Talk:George Washington/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Abolitionist tract addressed to US Gov

Factotem, the so called RFC only lasted a week, included only three votes, two of which were not of "outside opinion", but by involved editors, including yourself You had added much information about abolitionist literature in general, yet you oppose simple mention of a very significant one, addressed to the U.S. government. In the RFC you claimed that there was already enough coverage by "this edit and supported by a detailed footnote detailing the significance of abolitionist tracts Washington possessed as added in this edit." — Yet here you are now trying to delete the footnote in its entirety along with the mention of the most significant tract. This is a little spurious. There was no "unanimous" consensus. I supported what you added, in regards to abolitionist literature, and since you made the addition it goes that you supported it. I've compromised by at least mentioning the simple fact that Washington endorsed a copy of a tract that was addressed to the U.S. Congress and other statesmen, cited by Ferling, Morgan and Twohig A compromise is fair, and S.O.P. Readers are free to interpret that as they please, and should be given the chance to do so. We will need a clear consensus to keep this item out of the article, and frankly I find it a little troubling for the reaching efforts made to suppress even the simple mention of this significant tract from the readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I added the extensive footnote to mitigate against the undue emphasis adding the statement to the main narrative generated. Now that there is a clear consensus against mentioning the tract in the main narrative, as determined by the RfC, there is no need for the footnote, hence my removing of it. If you feel the footnote is important, then by all means restore it as originally written, but the mention of the tract in the main narrative is against consensus, and your restoring of it is now a matter for AN/I. Factotem (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Insert : - Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, Out of only three votes, two of the votes, including yours, were made by involved editors. Only one vote was made by an outside editor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

From what I understand is that Washington's signature is on an anonymous abolitionist tract. Morgan 2000 confirms this. Howeer, since RfC is against mentioning this in the narrative, it should be removed from the narrative. I think there are too many unanswered questions. When did Washington sign the tract ? Why did he sign the track ? Did anyone know other than Washington, except maybe the tract anonymous author, he signed the tract ? When was Washington sent the tract ? This article is to be a summary of Washington and slavery, not a book, or platform. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the edit in question to avoid any further disruption. Factotem, you lent support to the statement in question with your exceptionally long footnote, mentioning David cooper, no less, so your belated claim that you added it to " mitigate against the undue emphasis" doesn't seem very sincere, as all you did was bring more attention, and emphasis, to the tracts overall. Cmguy777, you were the one who added a dedicated section for Abolition and emancipation, yet when we mention a very important tract addressed to the US Congress, et al, involving emancipation, you oppose it. It doesn't matter if the tract was anonymous, that doesn't change its important message and appeal to the U.S. Government, or the fact that Washington signed it, had it bound in an elaborate binding and kept it in his personal library. This was discussed before. Once again, there was no "unanimous consensus" as I didn't vote No. I wasn't even aware that the RfC had ended, as the text in question remained in the article all that time, so the three votes in question really don't stack up, esp since Factotem initiated and voted in his own RfC. I'm going to initiate another RfC, and this time, hopefully, we will only get outside opinion, per the sole purpose of an RfC. If there is no clear consensus, involving outside opinion, the statement of fact should be included in the emancipation section, esp since only highly opinionated claims have been submitted to keep it suppressed. Readers should be allowed to make their own assessments. The compromise edit was more than fair.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I made the section. But it can be reduced in size. I would not go against RfC. I would allow Factotem to make any edits deemed appropriate for the article. Mentioning the track is not necessary for this article. As I have been told many times it is time to drop the stick. I am all for essential context, but not adding context just to add context. No matter what is said in this article historians will surely rank Washington highly. I would remove information on David Humphreys because it is speculation. The rest of the material appears to be appropriate. The first paragraph needs to be streamlined in the Slavery section, just as Wewalt mentioned, let's not dance around the issue. I can't control what goes on in RfC. I did not even know there was a dispute. I think it is a good thing you removed the information, but I would not push this issue anymore. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

