By Ahad Khatri
(Title: “Articles of Capitulation, Yorktown“
Author: George Washington
Date of Origin: The original document was signed October 19th, 1781
Website of Origin: http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/the-revolutionary-war/articles-of-capitulation-yorktown-1781/
Excerpt from the Articles of Capitulation (Articles 4 through 11; I thought these were the most interesting parts about the articles in general))
Document
Article IV.[1] Officers are to retain their side-arms.[2] Both officers and soldiers[3] to keep their private property of every kind; and no part of their baggage or papers to be at any time subject to search or inspection. The baggage and papers of officers and soldiers taken during the siege to be likewise preserved for them.[4]
Granted.[5]
It is understood that any property obviously belonging to the inhabitants of these States, in the possession of the garrison, shall be subject to be reclaimed.[6]
Article V. The soldiers to be kept in Virginia, Maryland, or Pennsylvania,[7] and as much by regiments as possible, and supplied with the same rations of provisions as are allowed to soldiers in the service of America.[8] A field-officer from each nation, to wit, British, Anspach, and Hessian, and other officers on parole,[9] in the proportion of one to fifty men to be allowed to reside near their respective regiments, to visit them frequently, and be witnesses of their treatment; and that their officers may receive and deliver clothing and other necessaries for them, for which passports are to be granted when applied for.[10]
Granted.
Article VI. The general, staff, and other officers not employed as mentioned in the above articles, and who choose it, to be permitted to go on parole to Europe, to New York, or to any other American maritime posts at present in the possession of the British forces, at their own option;[11] and proper vessels to be granted by the Count de Grasse[12] to carry them under flags of truce to New York within ten days from this date, if possible, and they to reside in a district to be agreed upon hereafter, until they embark. The officers of the civil department of the army and navy to be included in this article. Passports to go by land to be granted to those to whom vessels cannot be furnished.[13]
Granted.
Article VII. Officers to be allowed to keep soldiers as servants, according to the common practice of the service. Servants not soldiers are not to be considered as prisoners, and are to be allowed to attend their masters.[14]
Granted.
Article VIII. The Bonetta sloop-of-war to be equipped, and navigated by its present captain and crew, and left entirely at the disposal[15] of Lord Cornwallis[16] from the hour that the capitulation is signed, to receive an aid-de-camp to carry despatches to Sir Henry Clinton;[17] and such soldiers as he may think proper to send to New York, to be permitted to sail without examination. When his despatches are ready, his Lordship[18] engages on his part, that the ship shall be delivered to the order of the Count de Grasse, if she escapes the dangers of the sea.[19] That she shall not carry off any public stores. Any part of the crew that may be deficient on her return, and the soldiers passengers, to be accounted for on her delivery.
Article IX. The traders are to preserve their property, and to be allowed three months to dispose of or remove them; and those traders are not to be considered as prisoners of war.[20]
The traders will be allowed to dispose of their effects, the allied army having the right of preemption.[21] The traders to be considered as prisoners of war upon parole.
Article X. Natives or inhabitants of different parts of this country, at present in York or Gloucester, are not to be punished on account of having joined the British army.
This article cannot be assented to, being altogether of civil resort.[22]
Article XI. Proper hospitals to be furnished for the sick and wounded. They are to be attended by their own surgeons on parole; and they are to be furnished with medicines and stores from the American hospitals.[23]
Footnotes
[1] Article IV of the Articles of Capitulation, one of the documents which marked the end of the American Revolutionary War, was signed by British, American, and French generals on October 19, 1971.
The American Revolutionary War was a global war that essentially marked the ending of British rule on the Americans, due to growing “philosophical and political differences” (Wikipedia contributors, “American Revolutionary War”). But the most effective interpretations of these causes were made “in the decade following the treaty of peace in 1783”, even though the war was over by then and Americans, by then, were free (Smith, “David Ramsay and the Causes of the American Revolution”).
To describe the leaders of the war, the American Revolutionary War was fought between the British Monarchy, led by King George III, the President of the United States, George Washington, and King Louis XVI.
Fun fact: King Louis XVI was also known as “his Most Christian Majesty”, a phrase used before the beginning of the excerpt being analyzed here (“Articles of Capitulation; October 18, 1781”), specifically during the introduction.
[2] “It is recognised now that the defeat at Yorktown was the event which marked the beginning of the end of the War of American Independence; indeed, there are accounts which stop at the victory. It was not so clear at the time, and in fact the war went on for two more years.”
