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

An eminent writer upon national law, has formerly extolled the
    "English and French for their treatment given to prisoners of
    war," and at the same time mentions the case of Charles I. King of
    Naples, who, having defeated and taken prisoner Conrade, his
    competitor, caused him, together with his fellow-prisoner,
    Frederick of Austria, to be beheaded at Naples. Upon this case our
    author has the following pertinent remarks:--"This barbarity
    raised an universal horror, and Peter the third, King of Arragon,
    reproached Charles with it, as a detestable crime, till then
    unheard of among Christian princes. However, the case was of a
    dangerous rival contending with him for the throne. But, supposing
    the claims of his rival were unjust, Charles might have kept him
    in prison until he had renounced them, and given security for his
    future behavior." If this act of Charles raised an "universal
    horror," what should be the excitement produced by the cold
    blooded massacre of a number of unarmed and unoffending prisoners
    of war in confinement? Humanity shudders at the thought, and
    language furnishes no appropriate epithet with which to brand the
    infamous perpetrator of so foul, so hitherto unheard of a crime.
    Did that writer now live, he would no longer extol the humanity of
    the English nation, but in common with the friends of humanity, he
    would join in the "universal horror" which British cruelty has
    excited.

    The complexion of this transaction is rendered still more dark and
    barbarous, and its criminality most shockingly enhanced, by the
    circumstances under which many of those unfortunate men became
    prisoners, and finally were offered up as victims to gratify the
    cruel and insatiate feeling of the British agent. They were
    American Citizens, who had been impressed into the service and
    bondage of Great Britain, in time of peace. They had served that
    government from a necessity, arising from the assumed principle of
    a right to search neutral vessels for British seamen, and the
    practice of taking Americans and compelling them to service. We
    cannot, however, too much applaud the magnanimity of those men, in
    refusing to fight against and slaughter their countrymen; nor can
    we too much detest the conduct of Great Britain, in confining them
    as prisoners of war.

Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.