Читать книгу Blood of Tyrants - Logan Beirne - Страница 29

11

Fully Justifiable

The tension over prisoner treatment escalated when Washington’s jealous second-in-command,¹ Major General Charles Lee, was captured by the British. Sloppy in appearance and crude in manner, Lee was reputed to have a sex life “of the transient kind.”² And it played right into British hands: Lee was caught after leaving his army behind for an evening of “female sociability” at Widow White’s Tavern in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.³

The eccentric Charles Lee was born into an unhappy home in Cheshire, England. The son of a British officer, he served in his father’s regiment starting at the shockingly young age of eleven.⁴ Although he was never properly socialized, he grew into a shrewd tactician as he fought for the British all over the world. Unlike Washington, he distinguished himself enough in the Seven Years’ War to warrant promotion in the British ranks. Returning to Europe, he continued his successful military career in wars from Portugal to Poland.

Lee was a man who made enemies quickly. On one such occasion, he took umbrage at an Italian officer’s comments, grabbed his gun, and challenged the offender to a duel. In the end, he lost two fingers and killed the Italian.⁵ Lee’s “warmth of temper” resulted in many similar encounters while he battled his way across the continent.⁶

As the colonists and Britain headed down their collision course during the early 1770s, Lee grew ever more sympathetic to the patriots’ loudening calls for liberty. He left the battles of Europe behind and returned to America in 1773 to set up a farm in Virginia. But his quiet life as a farmer was short. When war broke out in 1775, Lee leapt into the fray. He was not one to shy away from a fight.

At the outbreak of war with his mother country, Lee possessed far more military experience and education than Washington, so he expected to be appointed commander in chief. But when the Continental Congress met to select the commander, Lee was in for a surprise. The Congress viewed the tall, dignified, and morally respected Washington as a better leader for the colonies’ cause than the crude, pinched-faced Lee. Unlike Lee, Washington was “discreet and virtuous, no harum-scarum, ranting swearing fellow, but sober steady and calm.”⁷ While Washington was seen as a happily married pillar of Virginian society, the skinny, homely Lee was continuously rebuffed by women and displayed “hints . . . of homosexuality.”⁸ Perhaps most importantly, Washington was willing to work without pay, while Lee demanded a stipend from the cash-strapped Congress.⁹ Washington won the job, but Lee remained insubordinate.

Many regarded the slovenly Lee as militarily superior to Washington. In fact, the British viewed Lee as their primary strategic foe.¹⁰ Lee agreed. Living up to his spiteful and arrogant reputation, he showed his animosity towards Washington by writing letters to various American leaders explaining why he should replace Washington as commander. And, being the opposite of Washington, he was completely unrestrained in his angry tirades.

In fact, after spending the night with Widow White, the undressed Lee was finishing a letter denouncing Washington as “damnably incompetent” when the British dragoons appeared outside.¹¹ Unluckily for Lee, his sentries were busy sunning themselves when the redcoats swept in on horseback.¹² The British quickly scattered Lee’s unwary guards and secured the tavern’s perimeter. The pack of dogs that invariably—and bizarrely—accompanied Lee began barking, and the house erupted into a hushed frenzy. Before Lee could even get his clothes on, Widow White frantically burst into the room and attempted to hide him under her bed. But the British would not be fooled, and they fired into the tavern. The commanding British officer announced from outside, “If the general does not surrender in five minutes, I will set fire to the house.” After two minutes of panicked debate, Widow White emerged from the door into the chill morning air. Screaming for mercy, she offered the general’s surrender. Lee, caught with his pants down, followed.¹³

Howe was overjoyed with the capture of America’s tactical genius. The British predicted that the “Coup de Main [had] put an end to the Campaign,” since it would leave the Continental Army without a true military strategist.¹⁴ British bands played victory tunes to honor the “most miraculous Event,” while soldiers toasted the king until they were too inebriated to raise their cups.¹⁵ The news raised such “great hopes . . . of an early termination of the war” that a dreadful speller in one British village speedily organized a festival:¹⁶

Thursday next will be helld as a day of regoicin in commemoration of the takin of General Lee, when their wil be a sermint preached, and other public demonstrascions of joye, after which will bee an nox roasted whole & everery mark of festivety & bell ringing imagenable, width a ball & cock fiting at night. ¹⁷

The guards who had to watch over Lee were less pleased. They quickly came to despise his crude, conniving ways, and complained about having to spend any time with such an “atrocious monster.”¹⁸