(Grainger, “The Battle of Yorktown, 1781: A Reassessment”)
The above insight details the significance of the Articles of Capitulation as an epilogue to the Siege of Yorktown, a battle where a French army led by nobleman Comte de Rochambeau, and an American army led by George Washington, captured British Army Lieutenant General Charles Cornwallis and an army of British and German soldiers (the German soldiers were also known as Hessian soldiers, discussed later).
The collective British army were referred to as “officers”.
The word “side-arms” referred to weapons the British carried during this time, such as rifles and muskets, but during this time, “the musket was the
dominant weapon of the day”, as there were no major technological advancements in terms of weapons. (Rostker, “The American System of Providing for the Wounded Evolves.”).
[3] A soldier, in this time, was one who served in the army for pay, whereas an officer referred to one who simply held an office; yet, the word “office” could have meant several things, such as employment, duty, place, etc.
In the document here, “office”, in direct relationship with “officers”, would have referred to a person’s duty, as the duties of the British “officers”, for example, were to fight for their land, their people, and their values.
The “officers” stated in this article were British generals such as Cornwallis, who held a higher position than the “soldiers” they commanded.
To elaborate a little further, the “common practice during this era was for captured military officers to be treated as gentlemen” and confined in “houses and inns”, not prisons. But despite British and American differences on how officers should have been treated, “no overarching agreement was ever reached.” (Shattuck, “10 Facts About Prisoners of War”).
[4] What else did the Americans and French capture from the British? They seized their “baggage and papers”, which could have referred to some sort of money or loot, or packages which contained food and military supplies. Nevertheless, the terms of this article state that these items were to be returned to the British.
Again, the word “siege” referred to the Siege of Yorktown, the turning point of the Revolutionary War; this battle took place from September to October of 1781. The Articles of Capitulation marked the ending of this siege.
For a blueprint which laid out the routes each army took during the Siege of Yorktown, follow this link: www.mountvernon.org/preservation/maps/map-the-siege-of-yorktown/.
[5] Near the ending of Articles IV through VII, the word “Granted” was placed to signify a promise, a declaration, an agreement; the terms of these articles would be carried out to their fullest extent.
In Articles IX through X, however, answers, which will be further delved into, were given as to what the consequences of those terms were.
[6] In terms of location, the Articles of Capitulation were signed in Virginia, in the United States, so “inhabitants of these States” plainly refers to the American army.
The word “garrison” meant troops, or soldiers, and referred to British soldiers who took American supplies during the Siege of Yorktown as well as the Revolutionary War as a whole.
“Property” referred to any territory or land the British took from the Americans, not necessarily the French, since this was primarily a battle between the American and British armies.
The Battle of Germantown in 1977, for example, was one where British soldiers took control of a town in Philadelphia and “drove away the Americans, inflicting twice as many casualties as they suffered” (History.com Staff, “Battle of Germantown”). So the Americans were determined, in these Articles, to reclaim the land that was theirs. Rightfully so, the signing of this document occurred years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a document which made it known to the British that the Americans that they ruled were free to build their own government, in 1976.
[7] After “Cornwallis took steps to surrender”, and after the signing of the Articles of Capitulation, many British soldiers were kept as prisoners of war in America (Middleton, “SIEGE OF YORKTOWN: CLASS ACT IN A WAR OF BLUNDERS; Military Analysis.”).
After the document (Articles of Capitulation) was signed, however, evidence from “Virginia’s Soldiers in the Revolution” by the Virginia Historical Society, suggested that Americans, and not only British, interestingly enough, were also prisoners of war during this time:
“Washington detached practically the entire Virginia line from his immediate command to aid in the defence of Charleston in 1780, and on the fall of that place, the garrison became prisoners of war”.
Here, the “garrison” was referring to those people who were serving in the American army, not to be confused with the British army. Even though some Americans were prisoners of war during the Revolutionary, it was not too long until the British joined them, after the signing of these Articles.
Furthermore, the conditions of prison camps and facilities were incredibly precarious, as “Americans had trouble housing prisoners”; even though prison camps were set up in Virginia and Pennsylvania, “supporting and guarding large numbers of prisoners was, regardless, a burden on every community.” (Shattuck, “10 Facts About Prisoners of War”).
