, to justify this malevolent 
 attack on the distinguished historian in the character of his let- 
 ter to the Kew York Historical Society, and the secret of it 
 must be found in some personal or political spite, outside the 
 limits of legitimate historical discussion. 
 
 New York, February, 1862. 
 
 1*. S. — The publication of the proceedings of the Massachu- 
 setts Historical Society, 1860-2, enables us to add a confirmation 
 of the main point in the foregoing article. At pages 346* and, 
 347*,the writer of the report to the Massachusetts Society adds a 
 note to the report itself, in which he gives the extracts from Lord 
 George Germain's despatch, first presented in Mr. Bancroft's let- 
 ter — the existence of which he was not aware of when he pre- 
 pared the report. He acknowledges his obligations for a copy of 
 " the despatch" to Mr. Sparks, who obtained it in England, but at 
 the same time states that it had not been printed when he wrote 
 the report. This is a mistake. The whole letter may be found 
 in the " Howe Correspondence," in the Parliamentary Register, 
 published by Almon in 1770, Vol. XL, pp. 318-319— an au- 
 thority sufficiently familiar to most of our historical students, 
 and which must be well known to many, if not all, the mem- 
 bers of the Massachusetts Historical Society. It may probably 
 be found in their library, as in most libraries of American his- 
 tory, being not rare, although an exceedingly valuable work. 
 
 New YORK, May, 1862. 
 

 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 in iii nil i ii 
 
 011 460 198 6 
 
 i «*Vd 
 
 ;^k 
 
 —J -4 
 
 \ I