Talk:George Washington/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

"The Asgill Affair"

This new section strikes me as problematic. It gives undue weight to this single incident, it is written in highly POV style, and it's in the wrong place in the article. I'd propose it be rewritten in a more neutral tone, and incorporated into the section regarding his time as Commander in Chief. Anastrophe (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I am happy to see it tweaked but at the moment the section on Washington's historical reputation and legacy shows no critical comment at all and this is perhaps one example of how it could be developed. Dormskirk (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello editor Dormskirk, thanks for the reply. I agree that the reputation/legacy section has no notable criticism - although the body of the article does have considerable coverage of his 'less than godlike' reputation in some areas, most notably regarding slavery. The Asgill affair (which I'd never heard of before your entry, so thank you) is interesting, but I think in the greater scheme of Washington and the article, it's a relatively minor detail. The wording is a bit over the top though, imputing things that are not likely in evidence ("threw caution to the wind", "blatant disregard", etc). Part of the location problem within the article, as I see it, is that it comes after coverage of 'Memorials', 'Postage', etc - I think the subsection formatting should be reworked, but at least for the Asgill content, at minimum I think it should be incorporated directly into the main section 11, rather than as a subsection. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I have now toned it down a bit in the areas you suggest, and I have incorporated the text directly into the main section 11. Happy to consider further tweaking. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. Does the source actually characterize his writing as throwing caution to wind or impetuously? The concern is that it's that writer's opinion of what Washington's state of mind was, which, absent some other source's corroboration, seems unlikely to be known. But it's a small issue, and not much worth fussing with overly. thanks again. Anastrophe (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I take your point. The wording is not perfect but I suppose the point is that if Washington had given the matter a bit more consideration he might have acted more appropriately. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. cheers! Anastrophe (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone commenting here, please may I quote from the source material (italicising is mine). On page 154 of the Journal it is stated “On May 18 [1782], Washington sent this news to Hazen and modified his orders, directing Hazen to choose one of the officers protected by Article XIV. Interestingly, Col. Humphreys in his newspaper defense of Washington (see Chapter VI), chose not to include this letter which shows Washington violating Article XIV of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation.” The researchers in Lancaster uncovered these facts, which have never been recorded before. Indeed, The Asgill Affair has been re-written, in the Journal last December. Arbil44 (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Anastrophe. This was an obscure incident compared to the events that Washington was involved in that shaped the fate of an entire nation and the world, and is an obvious undue weight issue that doesn't merit an entire section or paragraph. "In doing so he was fully cognisant that he was showing disregard..."?? This is definitely a POV poke. Does anyone even have an idea why Washington did what he did here? If anyone is so eager to paint Washington as less than a saint, which he wasn't, there are better ways to effect this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, here you are blatantly admitting you want this article to be a hagiography: you actually said the subject was a saint. He wasn't; he was a human being. (Definition of hagiography--1: biography of saints or venerated persons 2: idealizing or idolizing biography an account that smacks of hagiography) YoPienso (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi - The Asgill Affair has recently been attracting media and academic interest so it is not obscure. Here are some comments: (from Professor Tombs at Cambridge University UK) "I have received the Journal and have just read it from cover to cover. It is a brilliant success"; (from Professor Urwin at Temple University, Doylestown US) "That has to be the most complete telling of Captain Charles Asgill's scrape with death to ever see print – and also the most accurate and complete account". Anastrophe made some very constructive observations which I adopted. To remove the piece entirely is unhelpful in the extreme and smacks of censorship / wanting to preserve the present hagiography. I would request that the piece is re-inserted so that constructive discussions can be resumed. As I have already indicated, the wording is not perfect, so let's work on it in a spirit of cooperation. Dormskirk (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

If I may address the POV aspect. The staff at LancasterHistory were all involved in producing the Journal in December 2019. About 126 people were invested in the story they have re-told, and the legal team were extremely supportive too. I do not believe a POV accusation holds water in these circumstances. As to "obscure", well The Asgill Affair was mentioned in The Washington Post very recently Restraint not Revenge. Furthermore, several French plays were written during the course of Asgill's lifetime which further indicates that for the following forty years, after events of 1782, the story was still being told. This has continued to be the case right up to the present day. Arbil44 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I will try and address the concern that there is "no mention of Washington's motives". His motive for abusing Asgill in the first place was to almost certainly to pacify the local rebels and his motive for witholding the letter was almost certainly to cover up the war crime. In the interests of moving this forward here is a revised draft which picks up these points:

On May 18, 1782, Washington wrote somewhat impetuously to General Moses Hazen, in Lancaster, countermanding his previous orders and told him to include 'conditional' British officers when selecting one to send to the gallows (in retribution for the murder of Captain Joshua Huddy a few weeks earlier). His intention was to pacify the rebels of Monmouth County who were protesting at Huddy's death. In doing so he was fully cognisant that he was showing disregard for Article XIV of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected Prisoners of War. Four years later, on November 16, 1786, this letter was not submitted for publication with the rest of his letters regarding "The Asgill Affair" of 1782. Washington's intention here was almost certainly to cover up a war crime. Those incomplete letters subsequently formed the basis of every account written about the events of 1782, in the following two and a half centuries.

My concern here is that the amendments, certainly the last one, actually "tones up" rather than "tones down" the text. Further thoughts welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The rebels were baying for blood to atone for Huddy, but they were not local to Lancaster, PA, Dormskirk. I have amended your draft to reflect that they were in Monmouth County, NJ. Arbil44 (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy with that. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Dormskirk : If there is a clear consensus for covering this minor episode, it needs to be more in line with summary style, per due weight. The article covers major events, and in summary style. It would also be nice to know why Washington chose Asgill out of all the other British officers, as this is a biography, about the person, not a dedicated article about the Revolution or any particular battle. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yopensio : Let's not start that routine. I stated my reasons for removal of the paragraph in question. It covered an obscure episode in the American Revolution and, as I've already pointed out, contained less than neutral language. The article covers slavery and Washington's defeats in battle. Just because the article covers Washington's many victories, etc, doesn't make it a "hagiography". I've added items about Washington that were less than heroic or admirable in the past, the last one being this edit. Please try to control the "blatant" accusations in the future. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A note here in support of Gwillhickers comment regarding hagiography. Yopensio, Gwillhickers did not say that he was a saint. I'd suggest rereading the whole sentence he wrote, it's quite the opposite of that. Anastrophe (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

He said Washington was not less than a saint. YoPienso (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

No, he wrote exactly the opposite. But there's no point in continuing this. Anastrophe (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

So, @Gwillhickers:, to help me parse your sentences in the future, when you wrote, "If anyone is so eager to paint Washington as less than a saint, which he wasn't, there are better ways to effect this," did you mean Washington wasn't less than a saint, or Washington wasn't a saint? Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It's impossible for me to assume good faith with that utterly unhelpful reply, so I'm guessing I read it right the first time.