[8] The quote below shows a time when Americans were kept as prisoners of war during the late 1770’s in Britain, and were treated very harshly inside the prisons:
“The prisoners would first be stripped of their clothing and given old worn-out garments, marking the beginning of their ill treatment. From the time of capture until exchange or death, depending on which occurred first, the prisoners were treated in a most scandalous manner…” (Lindsey, “Treatment of American Prisoners of War During the Revolution”)
The statement in Article V, however, indicated that President George Washington would have liked the treatment of British prisoners of war to be more lenient, as the U.S. victory over the U.K. indicated that legal and military circumstances were now in the favor of the United States of America.
[9] “A field officer” corresponded to the ranks of someone such a lieutenant or colonel. Specifically, Article V states that British, Anspach, Hessian, and other commanding officers were to be included in these terms, as Washington was allowing for them to care for and help their men.
Hessians were “hired by King George III to help defeat the American Revolutionaries”, and consisted of thousands of German troops serving as underlings to British forces. (Museum of the American Revolution, “A Hessian Diary of the American Revolution”). They were part of most of the major battles of the Revolution, such as the Battle of Germantown (discussed later), the Battle of Trenton, and, relevant to the Articles of Capitulation, the Siege of Yorktown.
Finally, Anspach (present-day Ansbach) was a city in Bavaria, Germany; the Anspach soldiers, like the Hessians, were also of German origin; during the Revolution, they sided with the British. Even though they were not as well-known as the Hessians, they fought against Americans and French soldiers with the amount of soldiers they had; however, their numbers dwindled quickly and drastically. For example, during the Siege of Yorktown, their “regiment lost an estimated 12 killed and 34 wounded.” (National Parks Service, “German Auxiliary Units at Yorktown”).
[10] Americans essentially allowed British, Anspach, and Hessian officers to oversee and live near their men, in a proportion of one officer to fifty men.
This is in significant contrast, to, as shown previously, the British’s harsh treatment of American prisoners of war. It seemed that unlike King George III (the King of England during the American Revolutionary War), who seemed unforgiving with his mistreatment of American soldiers, President George Washington was more humane and fair with his treatment of British soldiers.
An example of the type of passport that was given to a field-officer, for the purposes of seeing his men, can be found at the link here:
http://www.passport-collector.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/USA-passport-1779-vert2.jpg
[11] This phrase clearly made mention to any of the people who were not included in Articles IV and V; most likely, these people, referred to as “the general, staff and other officers”, were the British, Anspach, and Hessians, who were the losing part of the war. These people could travel to Europe and different parts of America under supervision of British forces as well as permission from King George III.
Technically speaking, the “American maritime posts” here refer to those that stretched from “Corunna, Spain, to Havana, Cuba, in the second half of the 18th century” (Monroy, “Maritime Post Routes between Corunna and the Caribbean as a Geographic Information System (Gis) Model.”).
For images regarding these routes, look at the links below:
http://cultureandhistory.revistas.csic.es/index.php/cultureandhistory/article/viewFile/86/278/990
http://cultureandhistory.revistas.csic.es/index.php/cultureandhistory/article/viewFile/86/278/989
To add an interesting, final point, some of the prison ships where captives were held were “anchored in Wallabout Bay (New York), Charleston Harbor (South Carolina) and St. Lucia (West Indies).” (Marsh,“POWs in American History: A Synopsis”).
[12] “He is best known as a French admiral during the Revolutionary War, when his fleet was active in American waters. His success at the 1781 Battle of Virginia Capes played a major role in the victory of General George Washington and the Continental Army at the Battle of Yorktown, and thus in securing American independence.” (RBSC Manuscripts Division News, “Naval Journal of the Comte de Grasse”)
The above quote signifies that Count de Grasse (born François Joseph Paul de Grasse) supported the Americans and was integral in ending the Revolution, since his country, France, desired supremacy in Europe.
According to Article VI, he was shown to be responsible for granting transportation to British soldiers, continuing to maintain a position of authority even as the war was ending.
[13] “After Congress’s order to confine all naval prisoners,” it seems like the officers mentioned in Article VI were also prisoners of war and were allowed access to different parts of America (Jones, “The Dreadful Effects of British Cruility”).
“American privateers, who were the principal target of British persecution, were eager to exact retribution” on the British civil officers. Unlike the seemingly lenient treatment of prisoners of war after the Siege of Yorktown, this peer-reviewed article offers a different perspective on the treatment of British soldiers (Jones, “The Dreadful Effects of British Cruility”). This could have suggested that the theory regarding Washington’s leniency towards British soldiers could have been misconstrued and heavily debated.