After obtaining intelligence that Lee was being abused, Washington jumped to his defense—even though he knew that Lee had been exploiting the Continental Army’s recent defeats to garner support in Congress for his ouster as commander.¹⁹ Washington warned General Howe that “any violence which you may Commit upon his Life or Liberty will be severely retaliated upon the Lives or Liberties of British Officers, or those of their Foreign Allies at present in our hands.”²⁰

While Washington did “beg that some certain Rule of Conduct towards Prisoners may be settled,” he reasoned that abuse was not only justified as a means of protecting Americans but required by honor.²¹ Shortly thereafter, he again warned the British forces that “if their rule of Conduct towards our prisoners is not altered, we shall be obliged, however disagreeable it may be, to make retaliation,” and that “any Accounts of ill Usage coming thro’ them, would be so authentic, that we might safely proceed to take such measures towards their prisoners as would be fully justifiable.”²²

In expressing his position to Congress, Washington was even more candid. After learning of the “Inhuman Treatment to the whole, and Murder of part of our People after their Surrender” in New York, and now of Lee’s condition, he determined that “Justice and Policy will require recourse to be had to the Law of retaliation, however abhorrent and disagreeable to our natures in cases of Torture.”²³

Despite their previous resolution directing that prisoners be treated with humanity just six months earlier, the Continental Congress came to follow Washington’s lead. After waffling in the early stages of the war, they relinquished their idealistic opposition to prisoner maltreatment in light of the practical realities of battle, observing, “No fact can be clearer that interest alone (and not principles of justice or humanity) governs men.”²⁴ Just as Washington had been doing, Congress began to convey this hardened view to the enemy. Benjamin Franklin wrote to the British saying, “the United States are not unacquainted with the barbarous treatment their people receive when they have the misfortune of being your prisoners.” He warned, “if your conduct towards us is not altered, it is not unlikely that severe reprisals may be thought justifiable.”²⁵

Echoing Washington’s position that unsavory tactics might sometimes be called for in the course of war, Congress formally resolved,

that if the enemy shall put to death, torture, or otherwise ill-treat any of the hostages in their hands, or of the Canadian or other prisoners captivated by them in the service of the United Colonies, recourse must be had to retaliation as the sole means of stopping the progress of human butchery, and that for that purpose punishments of the same kind and degree be inflicted on an equal number of their subjects taken by us, till they shall be taught due respect to the violated rights of nations.²⁶

With this official resolution, Congress’s stance finally fell in line with their commander’s actions post hoc. Congress declared that prisoner abuse was a necessary—if unseemly—tool to fight the war effectively and maintained this position for the rest of the Revolution.

Like their commander, the congressmen were outraged by the reports of the British troops’ treatment of Lee. They retaliated by urging the Massachusetts Council to inflict similar treatment on Archibald Campbell, a British lieutenant colonel in their custody. Campbell, “a member of parliament and a gentleman of fortune,” was one of Britain’s finest leaders.²⁷ At thirty-six years old, he was a somewhat portly gentleman with large, bulging eyes and a double chin. Nicknamed “Archy,” he not only “greatly distinguished himself by his proficiency in the various branches of erudition”²⁸ but also “proved himself an able and gallant officer.”²⁹ Nevertheless, he was captured when he sailed right into an American-controlled port, due to a rather stupid error.

General Howe, in his haste to escape Boston, had failed to warn Campbell about the evacuation.³⁰ Believing that the city remained under British control, Campbell approached its harbor and discovered a hodgepodge American flotilla swarming around him. Though outnumbered and outgunned, Campbell resisted ferociously. Six American boats repeatedly charged Campbell’s two ships, only to be repelled over and over. But as the sun began to set on the day of fighting, American reinforcements finally arrived and Campbell desperately tried to escape—by dashing deeper into the harbor, which he still believed to be in British hands. He was shocked by the thunder of shore batteries when the Americans began to fire on him. Disoriented, Campbell put up one last fierce naval firefight. But it was in vain. His ships ran out of ammunition and he reluctantly surrendered. The Americans stormed the boats and took him as their prized prisoner.³¹

Washington was bemused by the blunder and incredulous that Howe allowed it to occur. But regardless of how he captured Campbell, he was ready to use him as a bargaining chip. Congress, likewise eager to do so, resolved

[t]hat General Washington be directed to send a flag to General Howe, and inform him, that, should the proffered exchange of General Lee . . . not be accepted, and the treatment of him, as above mentioned, be continued, that the principles of retaliation shall occasion five of the . . . field officers, together with Lieutenant Colonel Archibald Campbell, or any other officers that are, or shall be, in our possession, equivalent in number or quality, to be detained, in order that the same treatment which General Lee shall receive, may be exactly inflicted upon their persons.³²

