Transferring patriots overseas to England would not be the cheapest thing ever, probably something reserved for leaders of some significance.
Dying of dysentery > founding the glorious nation of AustraliaIt is lucky it was not 20 years later or they would have been sent to Australia.
Far more Americans died in prison hulks than died in battle.It is lucky it was not 20 years later or they would have been sent to Australia.
Far more Americans died in prison hulks than died in battle.
The Brits were real class acts. Oh wait, I mean awful people.
http://longislandgenealogy.com/prison.html
yeah, it's a little messed up.The author of that article has an odd way of writing for a historian. From the cadence of his sentences I thought this was going to be something from the 1890s or possibly 1920s. . . then I see it is from 1976.
I'm not commenting on the content, just thought his style was odd enough to point out.
Far more Americans died in prison hulks than died in battle.
The Brits were real class acts. Oh wait, I mean awful people.
it's not mindless nationalism to point out awful things that happened.Yes and Elmira Prison and Andersonville were health resorts. Discussing history is one thing, mindless nationalism is another.
Perhaps you don't know that Transportation to the American colonies was a common punishment in the 17th/18th centuries. I don't know why it's only Australians who have the reputation of being descended from convicts.It is lucky it was not 20 years later or they would have been sent to Australia.
it's not mindless nationalism to point out awful things that happened.
mindless nationalism would be USA #1 ENGLAND #FARTS
The Brits were real class acts. Oh wait, I mean awful people.
not really.... wouldn't it? Particularly if your own people were guilty of the same thing, or worse, in the next century.
Yes, really. A person from a civilised country would simply apologise.not really.
Wasn't Elmira Prison a Union POW facility? Camp Douglas (Chicago) was just as bad.what was done was objectively awful. just like the confederates doing just about anything.
... wouldn't it? Particularly if your own people were guilty of the same thing, or worse, in the next century.
You may have a point. I don't know what the British could have done about it, in practical terms. Prison hulks were terrible places, whether they were moored in England or America -and they were notoriously bad for the spread of disease. I suppose the problem is that there's no way to separate the sick and the healthy. This is obviously dreadful, but I'm not sure that it's helpful to say that therefore the British were terrible people. That's the only thing I'm taking issue with - and even then, not terribly seriously.There is a big difference in the level of neglect that results in 25% of prisoners dying in an era without good medicine and 75% of prisoners dying in an era without good medicine.
they could have not put the people in prison hulks.You may have a point. I don't know what the British could have done about it, in practical terms. Prison hulks were terrible places, whether they were moored in England or America -and they were notoriously bad for the spread of disease. I suppose the problem is that there's no way to separate the sick and the healthy. This is obviously dreadful, but I'm not sure that it's helpful to say that therefore the British were terrible people. That's the only thing I'm taking issue with - and even then, not terribly seriously.
Could they? I don't know if there was a practical alternative, do you? You can say it would have been better to have built prison camps, but I don't think we can say that it was possible to do so - in terms of location, materials, manpower etc.they could have not put the people in prison hulks.