— This particular RfC was something of a sham, with only one outside vote in over a month's period. That should tell you the contentions levied were opinionated, rather peckish, and certainly not pressing. The editor who closed the prior RfC obviously wasn't paying attention, counting the votes of two involved editors. Another RfC is called for, with notifications in the appropriate places this time. If again, there is no outside opinion making for a clear consensus, (i.e.more than one or two votes) the statement in question needs to be returned to the section, esp since multiple sources mention it. Nothing more than fuzzy opinions were offered to suppress it.
— The tract is significant because it was addressed to the U.S. Government, with copies handed out to Congress, Washington and the N.J. Legislature, calling on existing slave owners in government and for the advancement of emancipation Legislation. That is significant and sheds much light about the controversy during Washington's presidency and his feelings on the matter, since he signed it and had it bound for his personal library. If he rejected the tract, or was not very impressed with it, he certainly would not have signed it and had elaborate binding made for it. You can't ignore that. We also have a section devoted to the topic of emancipation for such items. This reaching and prolonged effort to keep it out of the article is troubling, esp since all you can say against it is that it is "not necessary" - a contention that can be applied to 100's of items in the article at whim. It's okay to have a POV, but when you routinely ignore, oppose or delete what the sources are saying to push your POV then we have issues. That seems to be the major difference in our approach to editing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I for one object to having my opinion as an editor so summarily and cavalierly rejected. Nor am I "involved". Nor was the RfC a sham. Victoria (tk) 00:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Victoria, you have made numerous edits to the article and have been active on the Talk page, esp where it concerns the Abolitionist Tract, the very topic of contention during the prior RfC. The RfC is for outside opinion. I too object to having my opinions rejected, esp when the sources support them. Though I didn't agree with much of what you contended, your opinion was not "cavalierly rejected" here on the Talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Why didn't you !vote? That's why we have RfCs. Complaining afterwards is disruptive. We've achieved consensus and that's one of our pillars. Now it's time to carry on. And no, I don't have any intention of adding content, nor have I. I've recently been involved in the talk page, I've made some copyedits just as anyone is allowed ("the encyclopedia anyone can edit"), so my contributions are minimal for an article such as this. Regardless, there's no rule as to who can !vote and who can't. Victoria (tk) 00:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You were involved in the subject, i.e.Abolitionist Tract, here in Talk, that was contested in the RfC and have been involved in editing as pointed out, w/links, above. As was also pointed out, w/ link, above : WP:RFC : "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes...". The RfC contained just one outside vote. Btw, an another editor there said, "obviously it is reasonable (and indeed expected) that we will cover it, with due WP:WEIGHT", which was done with my compromise statement, Two involved editors submitted votes, with only one outside vote. One. I contributed to the Talk there, but not the voting. The RfC is not for rehashing what is said by involved editors here in Talk. That's all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. From one editor to another. It is best you drop the abolitionist track. It does no good to keep argueing against (RfC) and only makes things worse. I suggest you drop the stick, again, and go on to other things in the article that need attention. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• If the RfC was handled correctly, showing a clear consensus, I would be more than willing to abide by it. That did not happen. The RfC was handled incorrectly, and after you review the other RfC rules you will see that editors are allowed to resubmit an RfC, or bring the issue to an appropriate noticeboard, or other forum. I wouldn't bother referring to that botched RfC, with its one outside vote, again - as such it carries no weight. The statement in question involved one simple and eventful fact, i.e.an appeal to Washington, Congress, etc, addressing slave owners specifically, also published in newspapers, a copy of which Washington signed, had elaborately bound, placed at the top/beginning with other tracts, and kept in his personal library. Yet I still deleted the edit in question, with my apologies, to show compliance. Now the statement, and the footnote, are gone and the article doesn't even offer a peep about all the abolitionist thinking and volumes of literature that Washington possessed and was mindful of. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• To let things cool off, I've no intention of resubmitting at this time. Just want to make it clear that there was no "unanimous consensus", as another editor and myself feel the statement in question should be given only the weight it merits, which I tried to do with my compromise edit. Factotem had done a lot of research and writing about the Tracts in general. It would be nice to see something said about them since Washington had a sizeable collection of them, and esp since we have a dedicated section for the topic now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

INSERT: Notice: I asked the closer to strikethrough(remove) the word unanimous from closing statement and he has agreed to do so. CBS527^Talk 12:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The Furstenberg article discusses them. If you send me an email through Wikipedia, I will send you a copy. That offer applies to anyone involved with this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

...the article doesn't even offer a peep about all the abolitionist thinking and volumes of literature that Washington possessed and was mindful of. Wrong. Factotem (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, there's more than a peep, as the article mentions that Washington's view correlated with the mainstream literature he possessed, but more could be said here, esp in terms of the volume he owned. There is little indication of how much Washington was involved with and appreciated such literature, which was one of the reasons why I felt mention of Cooper's tract was important at this juncture. Cooper is a closed issue for now. However, Washington owned 17 books and pamphlets, written by prominent American and British abolitionists. Nothing is said about his opposition to and feelings towards the slave trade in this section either. In fact, the only mention of 'slave trade' in the entire article (under Domestic issues) is in regard to an act that was passed in 1794, with no mention of Washington's involvement, let alone his feelings on the matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Washington's abolitionist book/literature collection

