King George declared American soldiers as traitors in 1775
This had the effect of denying them prisoner of war status.
BUT, British strategy, in the early part of the conflict, was to pursue a negotiated settlement, so officials DID NOT hang them, (which was the usual procedure for treason), in an attempt to avoid unnecessarily risking any public sympathy the British might have enjoyed in the Americas.
Then the continental army (American revolutionary soldiers) captured a British army in the Battle of Saratoga (1777) which resulted in thousands of British prisoners of war in the hands of the Americans.
This further prevented British officials from hanging Colonial prisoners, (even though there was little hope of a settlement by this point), because they were worried about retaliation on prisoners being held by the Americans.
Still, this didn't prevent the British from treating common American military members being held prisoner far more harshly than the standards of the day for POWs allowed.
The general negligence on the part of the British had the effect of starvation and disease ...
which slowly, in the end, had the same result as hanging (DEATH) for many American prisoners of war.
So, completely inhuman suffering for those that weren't officers (or not likely to be useful in prisoner exchanges) ensued as well.
SO, did they KILL them Directly? No.
This they kill them INDIRECTLY? ( through negligence) ... Yes
Please ask additional questions AS additional questions
We only receive a PORTION of what you paid JustAnswer for the question. And are only credited that once you've rated positively.
Each time I return [to the same question] and answer a different question than the one that was asked, this lowers my payout per time/effort.
The first question was a history question.
Now you've asked a completely different question.
As a show of of faith I'll go ahead and address your second question.
First, the name of the movie is "The Patriot."
And, no, although historically BASED, at the kind of detail level you asking about, the movie was inaccurate on many counts.
(1) All of the workers on the plantation would have been slaves
(2) The explosions you hear from cannonballs hitting would not have happened. The simply would have made a thud when hitting the ground or made a mowing sound as they cut through the grass. Exploding cannon balls had not yet been invented.
(3) The movie does not come CLOSE to depicting the help provided by the French, who stopped the English from sending troops and supplies
(4) There are NO documented facts to show that British soldiers burned churches with women and children in them
(5) A significant misconception of this movie was that militia kept the British army from going north. (Completely inaccurate). After the battle of Camden the army retreated to Charlotte, North Carolina. There was no one left behind to act as an official of the continental army. AND
(6) Another detail that the movie depicted incorrectly was the pat, the level, of acceptance of slaves into the conflict. In actuality, in the first few years of the war ***** ***** issued specific orders that slaves should not be inducted. The business about being paid five shillings for each month they served is a complete fabrication.
(7) The Patriot's producer, Mark Gordon, said that in making the film, "While we were telling a fictional story, the backdrop was serious history". The film's screenwriter, Robert Rodat, said of Mel Gibson's character: "***** ***** is a composite character made up of Thomas Sumter, ***** *****, Andrew Pickens, and Francis Marion, and a few bits and pieces from a number of other characters"
(8) No, the scene, as with most scenes, is inaccurate. This not a historical documentary, but rather entertainment based VERY LOOSELY on history.
This person answers the core of your question well. I will not try to re-articulate:
"The Patriot was criticized for misrepresenting atrocities during the Revolutionary War, including the killing of prisoners of war and wounded soldiers and the burning alive of a group of townsfolk in a church. The more striking aspects of these British atrocities, it was said, had been borrowed from war crimes committed by Germans during World War II. The key incident of the deliberate burning down of a church packed with unarmed American civilians has no factual basis, and no parallel in the revolutionary war or in European 18th century wars against other occidental peoples. The New York Post film critic Jonathan Foreman was one of several focusing on this distortion in the film"
Although I don't like using Wikipedia as a source, this article does a good job of over-viewing and provides several good citations to follow"
Hope this helps
And I hope you'll understand re: asking new questions AS new questions. If we expert users continue to come back to answer new questions over and over (especially when we've made the decision to spend our time based on the amount on the question to begin with) again, out time becomes more and more devalued.
Did you see my answer?