Those historians against Washington’s fair treatment of soldiers after the signing of the Articles of Capitulation suggested that “American humanity must have looked more like American hypocrisy”. Again, in the context of the Revolution, this quote might have signified that a promise of treating the British with a sense of fairness might not have seemed like a very realistic option. (Jones, “The Dreadful Effects of British Cruility”). Evidence that could have suggested some sort of mistreatment is delved into below.
Of these prisoners of war could not go by “vessels”, (ships), had they not be granted privilege, then they would have to travel by “land”, which most likely meant that these prisoners would have to remain in the United States of America.
[14] “During the 17th and 18th centuries, more modern thinking on the status of prisoners of war began to develop… Individual soldiers were enemies only so long as they were armed and the captors only rights over prisoners were to keep them from returning to the battle lines… American prisoners were held in extremely crowded ships off the coast where thousands died from starvation and exposure.” (National Parks Service, “History and Legal Status of Prisoners of War”)
Here, soldiers, lower in rank and status when compared to officers, were treated as servants, but they were not considered prisoners and were not treated as harshly as such. Rather, a “common practice of the service” was used, as described by John Rees’ “War As A Waiter: Soldier Servants” below:
“Officers of both sides during the War for American Independence were allowed one or more personal servants, also called waiters, but the practice was regulated.”
In this context, the “waiters” would refer to the soldiers under the officers; interestingly enough, most of these soldiers were white, “given then relatively small numbers of blacks in Continental regiments” (Rees, “War As A Waiter: Soldier Servants”).
[15] “Cornwallis raised a flag of truce after having suffered not only the American attack but also disease, lack of supplies, inclement weather, and a failed evacuation” (The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, “Surrender of the British General Cornwallis to the Americans, October 19, 1781”).
Among these “supplies” (as mentioned above), the “Bonetta sloop-of-war” was returned to Lord Cornwallis. A sloop-of-war was a kind of warship used in the British Royal Navy, and this type of ship was first constructed “during the Commonwealth, especially for the war with the Dutch Republic”, which began in the 1600’s (Lambert, “The Sloop of War: 1650-1763”). “Bonetta” was the specific name the sloop-of war being referred to here. Additionally, the sloop of war had a single gun deck with “no more than 18 guns”, which meant that compared to Royal Navy ships serving in North America, these warships were both smaller and weaker (Lambert, “The Sloop of War: 1650-1763”).
[16] According to St. George Tucker, an American militia officer in the Revolutionary War, the way Cornwallis opted to surrender to President Washington by sending a letter proposing a “cessation of hostilities” (ceasefire, negotiation) (Riley, “St. George Tucker’s Journal of the Siege of Yorktown, 1781”).
[17] An “aid-de-camp” is a personal assistant to a person of a higher rank, such as Sir Henry Clinton, and is tasked with the responsibility of delivering a bulletin, or a message, to his officer.
Sir Henry Clinton was a British Army officer part of the losing side of the Siege of Yorktown, a battle which, again, proved to be pivotal for the Americans in terms of their eventual independence.
A scholar such as Richard Middleton, who wrote “The Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy and Responsibility for the British Surrender at Yorktown” would take account to Clinton’s blame of the loss in Yorktown on Lord Cornwallis because of two things:
“The first concerned Cornwallis’s suggestion that he ‘had been compelled’ to take post at Yorktown contrary to his advice. The second was that Cornwallis had only remained at Yorktown because of repeated promises of help.”
But altogether, Sir Henry Clinton and the army, under command of Lord Cornwallis, were ultimately defeated in the Siege, so it seems interesting for Middleton’s article to essentially pit Cornwallis and Clinton against each other, even though they were representing the same nation, and blame was, thus, to be placed on both of their leaderships.
[18] “Lordship”, as stated in Article VIII, was a commonly used term in the United Kingdom and was a reference to a bishop or a man with some title; the word bore a respectful connotation. Here, “his Lordship” was referring to Lord Cornwallis, as he is directly mentioned in Article VIII.
Cornwallis’ historical significance was in display before the Battle of Yorktown, as he sought to build a base of “fortifications” to ambush American and French soldiers. He chose Yorktown and “began the construction of fortifications” in August 1781, but a month later, “the French fleet blockaded him by sea”, and Cornwallis was later confronted by American and Virginian forces, “he was forced to capitulate” (Hatch, “Gloucester Point in the Siege of Yorktown 1781.”).
Ironically, Lord Cornwallis did not attend the surrender ceremony, as he claimed sickness.
[19] Article VIII describes the possibilities of what could have happened if the “Bonetta sloop-of-war” was not properly delivered to Lord Cornwallis.
