Parole
Replies: 3
Re: Parole
 frostfreedet
(View posts)
|
Posted: 23 Jun 2008 4:40PM GMT |
Classification: Query
This is a good queston.
The concept of parole of POWs is an old one. It is a 'gentleman's agreement' that equivalent numbers held by each side would be returned behind the lines of conflict, to the POWs' respective 'home' side.
The main condition was that the parolees were not supposed to take up arms again for their side, until such time as they were formally *exchanged*.
The purpose was to ease the financial and logistical burden of keeping and supporting prisoners, not to mention the families which may be left with little or no means of support. In this respect, many County Court records show petitions of women for support of themselves and children by the County, since their husbands were off a-soldiering. This was also the case when the men were *not* captives, of course.
On the Rebel side the parole could be a little complex to enforce, particularly where folks' home grounds were on a frontier that was subject to raids by British forces and their Native American allies. One of my ancestors in a Continental regiment was captured in March, 1777, marched to Quebec and thence put on a prison ship. He was returned to NY on parole in November 1777, and there is evidence that he returned home to the German Flats area of the Mohawk Valley. This area was subject to the aforesaid raids, and I doubt my man refused to defend the neighborhood along with the regular militia. He was not formally exchanged until late 1779, when he rejoined the Regiment.
The main drawback to 'breaking parole' was recapture while engaging in a subsequent campaign. As you have found, this did happen. I have looked at some British correspondence regarding the POWs, and saw nothing there regarding especially harsh treatment of the recaptured, although there were a few such noted in the records. There were a few POWs who repeatedly escaped, who were consigned to being closely held. There were a couple who had been allowed freedom of the neighborhood (a different sort of 'parole', establishing residence within British lines and allowed to make a living) who were found or believed to have been passing intelligence back across enemy lines, but as far as I could make out the only repercussion was that the man was put back into confinement.
It's not like there were no communications across the lines. There are a couple of mentions in the British papers of families sending funds to POWs.
The large numbers captured at Fort Washington were a real headache for the British. They could not possibly keep track of all of the men in NY, and could not logistically ship them to Quebec - where there were not facilities to keep them in any event. The captured chain of command took a lot of responsibility for providing subsistence to the POWs.
'Breaking parole' in that instance might mean anything between passing information to someone leaving the area and escaping and taking up arms again.
Hope this helps.
Jade
The concept of parole of POWs is an old one. It is a 'gentleman's agreement' that equivalent numbers held by each side would be returned behind the lines of conflict, to the POWs' respective 'home' side.
The main condition was that the parolees were not supposed to take up arms again for their side, until such time as they were formally *exchanged*.
The purpose was to ease the financial and logistical burden of keeping and supporting prisoners, not to mention the families which may be left with little or no means of support. In this respect, many County Court records show petitions of women for support of themselves and children by the County, since their husbands were off a-soldiering. This was also the case when the men were *not* captives, of course.
On the Rebel side the parole could be a little complex to enforce, particularly where folks' home grounds were on a frontier that was subject to raids by British forces and their Native American allies. One of my ancestors in a Continental regiment was captured in March, 1777, marched to Quebec and thence put on a prison ship. He was returned to NY on parole in November 1777, and there is evidence that he returned home to the German Flats area of the Mohawk Valley. This area was subject to the aforesaid raids, and I doubt my man refused to defend the neighborhood along with the regular militia. He was not formally exchanged until late 1779, when he rejoined the Regiment.
The main drawback to 'breaking parole' was recapture while engaging in a subsequent campaign. As you have found, this did happen. I have looked at some British correspondence regarding the POWs, and saw nothing there regarding especially harsh treatment of the recaptured, although there were a few such noted in the records. There were a few POWs who repeatedly escaped, who were consigned to being closely held. There were a couple who had been allowed freedom of the neighborhood (a different sort of 'parole', establishing residence within British lines and allowed to make a living) who were found or believed to have been passing intelligence back across enemy lines, but as far as I could make out the only repercussion was that the man was put back into confinement.
It's not like there were no communications across the lines. There are a couple of mentions in the British papers of families sending funds to POWs.
The large numbers captured at Fort Washington were a real headache for the British. They could not possibly keep track of all of the men in NY, and could not logistically ship them to Quebec - where there were not facilities to keep them in any event. The captured chain of command took a lot of responsibility for providing subsistence to the POWs.
'Breaking parole' in that instance might mean anything between passing information to someone leaving the area and escaping and taking up arms again.
Hope this helps.
Jade