Regarding "blatant"--I meant obvious and with no intent to disguise; after consulting a few dictionaries, I found it often connotes wrong-doing, which I didn't mean to imply. (As you will recall, numerous editors perceived you wanted the Thomas Jefferson bio to be a hagiography.) I do appreciate that you could say something less than flattering about Washington, who I truly admire as a great American hero and as an imperfect human being who strived to make right choices. YoPienso (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems you're getting a bit heavy handed here. You asked if I meant to say if Washington was or wasn't a Saint. I said, "wasn't". Now you're ready to assume that I mean to say he was a saint, and in the same breath mention "good faith", this after you originally accused me of hagiography, while trying to breath life into that notion now. Any semblance of hagiography only took the form of including what the sources say, and in the face of those who were making obvious attempts at reverse-hagiography by suppressing what the sources say. Please lighten up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Since this is now back under discussion, and with a revision, I'll chime in again. The problem with how it's written is that it makes assumptions, rather than sticking strictly to the facts. We should not speculate about or impute motive unless their are other reliable sources that characterize it that way. We can't say "Washington's intention here was almost certainly to cover up a war crime" unless a reliable source has evidence that he in fact said he was doing that. So, with that said, I would suggest: (this written by me, anastrophe a few days ago, signature got lost)

On May 18, 1782, Washington wrote to General Moses Hazen, in Lancaster, countermanding his previous orders and told him to include 'conditional' British officers when selecting one to send to the gallows (in retribution for the murder of Captain Joshua Huddy a few weeks earlier). In doing so, Washington was violating Article XIV of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected Prisoners of War. Four years later, on November 16, 1786, this letter was not submitted for publication with the rest of his letters regarding "The Asgill Affair" of 1782. Those incomplete letters subsequently formed the basis of every account written about the events of 1782, in the following two and a half centuries.

I think that looks fine - very helpful. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I also think it looks fine. In answer to the question raised "Why Asgill?" - 13 British officers had to pick their names out of a hat, along with another piece of paper too. Asgill picked the one with the word "Unfortunate" on it. This meant he was the one selected to go to the gallows. May I respectfully suggest that the editor asking that question should learn more about the cirumstances surrounding this debate. The link to The Asgill Affair is one section of Charles Asgill's page. As will be seen, he was eventually saved by the intervention of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette, thus avoiding a full blown international diplomatic crisis for the newly emerging nation. In response to the "war crime" comment, in support of Dormskirk's subsequent edit, Washington had comitted a war crime in conciously breaking the solemn convention. To subsequently hide the evidence that he had done this is clear from the decision not to include the letter ordering 'conditional' officers to be included in the lottery of death.Arbil44 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbil44 : My only concern about this issue is that it was getting too much coverage for the minor and singular episode that it is, per due weight, and that some of the language was not neutral. Also, do the sources say, "13 British officers had to pick their names out of a hat"? How does one pick their own name out of a hat if it's mixed in with the others? In any event, I get the gist of what was trying to be said. So now we know Asgill's fate was determined by a piece of paper pulled out of a hat. Nothing to do with Washington's choice, and Asgill's life was spared anyway. Again, I have to agree with Anastrophe, the issue is not much worth fussing with overly. If anything is said, it should be made clear that the episode occurred in the middle of a major war, where people were routinely shot or hanged for treason, desertion etc, and needless to say, the enemy was dealt with as was deemed necessary. Covering this episode simply because the Legacy section has no critical comment would be asserting a particular POV, and suggests that what Washington was involved with, during a war, is assumed to be wrong. Given the circumstances involved in war, it could easily be said that what Washington was involved with was the right thing to do. Covering this simply based on the assumption that this was wrong is POV pushing. Having said that, this episode is a blip on the radar screen where Washington's 'legacy' is concerned, and again, poses a serious due weight issue if it's covered with a major paragraph in the Legacy section. If it's covered anywhere it should be brief and in one of the sub-sections involving the Revolutionary War. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I won't repeat comments about whether this was or was not a minor episode, answers have already been given to that. I should have added that a drummer boy was engaged to assist with the drawing of names from the hat and the officers themselves pulled the second piece of paper. Dormskirk has already quoted an American professor of history's reaction to this news but here is the reaction of a Board Member at Lancaster History who, though giving her blessing to the project, had not been involved in the production: "Now that the holiday decorations are being put away, I gave myself the treat of reading "Saving Captain Asgill." What a wonderful piece of work! Who knew that there was something else to learn about George Washington, probably the most studied character in US history? The story of the choosing of lots had an immediacy that I've rarely seen in history writing. And the story of the centuries-late publication of Asgill's letter has that air of mystery that fascinates people about historical research, imo. ...Thank you!" It is clear from just these two quotes (there are plenty more where they came from) that Americans are ready to accept this news and even welcome it in the interests of accurate historical research. By 1782 the Americans had won the war, and while sporadic fighting still existed, the country was no longer facing full blown war. Arbil44 (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Insert : Yes, Washington was pressured by fellow officers, war time circumstances and events, and then he was pressured to spare Asgill's life. Seems to me he didn't want to go through with this in the first place, so it wasn't difficult for Washington to go along with the wishes of the King and Queen of France. If anything the course of events here serves to reveal Washington's compassionate side. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Anastrophe and Gwillhickers regarding giving undue weight to this incident and that it doesn't merit an entire section or paragraph. I don't think it merits inclusion at all, perhaps a better place for it is in Military career of George Washington or George Washington in the American Revolution. Washington's motives and intentions are important to understand this and if they're unclear that's important also. Is the source is giving an opinion based on what they think Washington's motives and intentions were?   // Timothy :: talk  23:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with Gwillhickers regarding weight and placement, but if space permits, do think it should be inserted somewhere. MountVernon.org has a full page devoted to the incident, cited to numerous primary and secondary sources. Most scholarly among the secondary is a book by William M. Fowler, published in 2011, which gives it a few pages. (Another, likely reliable although marred by the reputation of the writer as a white nationalist, was published in 1938; all 300 or so pages are about the incident. It's out of print now but snippets can be seen in Googlebooks.) You might also look in Ellis's 2005 book, His Excellency. YoPienso (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, we could allow the episode to be covered with two or three sentences, in neutral terms, but again, not in the 'Legacy' section. Washington's legacy is based primarily on his involvement in the French and Indian War, winning the American Revolution and being the 1st American president, and the only one to ever be unanimously nominated by the Continental Congress. Inserting minor episodes like this into that section would create multiple issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that's helpful. While it was my idea to put it in the legacy section, I think that putting it elsewhere in the article could be a solution. Dormskirk (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Washington had an extremely difficut situation on his hands. The people of Monmouth County wanted revenge for Huddy's death, but so did the Loyalists want revenge for the death of Philip White before him. A thesis by Claire Duke, at Kansas State University, gives a good account of events at this stage of the war. She describes it as a Civil War, which I think is a fair comment. Washington could see that these tit for tat murders would continue if he did nothing about it and his decision was to send a British officer to the gallows in the hope it would end it. Speaking personally, I am sure any other commander in his position, back then, would have done the same. The Journal is very clear that Washington's actions were in contravention of the Articles of Capitulation but, also, one of the Chapters is devoted to Washington's Defence. It is very difficult to debate this when there are only two editors on Wikipedia (to my knowledge) who have read the very fair account of events as disclosed in the Journal. The Journal is full of new evidence in this episode of history. Washington's actions in hiding his letter from all the rest which were printed, is only one small section of this publication. None of the writers involved have attempted to attribute blame, nor put words or thoughts into Washington's mouth, but some things are blatantly clear and I have already tried to highlight them. Arbil44 (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

How does anyone know that Washington was trying to "hide" the letter? Seems to me if the letter was actually that damning he would have destroyed it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Quote

Here is a quote from Washington, just for our consideration when coming up with a draft proposal:

"I most devoutly Wish his Life may be saved; this happy event may be attained; but it must be effected by the British Commander in Chief. . . . In the Mean Time while this is doing, I must beg that you will be pleased to treat Capt Asgill with every tender Attention and politeness." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Moving forward

