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