The Massachusetts Council responded to this resolution by placing Campbell in “severity of . . . confinement as is scarce ever inflicted upon the most atrocious Criminals.”³³ He was subjected to a forced march, showered with “dirt and filth,” and struck with stones. Deprived of the “very necessities of life,” he had to survive on bread and water.³⁴ As he attempted to keep up a stoic front, his American captors held him in a small, cold, dark dungeon that was covered with excrement.³⁵ For a toilet, he used a bowl that was neither cleaned nor even emptied. Having a long, pale face even prior to captivity, the wretched aristocrat now undoubtedly presented a simply ghostlike appearance.³⁶ The British were outraged by the “cruel and savage manner” in which Campbell was treated, and they vowed revenge.³⁷

Meanwhile, Washington had obtained new intelligence indicating that “General Lee, though under confinement, is comfortably lodged, has proper attendants, and a plentiful table.”³⁸ Rather than suffering the tortures originally feared, he was being provided with a “very decent room” as well as “all necessaries that are requisite, and amongst others, a bottle of wine per diem.” Although he “frequently behave[d] as if he was not in his perfect mind,” he was in relatively good shape.³⁹ In fact, he was said to have voluntarily supplied the British with secret advice on how to defeat the American forces as he dined with the officers and drank away the days.⁴⁰

In light of this information, Washington decided that Campbell’s cruel treatment was injurious to the American cause, “for the Enemy have three hundred of our Officers, whom we have little Chance of exchanging, upon whom they may retaliate.”⁴¹ While abuse could be used to save American lives, it was a double-edged sword: unjustified cruelty could provoke the British to slaughter more Americans. And Washington’s goal was to protect his men. Now denouncing Campbell’s harsh treatment as “impolitic,” he urged Congress to reverse its tactics.⁴²

Congress rejected Washington’s plea and refused to reverse its bloodthirsty stance. Even though it had originally resolved to treat Campbell in the same manner as the American prisoner Lee was being treated, it rebuffed Washington’s efforts to ameliorate Campbell’s cruel confinement.⁴³ Campbell was being treated more harshly than Lee, but “[t]here were other circumstances beside the treatment of General Lee, to produce this indignant sensibility on the part of Congress. Accounts were rife at this juncture, of the cruelties and indignities almost invariably experienced by American prisoners at New York.”⁴⁴ The congressmen were also offended by Howe’s conduct, including his abrasive response to their attempts to make a trade for Lee. Congress declared, in a statement originally laced with epithets, that “the conduct of General Howe alone induces Congress to treat [Campbell] in [such] a manner . . . .”⁴⁵ Digging in their heels, the congressmen had apparently broadened their justification for the severe treatment of Campbell. Washington and Congress were at odds.

Despite congressional pressure, Washington maintained that mistreating Campbell in this instance was unjustified and would not further the American cause.⁴⁶ To abuse a prisoner in false retaliation would be a tactical error, since it would erode Washington’s power to use prisoner abuse as a means of improving the treatment of those American prisoners who were actually being abused.⁴⁷ As Congress and Washington wrestled over Campbell, it was unclear who should dictate such treatment.

Washington professed to Campbell, “it is as incompatible with my authority as my inclination to contravene any determination Congress may make.” But he nevertheless wrote to the president of the Massachusetts Council on his own accord—effectively circumventing Congress—in order to express his “disinclination to any undue severities” and to advise against the abusive measures.⁴⁸ In response, Congress passed a resolution ordering that “General Washington be informed, that Congress cannot agree to any alteration.”⁴⁹

But in the end, it was Washington’s—and not Congress’s—order that was heeded. The Massachusetts Council moved Campbell to a more comfortable setting, where he was better treated.⁵⁰ Washington again wrote to Congress, which then finally backpedaled and formally directed months later that Campbell be treated humanely.⁵¹ After their initial indecisiveness, Congress came to abide by Washington’s case-by-case determinations and eventually acknowledged, “so far as regards the Treatment of Prisoners, and the Conduct of the War many public Exchanges having taken place by agreement of the [American and British] Commanders in Chief.”⁵² The commander decided whether to abuse or not, based on what he deemed consistent with the laws of war.

Lee was eventually freed when Washington exchanged him for Brigadier Prescott (Ethan Allen’s former tormentor). By that point, his British captors were happy to see their irksome prisoner go and even congratulated one another on being rid of him.⁵³ The episode was over, but not before Washington had flexed his authority on the subject.

While Washington sought better treatment for Campbell in this episode, he did not show the same mercy to all of the British captives. In fact, with reports circulating that the British were inflicting “torture by searing irons and secret scourges,”⁵⁴ his arguments for treatment in kind involved gruesome practices.⁵⁵