At this point it would seem an editor, with more than one major source at his/her disposal, come up with a draft proposal for the topic, which would ultimately be placed in a sub-section involving the close of the Revolution. Again for purposes of this biography, the episode should be covered with a brief paragraph, with a link to where this episode is covered at length. I'll look into matters from time to time. Good luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Your Excellency! While the Mayo book is the only book devoted to The Asgill Affair (it's a shame about her reputation because it comes across to me as a well researched book), another excellent source is the Memoirs of Samual Graham. Mayo draws heavily on his work.Arbil44 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, but Gwillhickers, you haven't read Asgill's 18 page letter which has been deliberately hidden from public consumption for 233 years - you are not quoting from that letter and nor, so far, am I. I am deliberately trying to keep the discussion on two points - namely Washington's decision to violate the Articles of Capitulation and his subsequent cover up of just that. Given you appear to know next to nothing about any of this could you too please keep to the matters under debate. Arbil44 (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you seem to want to cover the episode on two selected points only. Thanks for that at least. However, the debate, on this talk page, used for article improvement, is centered around the length and weight that will be afforded this issue for purposes of this biography. I don't propose to know the finer details. I'm sure Asgill's letter is an unbiased account, (?) as is the account of Asgill's great, great, great grand-daughter Anne Ammundsen, who lives in Great Britain. Since you seem to be knowledgeable about the topic it would seem your energy would be better spent coming up with a draft proposal, in neutral terms, rather trying to elevate yourself at my expense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You have too many greats in there - I'm too old to qualify for 4 - that honour falls to my daughter. As for my location in England - is that now being held against me? Isn't Wikipedia international any more, or do only Americans count? There are only two matters under discussion, or should be, but you are bringing in random quotes about how Asgill was treated. I'm not, but this discussion would take many turns off course if I did bring into the equation how Asgill was treated. I would ask you, very seriously indeed, to keep off that topic. I am trying very hard indeed to be neutral and unbiased and keeping to the two matters under discussion. Doesn't sound as if you have read my post, above, in which I give Washington a fair assessment in his actions. As for how do I know Washington hid the evidence - dear me - if you submit all your papers for printing in a newspaper, but you fail to add the one letter which shows you in a bad light (or, as Dormskirk described it, a war crime) - it is as clear as daylight that that letter was held back because of what it would otherwise convey. Good night - it is nearly 2am in "England". Arbil44 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"You have too many greats in there - I'm too old to qualify for 4 - that honour falls to my daughter." If I am reading this correctly, you are saying you are a descendant of Asgil? As such, please keep in mind WP's policies on conflict of interest. Also, "it is as clear as daylight that that letter was held back because of what it would otherwise convey." - while you are welcome to hold that opinion, it is not a fact, and as such, isn't helpful to writing a neutral point-of-view encyclopedia article. Anastrophe (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Taking it down a notch, Washington, in one of his letters to Asgill, acknowledges Asgill's letter about his situation, so it's not as if Asgill's plight has been covered up, only that Asgill's actual letter hasn't been made public until recently. I'm having difficulty locating that letter, and must admit, at this point, that I would be pleased to read it. Perhaps Washington withheld the letter because it was indeed a decidedly biased and inflametory account, but this doesn't automatically mean it was completely untruthful. The fact that Washington responded to Asgill's letter expressing his sympathies says much, btw. If you can provide a link to the letter it would be appreciated. I've made many contributions to this article over the years, but as I said, given Washington's extensive role in history, I'm not familiar with the finer details of this particular topic, but will be happy to help in an advisory capacity after looking into several accounts on matters. For now we need a basic and neutral draft proposal. I'll leave that to you if you are inclined to take on the task. 'Best, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There is only one source for the letter - the Journal [1] - it has never been printed or seen anywhere else ever before in 233 years. There is absolutely no need for me to draft anything. That has already been done by Dormskirk and amended by another editor - it is above - I am happy with it as it stands. I'll not be able to sleep, so here are some quotes to mull over: (From The Journal) Introduction "When one side only of a story is heard and often repeated, the human mind becomes impressed with it insensibly". — George Washington. ... "Captain Asgill has brought all of us — British and Americans — together, and given us the pleasure of presenting you, our readers, with an exciting and little-known tale. In return, America is finally publishing his letter." —Michael Abel, Editor, December, 2019 - Michael is a top notch guy - a really lovely man and, like his name, so able. So is his wife, Martha. Top lady. Martha is the researcher who uncovered the matters which are under discussion here. Her devilling abilities are second to none. She found things that nobody else has ever found. Indeed, without exception, everybody I met in America last year was simply AMAZING. Lovely people and totally dedicated to uncovering the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I couldn't have done any of it without their stunning input. I have such happy memories of three weeks spent on my final research.Arbil44 (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Your account is most interesting. Evidently, the only way to read the letter is to purchase it from the source you've provided. In any event, letter or no letter, it is generally understood that Asgill was held prisoner and was mistreated, as Washington plainly acknowledges in his letter, which has been in the public domain for years, and that Asgill was facing the gallows at one point. However, Washington didn't come up with the idea of hanging a British officer, he was pressured by others, and again, went along with giving Asgill a reprieve. I am not clear on what particular events have been covered up, only that Asgill's letter was withheld. We know he was mistreated, facing the gallows and that ultimately his life was sparred. Is there anything in the letter that takes the matter further than that, or is the only thing being highlighted is that the letter was withheld? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Moving forward, redux

The discussion has gone a bit off the rails imho. To be honest - in considering the discussion - while this is a "small" piece of Washington's history, it is notable, enough so that there is a detailed accounting of it in the article for Asgill himself. It deserves mention here, but I think little more than a terse summary of what took place, redirecting readers to the latter article for more information.

That said, I haven't a clue how to integrate such mention into the article, at least not with reasonable facility. If it can fit into a direct timeline portion of the article, that would seem best. Anastrophe (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for initially putting the following in the above section - I missed the above post.

Gwillhickers, firstly, knowing that you are interested in philately this may help to show you that The Asgill Affair is absolutely not "obscure" On 12 April 1982, a bicentennial commemorative cover for the Huddy-Asgill affair was produced. (I have copied this directly from the Asgill page and may have failed to get the IT side right here - Dormskirk, please correct, since you are the only one here to know that I struggle dreadfully with the IT involved with Wikipedia). Now to try to answer your questions. (1) Yes, as mentioned, Asgill's letter can only be read in the Journal and the Journal is not online. But Asgill's letter has got nothing - absolutely nil, nada, zilch to do with this discussion, which is about Washington. (2) Please give me a live link to the letter in which Washington acknowledges that Asgill was badly treated - in 18 years of research I have somehow managed to miss that letter, so a link would be very much appreciated. (3) Asgill was facing the gallows daily from 27 May 1782 through to 17 November 1782. Can you imagine waking up each day not knowing if today would be the day, for six months of your life, at the age of 20 (Asgill was the youngest of the 13 officers in the lottery of death). Even on the night of 16 November it was known (by everyone involved) that he would be leaving the next day and the guards were removed that night. Nobody bothered to tell Asgill this fact and he went to bed in blissful ignorance. Because he was regularly beaten to within an inch of his life (the landlord/guards were taking money for this 'sport') he had been given a Newfoundland dog to protect him. This dog knew the guards were no longer there (dogs smell these things) and refused to get off Asgill (this enormous dog lay on top of him in his (bed/hammock/whatever/the floor perhaps) the entire night in spite of Asgill pushing him off repeatedly. (4) When you are the commander in chief, and decisions to send a totally innocent man to the gallows, it doesn't much matter whose idea it was (do you know who came up with that, because I don't) - the buck stops with the C-in-C. It is therefore recorded in history as Washington's decision to deal with the Monmouth County situation this way. (5) The fact that Asgill's letter was hidden for 233 years has nothing - nada - zilch to do with this debate. I keep being prodded and poked on matters entirely outside of this debate - and asked questions which are entirely irrelevant to this debate. (6) Asgill's life was spared by the King and Queen of France. Washington had no choice but to go along with them on the matter or he risked a very serious situation with his allies. It took Congress five days to decide that Asgill could leave, on parole, and even then Asgill was not informed until 17 November (5 days later and he was subsequently quite upset that nobody had informed him sooner). This will be the last time I get dragged into talking about matters which are entirely outside of this debate. I will now get back to the points under discussion. (a) In Washington's letter to Hazen of 18 May 1782 he ordered Hazen to include 'conditional' prisoners in the lottery of death (this was, in Dormskirk's words, a war crime). This doesn't need to be debated, or analysed, or query as to what was the meaning - it is a fact. and then, 4 years later, when all Washington's papers were sent to the New Haven Gazette for publication the letter of 18 May 1782 was held back. This is a cover up. This doesn't need to be debated, or analysed, or query as to what was the meaning - it is a fact. Please would all editors keep to the facts being discussed here. Please will all editors not ask me to get into the wider story of The Asgill Affair. Please will all editors decide whether the proposed draft is acceptable. Please will all editors decide just where the proposed draft be inserted, because really, I am happy with the proposed draft and I do not really have an opinion as to where it should be inserted. Arbil44 (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