“The dangers of the sea”, for example, referred to warships which were at sea and in danger of attacking strangers; perhaps “the 600-ton, 26-gun ship Caesar of Boston” was an example of the measures that could have been taken to have ensured that the “captain and crew” of the “Bonetta sloop-of-war” (stated in Article VIII) were all safe. (Frayler, “Privateers in the American Revolution”).
[20] Even though there were trade restrictions on New England during the American Revolution, one of the reasons which might have sparked the war in the first place (trade and tax laws), it appeared as though there was a plethora of traders during the late 1770s and early 1780s.
The New Englanders sought “sugar…molasses and rum” from the West Indies, which was controlled by the British, in exchange for “lumber, grain, flour, and salt fish”, which seemed like less valuable, yet desired, goods by the British (“The West Indies and the Sugar Trade”).
According to Article IX, the traders could keep any of the goods they carried, having “three months to dispose of…them”.
Unlike some of the soldiers held captive, traders were not considered prisoners of war; however, for the British, a significant inquiry was whether these “tradesmen…deserved the courtesies automatically due real gentlemen in uniform” (Burrows, “The Lost Story of Revolutionary POW’s”).
[21] The “allied army” refers to the joint American and French forces fighting for the causes of independence and European supremacy, respectively. The Americans and French, however, were able to set aside their cultural differences, even though their leaders, Washington and Rochambeau, respectively, were of different origins.
For example, according to “The French Alliance and the Winning of American Independence”, by historian Edward Ayres, “General Rochambeau took great pains to cultivate good relations with his American allies and treated George Washington as his equal. “
Finally, the traders from the American and French side had a right called “preemption”, as mentioned in Article IX, meaning they could purchase items or goods before the British were able to purchase the same items.
[22] These cities referred to the towns of York and Gloucester in Virginia, where the surrender ceremony of the British, as well as the signing of the Articles of Capitulation, was made.
This article was not granted, unlike the other seven in the document excerpt, because of “civil resort”, or irreconcilable differences between British and Americans regarding the treatment of those who had joined the British army and had committed treason.
For example, during the Revolution, there were American colonists who “continued to side with the Crown”, known as loyalists, who were considered, by American patriots, people who committed treason against Americans (Maxey, “Treason in the Revolution”). The patriots were a group whose values of independence and pride for their nation were opposite to to the loyalists and their values for obedience and fear of their King (George III). The patriots bore sentiments of no longer wanting to live under the British because they had been taxed, without representation, endlessly, and felt that they should not have been under the control of a nation millions of miles away.
Eventually, during the Revolution, “Congress passed a resolution in June 1776… punishing all persons… who, entitled to the protection of its laws, nevertheless waged war, or adhered to the King of Great Britain, or gave aid and comfort to the British army.“ (Maxey, “Treason in the Revolution”).
This article was not promised because Americans and British could have viewed those who had committed treason against their respective countries in two different lights.
[23] Article XI, the last in this excerpt, focused on care for both “the sick and wounded”, as many diseases, such as smallpox, for example, plagued the thirteen colonies, due to little technological resources and advancements.
“In 1777 alone, more than one hundred thousand people in North America died as a result of virulent smallpox epidemics.” (Abrams 55-57). Because of American and British fear for continued death, hospitals needed to be “furnished”, according to Article XI, and made so that they could maximize the amount of people who lived.
The types of medicine and nutrition provided to wounded soldiers of both sides of the war were not included to the following: “the diet of corn meal and rice; doses of niter, calomel and several cathartics; and a “cleansing” of uniforms by washing and smoking them” (Abrams 55-57).
Unfortunately for both the Americans, French, and British, “the Pennsylvania Hospital” was one of the few proper medical care facilities in the late 1900s that could cure the sick and wounded. This meant that of the 3600 placed in the hospital, “2,000 had been returned to duty, 690 had died or deserted, and 910 remained,” which indicated that more hospitals needed to be constructed!
Works Cited
“A Hessian Diary of the American Revolution” Museum of the American Revolution, 22 Feb. 2017, www.amrevmuseum.org/read-the-revolution/memoir/hessian-diary-american-revolution.
Abrams, Jeanne E. Revolutionary Medicine: the Founding Fathers and Mothers in Sickness and in Health. New York University Press, 2015.
Blanco, Richard L. “AMERICAN ARMY HOSPITALS IN PENNSYLVANIA DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies, vol. 48, no. 4, 1981, pp. 347–368. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27772777.
