To George Washington from Major General William Phillips, 26 October 1779
From Major General William Phillips
Bethlehem [Pa.] October 26th 1779
Sir.
Upon reading Your Excellency’s letter of the 30th of September delivered to me by Major Skinner I did not hesitate at communicating my Sentiments to that Gentleman relating to an Exchange of Prisoners at large and particularly as such Exchange was connected with the Troops of Convention—my conversation on this matter with Major Skinner arose on the instant of reading Your Excellency’s letter and it was my real and genuine opinion—I know not whether Major Skinner may have thought proper to inform you, Sir, of what I have said and I, therefore, take the liberty of troubling Your Excellency with this letter.
Uninformed as I am of the variety of matter, conversations, and meetings which have passed on the subject of Exchanges it would ill become me to attempt at positively judging what may be Sir Henry Clinton’s real feelings on this subject but being perfectly well acquainted with the uprightness of his way of thinking and the humanity and compassionate turn of mind he so fully possesses I am free to decide, as my belief, that the relief of Captivity has been on his part the constant primary and prevailing motive of all his Transactions with Your Excellency concerning either partial or general Exchanges of Prisoners made between the two Armies:1 and, as far as I am able to give an opinion, by what I have read in Publick Prints, I must conceive Sir Henry Clinton has wished only for Exchanges upon mutual advantages and upon terms of equality, equity and honour.
I will be free to own, Sir, that I have no doubt of Your Excellency’s generous and liberal Sentiments and I really imagine you have, Sir, equally with Sir Henry Clinton a desire for a General Exchange of Prisoners of War.
The reasons which have hitherto prevented this humane business from being brought to a fortunate conclusion have been owing, as I am given to understand, to the mode adopted by Sir Henry Clinton for an Exchange of the Troops of Convention and it leads me, Sir, to give you my opinion upon that particular subject.
Whatever Officers of either Army may have been made Prisoners of War, upon their being exchanged join their respective Regiments and go into immediate actual Service both in Sir Henry Clinton’s Army and that Commanded by Your Excellency, such Exchanges are certainly made upon terms of mutual advantage, equity and honour, governed by considerations of humanity for the suffering Officers and persued with a view to the good of the Service to which such Officers belong.
Now, I must be allowed, Sir, to give it as my free opinion that the Situation of the Troops of Convention differs in many respects from that of Prisoners of War, very materially so as it relates to Exchanges, Officer for Officer only without a consideration for the Soldiers, in as much as the American Officers so Exchanged would immediately join their several Corps or be otherwise directly employed in the American Service as Your Excellency and the American Congress might think proper, whereas, the Officers of the Convention being thus Exchanged would not become of any use to the King’s Service, it would indeed be an agreeable matter to them as Individuals as they might go to Europe and live with their friends and relations but could not by any means be employed in the King’s Service as the Regiments to which they are attached in their several ranks would Still remain in a State of Captivity—Therefore, Sir, it appears to me that this mode of Exchange for the Officers of the Troops of Convention would prove a most partial one in which the King would not gain the Service of any one Officer and Your Excellency and the American Congress would on the contrary receive Your Officers thus Exchanged into every positive Act of Service which might be required from them.
If I am right in this description Surely, Sir, it will appear evident to the whole World that Sir Henry Clinton has never evaded or avoided a General Exchange of Prisoners but has been impelled to resist the dictates of his humanity and to refuse agreeing to partial Exchanges which must have appeared such from your Commissioners having constantly insisted upon this Mode of Exchange for the Officers of the Troops of Convention.2
Having written thus freely upon the Subject, a Subject in which I acknowledge to be very much interested, I will go still further and suppose that the Campaign being nearly ended the subject of an Exchange of the Troops of Convention might again be brought on and persued, perhaps, with more success than formerly, under which description I will offer, as I did the last winter to Your Excellency, to meet any Gentleman of your family and enter with him upon a private conversation on this matter, which need never become a publick subject unless such private discourse may fortunately prove so agreeable to both parties as to make it the basis of a publick discussion for a general Exchange of Prisoners.3
At any rate I will freely acknowledge that I am solicitous for the Exchange of some few Officers whose remaining in their present Situation is of the greatest detriment to their healths and their fortunes and I will request to know Your Excellency’s Sentiments thereon, as, if I have your consent, I propose to solicit Sir Henry Clinton in their behalf, and they may be exchanged against any particular American Officers Prisoners of War that Your Excellency may chuse.
I should not have taken up so much of Your Excellency’s time had you not, Sir, by your letter and message by Major Skinner given me reason to suppose you would excuse it. I have the honour to be, Sir, with great personal respect Your Excellency’s most obedient and most humble Servant.
W. Phillips
LS, DLC:GW; copies, P.R.O.: C.O. 5/99 and 182.
1. GW emphasized “relief of captivity” in his letter to Phillips of 30 September.
2. Phillips apparently is countering GW’s contention that the British desired to exchange officers for privates in order to augment their force, a result decidedly to their benefit (see GW to John Beatty, 23 Sept.; see also Commissioners for the Exchange of Prisoners to GW, 15 Dec. 1778).