References

I've just seen this and my flabber is ghasted. "You have too many greats in there - I'm too old to qualify for 4 - that honour falls to my daughter." If I am reading this correctly, you are saying you are a descendant of Asgil? As such, please keep in mind WP's policies on conflict of interest. Also, "it is as clear as daylight that that letter was held back because of what it would otherwise convey." - while you are welcome to hold that opinion, it is not a fact, and as such, isn't helpful to writing a neutral point-of-view encyclopedia article. Anastrophe (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Excuse me Anastrophe, but are you as confused as Gwillhickers about which letter is under discussion here? because I very much resent your comments, when I am being entirely neutral and unbiaseed about which letter, written by Washington, and which Washington chose, 4 years later, to cover up and not include with all his other letters on the subject of Asgill - which were then printed for the world to study for the next two centuries plus. I would very much appreciate an apology for your misunderstanding. I grant you that Gwillhickers has massively confused the situation and gone so off topic it is making my head spin, and so it is hardly surprising that editors who have never ever heard of The Asgill Affair before are now not knowing what subject is under discussion.Arbil44 (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to resent, hold in contempt, revile, or think however you wish about what I wrote. The problem is that you wrote the statement that suggests that you are a descendant of Asgill. This is a policy matter, not a personal matter. You may have a conflict of interest, thus my caution, not accusation. I'd suggest that you read my comments at the very beginning of this discussion of Asgill, way above. Good faith and collegial collaborative editing get things done best here. This huge discussion pertains to a minor matter, with regard to Washington's biography, taken as a whole. Going into lengthy details about about the matter, while chastising others for digression, is not helpful. Can we please just stick to a short - one or two sentence - mention of the asgill affair, wikilinking to the details in the destination article? Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Back to the matter of the draft, it is both incomplete, and too detailed. The opening sentence has the context embedded as a parenthetical at the end of the sentence. I'll take a stab at rewording and refining it presently, and will post an updated version then. Anastrophe (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Anastrophe, please get your facts right before you make false accusations. I was responding to the following post, where I was 'outed' by another member, which, by the way, I also resented and which was totally uncalled for. Have you seen my post about Washington and how I expect any other man would have acted as he did, vis-a-vis the lottery of death? Can I be accused of bias in that situation? Yes, you seem to want to cover the episode on two selected points only. Thanks for that at least. However, the debate, on this talk page, used for article improvement, is centered around the length and weight that will be afforded this issue for purposes of this biography. I don't propose to know the finer details. I'm sure Asgill's letter is an unbiased account, (?) as is the account of Asgill's great, great, great grand-daughter Anne Ammundsen, who lives in Great Britain. Since you seem to be knowledgeable about the topic it would seem your energy would be better spent coming up with a draft proposal, in neutral terms, rather trying to elevate yourself at my expense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC) ...Arbil44 (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have made absolutely no accusations; please show good faith, and lets get back to editing. Anastrophe (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft Proposal

Following a series of retributive murders between Patriots and Loyalists, on May 18, 1782 Washington wrote in a letter to General Moses Hazen that a British Captain would be executed for the particular killing of Joshua Huddy, by a drawing of lots; Charles Asgill drew the losing paper. This was a violation of the 14th article of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected Prisoners of War; by December of 1782, Congress had ordered his release. Four years later, Washington's original letter to General Hazen was not submitted for publication with the rest of Washington's letters regarding "The Asgill Affair".

This is three - albeit two run-on - sentences, which seems a reasonable compromise in terms of the notability of this matter to Washington's biography, without giving undue weight; as well, it redirect the reader via wikilinks to the fuller details of the matter.

Is this agreeable? Anastrophe (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the redraft Anastrophe. If I am permitted to be honest, and I hope I am, I don't like it as much as your original redraft. Apart from the content, it does not flow as well and is therefore more difficult to read and fully comprehend. It loses the fact that Washington countermanded his original orders to Hazen by knowingly, and illegally, ordering him to include 'conditional' prisoners. Hazen was extremely unhappy about it but had no choice but to obey his C-in-C. That point comes out in publications on the matter and is, I'm pretty sure, covered at least in the Mayo and Graham books. Probably the Journal too, although I will have to read it again. Furthermore, it does not include the following, which was in your original redraft: "Those incomplete letters subsequently formed the basis of every account written about the events of 1782, in the following two and a half centuries". I hope you will try to see if from a different perspective (I appreciate that is difficult to do, both for you and for me) but it is an unequivocal fact that Washington's papers have been regarded as "gospel", for a very very long time, and, without one of his letters included in his Papers, that gospel is flawed. Hazen wanted to delay the drawing of lots, until an 'unconditional' prisoner could be found, but Washington prevented any further delay. Arbil44 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Aren't all of those details found in the Asgill article? Again, in the scheme of Washington's biography, this is a notable matter; however, much more than my draft would be WP:UNDUE. The additional details belong in the Asgill article. I can try breaking the sentences up for readability. Anastrophe (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

V2:

Following a series of retributive murders between Patriots and Loyalists, on May 18, 1782 Washington wrote in a letter to General Moses Hazen that a British Captain would be executed for the particular killing of Joshua Huddy. Lots were drawn, and Charles Asgill drew the losing paper. This was a violation of the 14th article of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected Prisoners of War. By December of 1782, Congress had ordered his release. Four years later, Washington's original letter to General Hazen was not submitted for publication with the rest of Washington's letters regarding "The Asgill Affair", leaving the historical record incomplete.

