Opening the text

A journal, of a young man of Massachusetts, late a surgeon on board an American privateer, who was captured at sea by the British in May, eighteen hundred and thirteen and was confined first, at Melville Island, Halifax, then at Chatham, in England, and last at Dartmoor prison : $b Interspersed with observations, anecdotes and remarks, tending to illustrate the moral and political characters of three nations. To which is added, a correct engraving of Dartmoor prison, representing the massacre ofWaterhouse, Benjamin

History

A journal, of a young man of Massachusetts, late a surgeon on board an American privateer, who was captured at sea by the British in May, eighteen hundred and thirteen and was confined first, at Melville Island, Halifax, then at Chatham, in England, and last at Dartmoor prison : $b Interspersed with observations, anecdotes and remarks, tending to illustrate the moral and political characters of three nations. To which is added, a correct engraving of Dartmoor prison, representing the massacre of

Waterhouse, Benjamin

Dartmoor Prison; United States -- History -- War of 1812 -- Prisoners and prisons

We cannot conceive how Mr. King finds it difficult to reconcile
    the testimony respecting Captain Shortland's giving the orders to
    fire; when he reports that SEVERAL of the Americans SWEAR
    POSITIVELY, that Captain Shortland gave that order--and many of
    the soldiers and the English witnesses heard the word given by
    some one, but could not swear it was by Captain Shortland; and
    some of them (among whom is the officer commanding the guard)
    THINK, if Captain Shortland had given such an order, they must
    have heard it, which they did not. Thus, then, stands the
    foundation for this part of the report. An English officer THINKS
    it is not so, and several Americans SWEAR it is so; and he finds
    it very difficult to reconcile their testimony.--The lightness
    with which they seem to have passed over this most important point
    of that day's transaction, cannot but be deeply regretted by those
    who feel for the unhappy sufferers, when they go on to state, "It
    may remain a matter of doubt whether the firing first began in the
    square by an ORDER, or whether it was a spontaneous act of the
    soldiers themselves; it seemed clear it was continued and renewed
    both there and elsewhere, without orders--and that on the
    platforms and several places about the prison it was _certainly
    commenced without any authority_." We must once more request the
    attention of the public to the affidavits already published; it is
    there sworn by one of the witnesses, that PREVIOUS to the alarm
    bell being rung, and while walking in the yard, _a soldier called
    to him from the walls_, and _told him to go in_, as they would
    soon be fired upon. How, then, can it be possible, that a soldier
    on the walls should know that they would soon be fired upon, if
    the order had not been previously given to that effect? And had
    the bugle-man been examined, he could have stated that, previous
    to the ringing of the alarm bell, he received orders to _sound to
    fire_; so that when the soldiers took their stations on the walls,
    they were charged and prepared for that purpose. With such
    information, we conceive the committee to stand fully justified in
    stating in their report, the belief of its being a pre-concerted
    plan, on the part of Shortland; and if the commissioners had
    possessed themselves with a knowledge of these circumstances,
    which they could and ought to have done, would they, then,
    reported Shortland as justifiable, even in a _military_ point of
    view?

No reviews yet