3. For his previous proposal for a private negotiation related to a prisoner exchange, see Phillips to GW, 8 and 30 Dec. 1778; see also Phillips to GW, 6 (first letter) and 16 Jan. 1779, and GW to John Jay, 12 January. In his initial formulation of this plan to Maj. Gen. Horatio Gates in a letter written at Cambridge, Mass., on 1 Dec. 1778, Phillips wrote “that Individuals and persons in Subordinate Situations are suffered to effect those purposes where others, by different means, have failed—And, therefore, I am of Opinion that You, Sir, and I may possibly contrive a method for a General Exchange of the Troops of Convention—I say You and I for this plain reason—The Treaty of Convention was made with You, and tho’ I did not sign it I remain the Ostensible Officer in the Command over the Convention Troops, and this is a reason, also, why I think it more proper to address You on the Subject than General Washington or even the American Congress, and it must be considered as a private matter of Correspondence between You and me as I have no Authority from the King’s Commander in Chief for what I write, but Should Such terms be produced through you and me as may be agreeable to both parties I shall, then, have no objection to enter into a Publick Treaty of Exchange with you, Sir, General Washington or the American Congress.
“If we are so happy to persue with Success any Plan which may conduce to the Salutary and humane purposes of setting at liberty the Officers and Men connected on both Sides in the present unhappy War we shall, perhaps, promote more Confidence than has already Subsisted, and, by beginning a plan of Exchange, be the fortunate Instruments of a General Cartel during the unhappy Continuance of these troubles; we shall, assuredly, receive the gratefull Acknowledgements of Individuals upon the Occasion, and, I should hope, the approbation of our Superiors.
“I would propose that the Troops under Convention, from Lieutenant General Burgoyne to the private Soldier included, be rendered back into the full Activity of Service in every part of the World under a Cartel formed upon the Plan of the Treaty of Cartel settled between General Conway and the Marquis de Barail at the beginning of last War, and that a Ransom should be paid by one in Specie for every Officer and Soldier of the Troops of Convention according to a Value which may be Settled on each Rank by mutual agreement. …
“Thus, Sir, I unbosom myself to you. I do it without any apprehension of this letter being made any other than of private use; I am aware that the Sentiments it contains, and the proposals made in it, may be necessary to become known to General Washington and the American Congress, but I trust that your Correspondence will be so Conducted that this private letter to you may never become a publick letter or be published to my disadvantage, for you must be Sensible, Sir, that as I now act without any previous authority from General Sir Henry Clinton my Conduct although pointing to the partial good of the Troops of Convention and to the general advantage of all persons concerned in this unhappy War, yet, being done at my own Instance, it may call forth the reprehension, if not the Resentment, of His Majesty” (DNA:PCC, item 174). For related earlier correspondence, see Philips to Gates, 15, 16, and “Wednesday” (likely 18) Nov., and Gates to Phillips, 16 Nov., all in
Gates replied to Phillips from Boston on 3 Dec. that his letter “shall be sent with my Other Despatches to Congress. To gratify your Desires on a Subject which would do you Honour, were your Proposal published, I have, in my own Name, requested your Letter may be Considered as private” (). Phillips wrote Gates from Cambridge on the same date: “The letter I wrote to you dated the 1st Instant concerning the proposed general Exchange of the Troops of Convention, I did not intrust a communication of the Contents of with any person except my Secretary and he had my positive Orders not to reveal any part of the letter.
“You have opened on the matter with Lieutenant Campbell of which I am perfectly satisfied as he is an Officer of trust—He informs me you mean to collect the heads of my letter for the perusal of some Members of the American Congress who are Your friends and it is to be so done as not to render my letter publick or endanger my Situation, and this is perfectly what I wish. …
“Matters have gone So unluckily between Sir Henry Clinton and the American Congress that it is scarcely to be expected any New Negotiation will be opened, much less take place, and, therefore, should We be able to bring this affair to an agreement it will redound to our Credit Serve all parties and open a Way for the dictates of humanity to operate towards a General Cartel” (). Congress considered the letter of 1 Dec. from Phillips to Gates on 31 Dec., tabled it, and approved the conduct of Gates (see 12:1264–65; see also Jay to Gates, 3 Jan. 1779, in 11:408).
The physical suffering of Convention Army prisoners at Charlottesville, Va., likely increased Phillips’s interest in seeking their exchange. Descriptions of these conditions during 1779 can be found in the printed letters of Thomas Anburey, an officer in the British 24th Regiment of Foot and member of the Convention Army (see 2:315–19, 363–64, 428–29, 436–38). For cautions in the use of Anburey’s letters as a source, see Whitfield J. Bell, Jr., “Thomas Anburey’s ‘Travels Through America’: A Note on Eighteenth-Century Plagiarism,” Bibliographical Society of America, Papers 37 (1943): 23–36; and Ennis Duling, “Thomas Anburey at the Battle of Hubbardton: How a Fraudulent Source Misled Historians,” Vermont History 78 (2010): 1–14.