When you have facts lodged firmly in your head it is sometimes difficult to pinpoint where you read them. I'm sure all these points are in the Journal but that element was not my work and I never focussed on it when reading the endless proofs which came my way throughout the process. It wasn't my place to pick it to pieces. And the Journal does not belabour it either, leaving the reader to make up their own mind, given the bald facts. I have read so much of this event, but it has never before been referred to as the 'losing' lot - only the Unfortunate lot. I like your ending of "leaving the historical record incomplete" but I still think it is important that the reader know that the letter of 18 May specifically changed Hazen's orders. Honestly, Hazen was very unhappy, and he went out of his way to treat Asgill well and even rode some of the way to Philadelphia with him to "wave him goodbye" and ensure he had everything he needed. I know it is probably uncomfortable dealing with the 'world authority' on this subject! (I'm no authority on anything else I assure you, but 18 years of nothing else is a long time) but equally it is difficult for me when I understand you had not previously known of any of these events, until Dormskirk's post. We're both trying to protect different people and your person is more important than mine! Arbil44 (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I've just noticed you refer to the letter of 18 May as the original letter on the subject - it wasn't - his earlier letter was, I think, on 3 May, so the letter of 18 May was the letter in which he countermanded his orders of 3 May. I am just going to delve into the Journal to see how much space they give to all of this because right now I am going from memory. I do know that 18 May countermanded the original orders, for sure. Arbil44 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That's all fine, but I am not trying to 'protect' anyone. I've never edited this article, and was merely notified of the change Dormskirk made since I had read (some) of the article recently, so it was on my watchlist. Again, we have to keep this inclusion brief, otherwise it hits WP:UNDUE. The addition of wikilinks to the pertinent articles satisfy that need. I don't know which date is correct, if someone knows with certainty, by all means correct it. I understand that this matter is intensely important and personal to you - and I certainly do not wish to minimize that in any way. We have to endeavor to keep this reference in this article within scope, and personal involvement can make that maddenly difficult to do, I speak from my own experience on other topics. Cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Source request

Hi, I've been keeping half an eye on this conversation for the past few days. I might have a few comments to make but first would like to read the source per our verfibiality policy. Can somebody please place a link here? Once I've read it, might come back with a few recommendations, but my gut says it's best moved to the Asgill article and best to have linked in here. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 20:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Victoriaerle, are you referring to the Journal? It is not online as per the directive of the legal team. There's far more sensitive matter there than the subject of this discussion. We were all really disappointed by their decision, but it was touch and go whether they would give permission to publish, so we had no choice. Arbil44 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok. So I have no clue which "Journal" you're referring to. Can you please provide bibliographic information, i.e author, title, publication date & publisher so we can check that it satisfies our Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We can't add information to an article without having access to the source. I might be able to find it behind a paywall, but need to know what I'm searching for. We need to adhere to Wikipedia policies; basically that's the utmost importance. Also, the comment re legality & "we" is ringing all kinds of alarm bells for me. Anyway, once the relevant info is posted, will try to find the source & might get back here at some point. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

A live link is already on this thread and many references to it on the Asgill page, but here goes again. [2] Since the Attorney in Lancaster, after much consideration regarding publishing Asgill's letter after 233 years, gave the go ahead, what is the problem? There is a Wikipedia editor who has seen this publication and has a copy. They were kind enough to comment very favourably. I have asked them to join this discussion, but they are much too busy to do so. I now feel under personal attack and am not sure I want to continue contributing here.

Hazen wrote to Washington, on 27 May, after the lots were drawn, telling him that the British Major James Gordon had identified unconditional prisoners, but it was too late, lots had already been drawn. He goes on to say " ...as I judge no Inconveniency can possibly arise to us by sending on Capt. Asgill, to Philadelphia, which will naturally tend to keep up the Hue and Cry, and of course foment the present Dissentions amongst our Enemies, I have sent him under guard as directed. Those Officers above-mentioned are not only of the Description which your Excellency wishes, and at first ordered, but in another Point of View are proper Subjects for Example, been Traitors to America, and having taken refuge with the Enemy, and by us in Arms. It have fallen to my Lot to superintend this melancholy disagreeable Duty, I must confess I have been most sensible affected with it, and [do] most sincerely wish that the Information here given may operate in favour of Youth, Innocence, and Honour. I have the Honour to be your Excelency’s most obedt and most devoted humble Servent Moses Hazen" Arbil44 (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbil44 as I said I've only kept half and eye on the thread so I missed that link. Thanks for providing it. In the meantime, I've found an article published in this month's edition of American History written by a historian, also published online here. I'll take a look at the Henriques article I've posted and maybe chime in again. But it seems like this is all very new, so generally we tend to wait until there's scholarly coverage. Asking for the source wasn't in any way a personal attack; I like to look at sources before opining. I was simply confused re mentions of lawyers and such, but will let it go. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 22:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way Anastrophe I was right, Washington's first order to Hazen, to find an unconditional prisoner, was on 3 May. Since I am entirely on my own here, with not a soul supporting me - Dormskirk has not appeared for some time - and the other person I would like to see here is too busy, and now I am under attack and being threatened with who knows what? (getting the Journal banned?, or me banned?, or the Asgill page banned?) I don't know?, but I can no longer go on being a lone voice trying to see an unbiased and honest addition to the Washington page. I would remind viewers, again, Dormskirk called his actions a "war crime". I have said it all, over and over, become boring in my rants, so why go on trying? I am sorry, but I give up now. Victoria has finished me off - perhaps that was her intention? Arbil44 (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Arbil44 : Above you expressed concern that, "I am deliberately trying to keep the discussion on two points - namely Washington's decision to violate the Articles of Capitulation and his subsequent cover up of just that." Washington, under advisement from the King and Queen of France, along with Congress, gave Asgill a reprieve, so there was never any actual violation the Articles of Capitulation. Though Asgill's letter didn't surface until many years later, this doesn't automatically translate into a "cover up", for the simple reasons that many people knew about the affair, the prospect of hanging, etc, in the first place, including the King and Queen of France along with many American and British offices, not to mention Congress. How in the world could anyone try to cover that up? It seems more than likely that Washington kept the letter, not to cover up an affair that many people knew about, but because it, 18 pages worth, likely was acutely bias and inflammatory, given the situation of its author. It would seem likely, also, that in the course of 18 pages many names were mentioned, fuel for Washington's political and other enemies, so on that note alone it would seem Washington had cause to keep the letter. We don't need Asgill's letter to confirm his situation.
  Once again, Washington wrote a letter to Asgill, which has been in the public domain, where he not only acknowledges Asgill's letter, but his situation. At this point it's rather apparent that various parties are trying to make 2+2 look like 100, and all over a letter that is not accessible to the general public. We will need actual reliable sources to say that there was some "cover up" going on, and in light of the fact that many people knew of Asgill's situation in the first place, the idea of a "cover up", based on one newly discovered letter, seems a bit moot. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Victoria : The Journal in question can be purchased by going here. Judging from the presentation I'm assuming this issue contains Asgill's letter, however, that is not made clear. What is sort of curious is this claim:  "Through 233 years only one side of the story has been told. Now Captain Charles Asgill's long-lost letter of rebuttal will tell the rest of the story."  This almost comes off like propaganda and more than implies that the basic facts are not known, and the only way to determine the overall truth of the matters is via Asgill's letter. It also assumes that everyone, on both sides of the Atlantic, have been asleep at the wheel all these years. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Arbil44: I have been watching this intently but have been holding back as I did not wish to cut across you. I have made clear both above and in separate communications to you, I think Anastrphe's draft is very helpful and should be accepted. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I agree. Also, I apologize to Abril44 for saying the issue was obscure. In terms of Washington's legacy, however, it is not something that established that. That's all. I recommend that any proposal be put at the end of the Southern theater and Yorktown section, as this is the best place chronologically for it to appear. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: Thanks for that. I agree with that as the best place for it to appear. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would use Anastrophe's first draft. A good source for the proposal would be Chernow, 2010, pp.426-427. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I've seen the source in full, and I would refute the idea that it's "propaganda". Anne is obviously personally invested in the subject, but it's a proper local history journal and other people were involved in the research. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry:  As I said, it "comes off like propaganda" because, as you say, it is a personal account. This is not to say it's totally untrue. Is there any way for us to read Asgill's letter? Perhaps you could quote any key points the letter offers? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure I could, Gwillhickers. I'm late to this discussion though, and don't fully understand everything that's gone on. Is there anything in particular that needs to be clarified? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