Burrows, Edwin G. “The Lost Story of Revolutionary War POW’s” AMERICAN HERITAGE, vol. 58, no. 5, 2008, www.americanheritage.com/content/patriots-or-terrorists.
Frayler, John. “Privateers in the American Revolution.” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/privateers.html.
“German Auxiliary Units at Yorktown.” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, www.nps.gov/york/learn/historyculture/german-auxiliary-units-at-yorktown.htm.
Grainger, John D. The Battle of Yorktown, 1781: A Reassessment. NED – New edition ed., Boydell and Brewer, 2005. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt14brs1d.
Hatch, Charles E. “Gloucester Point in the Siege of Yorktown 1781.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 2, 1940, pp. 265–284. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1922681.
“History and Legal Status of Prisoners of War.” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, www.nps.gov/ande/learn/historyculture/history-legal-status-pows.htm.
History.com Staff. “Battle of Germantown.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 2009, www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/battle-of-germantown.
Jones, T. Cole. “The Dreadful Effects of British Cruilty.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 36, no. 3, Fall2016, p. 435. EBSCOhost.
Lambert, Andrew. “The Sloop of War: 1650-1763.” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology., vol. 44, no. 2, 2015, p. 465.
Lindsey, William R. “Treatment of American Prisoners of War During the Revolution .” XXII, 1973, www.iroquoiscsd.org/cms/lib/NY19000365/Centricity/Domain/198/pow%20am%20rev.pdf.
“Map: The Siege of Yorktown.” George Washington’s Mount Vernon, www.mountvernon.org/preservation/maps/map-the-siege-of-yorktown/.
Marsh, Alan. “POWs in American History: A Synopsis.” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988, www.nps.gov/ande/learn/historyculture/pow_synopsis.htm.
Maxey, David. “Treason in the Revolution.” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, www.nps.gov/revwar/unfinished_revolution/treason.htm.
Middleton, Drew. “SIEGE OF YORKTOWN: CLASS ACT IN A WAR OF BLUNDERS; Military Analysis.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Oct. 1981, www.nytimes.com/1981/10/16/us/siege-of-yorktown-class-act-in-a-war-of-blunders-military-analysis.html.
Middleton, Richard. “The Clinton- Cornwallis Controversy and Responsibility for the British Surrender at Yorktown.” [“History”]. History, vol. 98, no. 331, July 2013, pp. 370-389. EBSCOhost.
Monroy, María Baudot. “Maritime Post Routes between Corunna and the Caribbean as a Geographic Information System (Gis) Model.” Culture & History Digital Journal, cultureandhistory.revistas.csic.es/index.php/cultureandhistory/article/view/86/278.
“Naval Journal of the Comte De Grasse | RBSC Manuscripts Division News.” Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University, blogs.princeton.edu/manuscripts/2017/01/26/naval-journal-of-the-comte-de-grasse/.
Rees, John. “War as a Waiter: Soldier Servants.” Journal of the American Revolution, 28 Aug. 2016, allthingsliberty.com/2015/04/war-as-a-waiter-soldier-servants/.
Riley, Edward M. “St. George Tucker’s Journal of the Siege of Yorktown, 1781.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 3, 1948, pp. 375–395. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1923466.
Rostker, Bernard. “The American System of Providing for the Wounded Evolves.” Providing for the Casualties of War: The American Experience Through World War II, RAND Corporation, 2013, pp. 57–74. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt2tt90p.12.
Shattuck, Gary. “10 Facts About Prisoners of War.” Journal of the American Revolution, 28 Aug. 2016, allthingsliberty.com/2015/04/10-facts-about-prisoners-of-war/.
Smith, Page. “David Ramsay and the Causes of the American Revolution.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 1, 1960, pp. 51–77. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1943479.
“THE EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS.; Precedents of the American Revolution. The British Government Never Assenting to a General Exchange, nor Conceding National Rights to the Colonies.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 Dec. 1861, www.nytimes.com/1861/12/11/archives/the-exchange-of-prisoners-precedents-of-the-american-revolution-the.html.
The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, “Surrender of the British General Cornwallis to the Americans, October 19, 1781”, www.gilderlehrman.org/content/surrender-british-general-cornwallis-americans-october-19-1781
“The West Indies and the Sugar Trade.” The American Revolution, The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, www.ouramericanrevolution.org/index.cfm/page/view/m0078.
“Virginia’s Soldiers in the Revolution.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 19, no. 4, 1911, pp. 402–414. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4243163.
Wikipedia contributors. “American Revolutionary War.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 12 Jun. 2018. Web. 17 Jun. 2018.