At this point we are simply trying to come up with a summary paragraph covering the Asgill affair, and need more sources. There was some dispute that coverage should be placed in the Legacy section, but the affair isn't anything that established Washington's legacy, compared to his victories, presidency, etc, so we have opted to place coverage, chronologically, at the end of the Southern theater and Yorktown section. Most of the important details have long since been established, and I'm wondering if Asgill's letter, other than to offer personal details and such, has any impact on that. My educated guess would be no. Many people were involved in the affair, including Congress, Alexander Hamilton, many American and British officers, the King and Queen of France, and of course Washington, so it hardly seems at this late date that there is much of anything else of significance to be learned. We'll see. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, well I've just looked at it again and it's seven pages long. It's late here and I don't have time to summarise it now. I'll hopefully find time at some point soon. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Anastrophe, I don't want to be here for one second longer than I have to be, but so much is being missed, and some people are not reading posts properly, or fully. In the event the following edit is used, I simply have to point out the errors within it:

Following a series of retributive murders between Patriots and Loyalists, on May 18, 1782 Washington wrote in a letter to General Moses Hazen that a British Captain would be executed for the particular killing of Joshua Huddy. Lots were drawn, and Charles Asgill drew the losing paper. I've never read this terminology before. Everybody refers to it as the Unfortunate lot, but if you want to introduce new terminology, so be it! This was a violation of the 14th article of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected Prisoners of War. Well, it wasn't so much the drawing of lots which violated the treaty, it was wartime after all, it was that Washington ordered conditional prisoners to be selected to draw the lots By December of 1782 No, it was not, it was November 11th, but nobody told Asgill until the 17th - the December date refers to his arrival in England, which was 18 December, Congress had ordered his release. Four years later, Washington's original letter to General Hazen was not submitted for publication but his original letter to Hazen was on 3 May, and this was submitted for publication because on that date Washington ordered unconditional officers to draw the lots (this was countermanded by Washington on 18 May 1782, in which letter he ordered conditional officers to draw lots - there's a huge difference in his two sets of orders to Hazen with the rest of Washington's letters regarding "The Asgill Affair", leaving the historical record incomplete. Having inserted the final few words, I hope they wont be deleted please. All I am trying to do here is to prevent some historical howlers creeping into the edit - nothing more and nothing less. I have raised all this already so it is disappointing to see people authorising it as it is currently worded. Arbil44 (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

And finally (as someone on TV says, but I cannot remember who) this comment is from someone on the Board of Directors of LancasterHistory, in her message to their Editor: "Your organization and good, clear writing have made a very complicated story understandable." Never a truer word said. One of the editors here was asking for verification of the Journal (like it was some ghastly rag rustled up by morons) - some of the reviews are on my userpage if it helps - including from an American professor and a professor from Cambridge university. The Asgill Affair is massively complicated, made worse by the missing evidence. There is an author by the name of E.E. Hale (famous in America I believe) who wrote about "Asgill's Autograph of 1783". I got so excited when I read that, and needed to track it down, but Hale gave no source. It turns out (sorry guys, you won't like this) that Hale was famous for making it up as he went along and no such "Asgill's Autograph of 1783" ever existed. I was chasing thin air for months on end and dragged everybody into the search, including the Library of Congress, the British Library and God knows who else. Dozens of people will never get months of their life back, and nor will I. But it is time for me to leave Wikipedia now, because I am simply not cut out for this environment. Byeeee. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• The Articles of Capitulation were signed on Oct. 19, 1781. It's interesting to note that Joshua Huddy, an American prisoner of war, was hanged on April 12, 1782, long after the Articles had been signed. Was Huddy's execution in violation of the Articles of Capitulation? Huddy's execution was "payback" for the murder of Phillip White, whom Huddy was not responsible for. It seems the timing of Huddy's execution is also what prompted many Americans to demand a response in kind, and so execute a British officer, Asgill, which never actually occurred. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing anything wrong with Anastrophe's first draft, other than maybe a wrong date. I'd recommend simply fixing the date, reliable source(s) permitting, and using it in the section, or inviting Arbil44 to author the proposal, using reliable, and viewable, sources, so we can be done with this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

From my reading of this there are five separate points (i) most of the literature refers to the "unfortunate lot" and it would be good to keep to the accepted terminology (ii) the text should be clear what the actual violation was: "The order for conditional prisoners to be selected"....was a violation of the 14th article of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation (iii) the date should be adjusted to from December 1782 to November 1782 (iv) the word "original" should be deleted to avoid confusion with an earlier letter that was sent (v) including the words "the incomplete letters subsequently formed the basis of every subsequent account written" would explain the significance of the matter and round it off. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal and sources continued

Yes, we should use the language the sources use, per "unfortunate lot", which is also a fact evidently. It should also be mentioned that Asgill's execution was supposed to be in retaliation for Huddy's death, who was hanged in retaliation for Phillip White's death, whom Huddy did not kill. There's still the issue of which reliable sources to use. Chernow, 2010, pp.426-427 has been offered, but his two page account doesn't provide specific dates. There's also the Mount Vernon account. Douglas Southall Freeman, vol.5, pp.414-415 offers something about Washington that perhaps should be mentioned. When Asgil was brought to Chatam, N.J., to be hanged, it was Washington, who at first was outraged over Huddy's execution and wanted a British officer hung in retaliation, put the planned event off, as delegates in Congress and Alexander Hamilton were still mulling the situation over -- this before the King and Queen of France stepped in with their objections. Washington then left the decision up to congress. Given Washington's above quote, his letter to Asgill, along with Freeman's account it seems evident that Washington was not at all eager to see Asgill hanged. I would recommend that this be made clear also in any proposal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Do you want to insert something into the previous draft so we can take a look? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• At this point, yes. I'm still looking into other sources. If we are to use dates and such, we will need specific citations. To my surprise, and disappointment, many of the Washington biographies don't even mention the Asgill affair. So far I've come up with Chernow, 2017, pp.426-429:  Freeman, 1952, Vol.5, pp.414-415 and Randall, 1997, pp.394-395. I've also made an inquiry (above) to another editor who claims to of read Asgill's letter, per the Lancaster Historical Journal. Will keep you posted on any further developments soon. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Just so we have them for reference, the Articles of Capitulation can be read here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

OK. I look forward to seeing the amended draft. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is the modified draft that includes a few points of context added. I was unable to find a source for the last statement, however. It remains unclear why the last statement is important to the overall issue, as it was common knowledge among the Continental Congress, Hamilton, British and American officers, the French Crown and Washington, not to mention historians overall, concerning the situation Asgill was faced with.

Proposal : After the surrender at Yorktown a situation developed that threatened relations between the young American nation and Britain. Following a series of retributive executions between Patriots and Loyalists, on May 18, 1782, Washington wrote in a letter to General Moses Hazen that a British Captain would be executed for the retributive execution of a popular patriot leader, Joshua Huddy, at the hands of British Captain Lippincott. Washington wanted Lippincott himself to be executed but was declined. Subsequently, Charles Asgill was chosen instead, by a drawing of lots from a hat. This was a violation of the 14th article of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected prisoners of war from acts of retaliation. Later, Washington's feelings on matters became more sympathetic and in a letter of November 13, 1782, to Asgill, he acknowledged Asgill's letter and situation, expressing his sympathies and desire not to see any harm come to him. After much consideration between the Continental Congress, Alexander Hamilton, Washington, and appeals from the French Crown, Asgill was finally released, where Washington issued Asgill a pass that allow his passage to New York. Four years later, Washington's original letter to General Hazen was not submitted for publication with the rest of Washington's letters regarding "The Asgill Affair".

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

Thanks for that. Here is a counter-proposal for consideration. The last bit is important as it highlights the point that, until very recently, the countermanding letter (and therefore the violation) had been covered up.

Counter-proposal: Following a series of retributive executions between Patriots and Loyalists, on May 18, 1782 Washington wrote a letter to General Moses Hazen, countermanding his previous orders of 3 May, now stating that conditional British Captains must be selected for the drawing of lots, and one would be executed for the (retributive is repetitive) execution of Joshua Huddy; Charles Asgill was chosen. This was a violation of the 14th article of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected prisoners of war. Following appeals from the French Crown for Asgill’s life to be spared, consideration between Congress, Alexander Hamilton and Washington, Asgill was finally released. (the following while true is irrelevant to the matter in hand and reads a bit too much like as "padding" - Washington, in a letter of November 13, 1782, to Asgill, acknowledged his letter and situation, expressing his sympathies and desire not to see any harm come to him and issued Asgill a pass that would take him to New York.) Four years later, Washington's (it was not the original letter which was excluded, it was the countermanding letter of 18 May that was excluded) letter to General Hazen of May 18, 1782 was not submitted for publication with the rest of Washington's letters regarding "The Asgill Affair". The incomplete letters subsequently formed the basis of every future account written.

Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The section would need a good opening statement, as the entire episode occurs after the surrender at Yorktown. Your statement of clarification about the letters is good but might do better in a footnote as this doesn't seem central to the issue. Along with it I added another note about Washington's papers being published. Yes, using "retributive" more than once was repetitive. We should mention that Huddy was a popular patriot leader, three words, not just another officer. Lippincott needs to be mentioned for several reasons: He directed Huddy's execution and it was Lippincott that Washington was outraged over. Also, the idea that Lippincott wasn't brought to justice also explains why Asgill was chose, by lots. This is important context. i.e. We want the section brief, but at the same time we don't want it to read like an outline. Also I have reservations about using a source, the Lancaster Journal, which can only be assessed by its cover, but I suppose we can AGF on that if there are no objections. Also, Washington withholding a letter doesn't constitute any violation – the only thing that came close to violating the Articles of Capitulation was Asgill's proposed execution, which never occurred. Everyone else knew about the (near) violation including Congress, officers, Hamilton, et al, so again, I'm not understanding why any of the letters has much bearing on the overall issue, which has long since been well understood by government officials, historians, etc. Last, as this is the Washington biography, not just a summary on the Asgill Affair by itself, Washington's feelings towards Asgill should get much priority. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

More neutral terms have been substituted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Compromise proposal : After the surrender at Yorktown a situation developed that threatened relations between the new American nation and Britain. Following a series of retributive executions between Patriots and Loyalists, Washington, on May 18, 1782, wrote in a letter to General Moses Hazen that a British Captain would be executed for the execution of a popular patriot leader, Joshua Huddy, at the hands of British Captain Lippincott. Washington wanted Lippincott himself to be executed but was declined. Subsequently, Charles Asgill was chosen instead, by a drawing of lots from a hat. This was a violation of the 14th article of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected prisoners of war from acts of retaliation. Later, Washington's feelings on matters changed and in a letter of November 13, 1782, to Asgill, he acknowledged Asgill's letter and situation, expressing his desire not to see any harm come to him. After much consideration between the Continental Congress, Alexander Hamilton, Washington, and appeals from the French Crown, Asgill was finally released, where Washington issued Asgill a pass that allowed his passage to New York.

Four years later, Washington's original letter to General Hazen was not submitted for publication with the rest of Washington's letters regarding "The Asgill Affair".

Notes

References

New comment I greatly appreciate the good faith and collegiality exhibited here; my only conern is WP:UNDUE. Maybe a sentence or two is appropriate; maybe the Asgill Affair should be in American Revolutionary War. YoPienso (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The Asgill Affair was introduced to this article, albeit in the wrong section, because of the recent controversy over Washington's involvement, his letters, etc. Our modest proposal paragraph imo isn't pushing the UNDUE enevelope. i.e.The Asgill Affair, aside from Asgill himself, involves Washington more than any other individual and affords an insight into Washington the person, and his relations with a number of individuals, per his biography. If anyone is inclined to cover this topic in the Revolutionary War article also, even at greater length, he or she has my support. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The Asgill Affair was indeed introduced to this article because of the recent controversy over Washington's violation of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation - so this is the right place for it. The paragraph is getting rather long now (having regard to WP:UNDUE) and, in my view too sympathetic towards Washington. I would urge you to look again at the counter-proposal I put forward otherwise we really will be inserting a sentence or two on the appalling abuse that Asgill took, which is well-documented, to re-balance it. By the way, it was The New-Haven Gazette and Connecticut Magazine of 16 November 1786 which published first. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Merging proposals

I'm back from my brief, enforced wikipedia vacation. :) I've tried following along as best I can the last couple of days. I echo YoPienso's sentiments regarding the collaborative effort ongoing here. I have to admit some confusion, having skimmed the whole lot of the discussion - at some junctures it is Washington's countermanding letter that was hidden from view for 233 years, while in others it seems the suggestion is that Asgill's letter to Washington is what was missing...? That detail I leave to those who are most familiar with all of this.

The differences between the three most recent proposals are not massive. None of them have a decidedly POV tone to them, all other things being equal. I also think that while each of the three proposals is longer than the earlier iterations, it is a fair rendering of the topic in summary, and doesn't bump up against WP:UNDUE - it was a singular and interesting matter, and its inclusion is a welcome additional bit of history in my opinion. What I'm hoping is that the three can be blended together in some way to be the best compromise, and that it can the be pushed to article space. As I mentioned, my expertise on the specifics is terribly inadequate, I'm not a student of the history of GW. I'm just hoping that the recent proposals can be distilled into the perfect version from them...Regrettably, without my rhetorical brilliance contributing to the final text. :) Anastrophe (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Dormskirk : We already acknowledge that Washington was in violation of the Articles of Capitulation and that he withheld a letter. As I said, all topics covered in this biography center around Washington, the person, so it's important that we reflect on that person, esp when it comes to potentially controversial issues. There is only one sentence that touches on Washington and his feelings towards Asgill, 'the' subject of the paragraph/section. Imo, the statement gives balance and a touch of neutrality to this otherwise one sided issue.
• Anastrophe : Thanks for your humble words. The last proposal incorporates words from you, Dormskirk and myself and gives us a summary coverage of the Asgill affair without coming off too abstract, forcing the reader to jump to other articles just to get a general and comprehensive picture. Don't want to expand the section any further, but at the same time, imo, we should keep the basic context as is for the sake of the intelligent and inquisitive readers. If there are no pressing issues remaining, I'll add the compromise proposal to the section, but will wait a bit for any further comment. Once this is done we'll have to add a few sources to the Bibliography and tweak the citations so they link up with the sources, which I'll be more than happy to do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers : Thanks for that. There were some historical inaccuracies in the compromise proposal. Here is an amended version. In the interests of getting this resolved and as previously discussed, inclusion of your extra sentence on Washington's feelings to Asgill is OK as long as it is balanced by a bit on the appalling treatment that Asgill received. All this is picked up below:

After the surrender at Yorktown a situation developed that threatened relations between the new American nation and Britain. Following a series of retributive executions between Patriots and Loyalists, on May 18, 1782, Washington wrote, in a letter to General Moses Hazen that conditional British Captains would be selected by lot, and that one was to be executed for the murder of patriot leader, Joshua Huddy. Huddy had been executed on the orders of William Franklin, the Loyalist son of Benjamin Franklin and Captain Lippincott had carried out his orders. Washington wanted Lippincott himself to be executed but was declined, following the British court martial of Lippincott, which determined he had only been following Franklin’s orders. Subsequently, Charles Asgill was chosen instead, having selected the 'unfortunate' lot. During the course of his consequential six-month imprisonment, Asgill was treated like a circus animal, with drunken revellers paying good money to enter his cell and taunt or beat him. Left for dead after one such attack, he was subsequently permitted to keep a Newfoundland dog to protect himself. He was denied edible food, until he was forced to pay large sums of money to the Landlord, denied letters from his family and his conditions were so bad that his legs were left damaged from the use of leg irons. Washington's second orders to Hazen of May 18, 1782 had been a violation of the 14th article of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected prisoners of war from acts of retaliation. Prior to Asgill's eventual release on parole, however, Washington's feelings on matters became more sympathetic and in a letter of November 13, 1782, to Asgill, he acknowledged Asgill's letter and situation, expressing his sympathies and desire not to see any harm come to him. After appeals from the The King and Queen of France (this came first and resulted in...') and much consideration between the Continental Congress, Alexander Hamilton, and Washington, Asgill was finally released, and Washington issued Asgill a pass that allowed his passage to New York. Four years later, Washington's second letter of 18 May, 1782, countermanding instructions he had given to Hazen on 3 May, 1782, was not submitted for publication with the rest of Washington's letters regarding The Asgill Affair. As a consequence of this omission history has been misreported for the following two and a half centuries.

References

Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Way too long. There should be only a brief mention, linked to the Asgill bio. YoPienso (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree that this one is too long, however, we certainly need more that a few sentences to cover the issue comprehensively. I'm also seeing some things that are not exactly neutral, e.g."treated like a circus animal", and "history has been misrepresented". Again, it is well known that Asgill was mistreated (to what degree is entirely debatable), that a violation of the Articles became an issue, and that the entire affair was considered and debated by Congress, Hamilton, American and British officers, the French Crown, Washington and others. In fact, I will strike the term "sympathetic" from the Compromise proposal, even though it's plain to see in Washington's letter that he was assuring and accommodating towards Asgill. I move that we add the Compromise Proposal to the section -- it's not too long or short, and includes the contributions of three different editors and doesn't assert any highly debatable opinions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's a hastily put together idea:

Following a pair of retributive executions between Patriots and Loyalists after the surrender at Yorktown, Washington was embroiled in the "Asgill Affair". He ordered the death of a British officer chosen by lot as a final end to the executions; the order was found to be illegal and unjust and the officer was ultimately spared. 

YoPienso (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Other than the mention of Yorktown, there's no context to this two sentence proposal. Except for Washington, none of the major players are mentioned, not even Charles Asgill or Huddy, and there is nothing said about Washington, except that he "ordered the death of a British officer", which he was pressured into doing. There's also no mention of any letters, to or from Washington. In the hopes that this Good Article will someday become a Featured Article, the topic needs to be covered in context and comprehensively. I believe we've done that without getting too lengthy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

re Domskirk's version, it's very important to keep focused on the fact that this is George Washington's biography, not Asgill's. The details of how Asgill may or may not have been treated cannot be ascribed directly to Washington - they were consequential. Washington didn't treat him like a circus animal, nor did he beat him or direct that he be given inedible food. We need to approach the subject matter for this article from the perspective of its focus: Washington, not Asgill. This is why the entry can - and should - be brief and to the point, and link to the Asgill article. The remaining details belong in the Asgill article, not this one. Anastrophe (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi - A few thoughts: 1. I have previously made the point that the compromise material contained some historical inaccuracies: the version I proposed earlier today addresses those issues. 2. I have negotiated in good faith on the basis that, if the sympathetic bit on Washington is to be retained, then a sentence or two on the appalling abuse that Asgill took, which is well-documented, will also be included. 3. That said, we agree the drafting is too long and would propose a slightly modified version of our original proposal:

On 18 May 1782, Washington decided to throw caution to the wind and wrote to General Moses Hazen, in Lancaster, countermanding his previous orders and told him to include 'conditional' British officers when selecting one to send to the gallows, in retribution for the murder of Captain Joshua Huddy a few weeks earlier. In doing so he was fully cognisant that he was violating Article XIV of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected Prisoners of War. Four years later, on 16 November 1786, this letter was not submitted for publication with the rest of his letters regarding The Asgill Affair of 1782. As a consequence of this omission history has been misreported for the following two and a half centuries.

Frankly none of the extraneous stuff belongs in the piece. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm astonished (as in dismayed, not impressed) that an editor of your experience at Wikipedia would write, "decided to throw caution to the wind" and "As a consequence of this omission history has been misreported for the following two and a half centuries." That's not the encyclopedic, neutral tone we want. YoPienso (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Aside from her admonishing tone, I agree with Yopienso that some of these things are not encyclopedic, esp the idea that history has been misrepresented for two and a half centuries.
• Dormskirk, if there are any outright errors in the Compromise Proposal, could you please point them out and refer to the proper source? Once again, I've also removed the term "sympathetic". There are no debatable opinions, like "treated like a circus animal", or that all of history has been "misrepresented" on the Asgill Affair. Other than any errors that may need correcting, (I see none) the compromise proposal has the contributions of three editors and is not too long, or too abstract, lends itself to Washington, and is well sourced. At the risk of sounding impatient, it seems all of us have been at this long enough -- more than 30 pages worth of debate. Don't know how much better we can do, so I'm hoping we can finally move forward after any errors are fixed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Dormskirk, I have to say, I'm rather shocked as well by this most recent 'compromise' you've presented - because it is virtually word-for-word what you originally added to the article five days ago, which was challenged, and which generated this entire discussion! To wit:

On May 18, 1782, Washington decided to throw caution to the wind and wrote to General Moses Hazen, in Lancaster, countermanding his previous orders and told him to include 'conditional' British officers when selecting one to send to the gallows (in retribution for the murder of Captain Joshua Huddy a few weeks earlier). In doing so he was fully cognisant that he was showing blatant disregard for Article XIV of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected Prisoners of War. Four years later, on November 16, 1786, this letter was not submitted for publication with the rest of his letters regarding "The Asgill Affair" of 1782. Those incomplete letters subsequently formed the basis of every account written about the events of 1782, in the following two and a half centuries.

I specifically addressed the unencyclopedic tone of this the day you added it. Why are you presenting this as a new revision of the several proposals presented? It's not - it's going back to square one. We've come close to a reasonable compromise. I don't think the inclusion should be sympathetic to either Washington or Asgill - that's not the point of it at all. We don't assume motive. We don't assume intent. We don't include opinion that's not directly from a reliable secondary source. Doing so isn't encyclopedic. I'll repeat - this needs to be brief, it needs to link to the Asgill article. I really don't think we need to re-litigate by going back to the original first text added to the article. Anastrophe (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

In desperation, I submit my suggested changes to the largely agreeable compromise proposal of 4.9, in the interest of brevity:

After the surrender at Yorktown, a series of retributive executions between Patriots and Loyalists took place. Washington, on May 18, 1782, wrote a letter to General Moses Hazen that a British Captain would be selected for execution, for the killing of patriot leader Joshua Huddy by British Captain Lippincott. Washington wanted Lippincott himself to be executed but was declined. Subsequently, Charles Asgill was chosen by a drawing of lots. This was a violation of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected prisoners of war from acts of retaliation. After much deliberation by and among the Continental Congress, Alexander Hamilton, Washington, and appeals from the French Crown, Asgill was eventually released. Four years later, Washington's original letter to General Hazen was not submitted for publication with the rest of Washington's letters regarding "The Asgill Affair".

The parts I elided are in (or should be in) the section of the Asgill article pertaining to this matter. I've left out the refs for presentation here. Anastrophe (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Anastrophe: Many thanks for your intervention. We will give this further thought. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)