Thanks Wehwalt. Furstenberg is currently used in two citations in the biography. The first page of this source, which summarizes the issue rather well, can be viewed here :

Atlantic Slavery, Atlantic Freedom: George Washington, Slavery, and Transatlantic Abolitionist Networks
Excerpt : ... He owned at least seventeen works on slavery or the slave trade, all but one of them abolitionist. His book collection included pamphlets by the most famous abolitionists in the Atlantic world, among them Anthony Benezet, Thomas Clarkson, and Granville Sharp; speeches in British Parliament by Charles James Fox, William Pitt, and William Wilberforce; and sermons and orations by lesser known American, British, and French figures. ..."

Noting the prominent names mentioned by Furstenberg, it seems Washington had much more than a passing interest in the abolitionist thinking of his day. If you are saying this, and that Washington's collection of abolitionist literature merits at least a brief statement in the Abolition and emancipation section, I am in agreement with you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Wehwalt : Thanks, I just received the PDF version of Furstenberg's work you sent me. The color photo of Washington's leather bound pamphelts and books is interesting. Not a passing effort. David Cooper is covered extensively and mentioned more than a dozen times throughout the work. Thomas Jefferson was also given a copy of Cooper's Tract, which now sits in the Library of Congress. Food for thought. Hopefully, if and when the smoke clears, there will be a reconsideration, and new voices to be heard, regarding a tract that was given to members of the U.S. gov, calling on slave owners in government to advance legislation to end slavery. IMO, that would be one of the most definitive statements we could add to the Abolition and emancipation section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Renegade!

Wonder why the verbal definition 'renegade' is not added to his attributes. In almost all nations and geographical locations, a person who takes up arms against his Monarch, King, Queen, Kingdom, nation &c. for some self-centred fanciful ideas and notions, is seen as a traitor in the full sense of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D28A:3D9D:701E:92C7:7EFE:8FFE (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Since this is an Unsigned IP, then I will venture an answer. The American Revolutionary War was from 1775 to 1783. During that time period Washington could have been considered a traitor to the King. He was never captured or imprisoned during the war. In 1783, the King gave the colonies independance by the Treaty of Paris and recognized the United States. Washington was no longer the King's subject, but a U.S. Citizen. Any charge of treason could no longer apply after the 1783 treaty. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Were the Germans who planned Hitler's overthrow considered "Renegades"? Yes, but only by Hitler's 'Loyalists'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I would not compare King George III with Adolf Hitler. Two different time periods two different persons. Politically speaking, Washington does not really count as a renegade. He seemed to be fighting for Independence, rather than strong ideology. General Charles Lee would be considered a renegade revolutionary. Lee was more of an ideological revolutionary than Washington. Lee was Washington's second-in-command. Renegade Revolutionary: The Life of General Charles Lee Phillip Papas (2014) Cmguy777 (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Our anonymous IP friend opened up his little poke at Washington with – "In almost all nations and geographical locations...", without any mention of a specific time period. I was only making an analogy regarding label usage, no more. It was just a demonstration about how easily derogatory terms can be used by various individuals who can't cope with how history turned out, and who apparently come to WP to vent their frustrations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Washington was more specifically a turncoat, not a renegade.: "a person who shifts allegiance from one loyalty or ideal to another, betraying or deserting an original cause by switching to the opposing side or party." ... "When the goal that formerly motivated and benefited the person becomes (or is perceived as having become) either no longer feasible or too costly even if success is achieved." The definition of renegade also includes deserters, and Washington was not among them. Dimadick (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

"I would not compare King George III with Adolf Hitler." Me neither. The monarchs of the House of Hanover were constitunional monarchs, with much of the actual decision-making being done by their Prime Ministers, various office-holders with cabinet-level positions, or the Parliament. For example, the unpopular Massachusetts Government Act (1774) was introduced by the Prime Minister Frederick North, Lord North, and not by the king. Dimadick (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I wasn't comparing the two leaders, but only demonstrating how easy it is to attach labels to someone who goes against 'any' leader, for whatever reason, at whim. Perhaps we shouldn't be addressing this at all, esp since the IP visitor has an obvious and acute negative bias, unless someone has the notion to include 'turncoat' or 'renegade' in the narrative. But then, it would have to be done in neutral terms and in context, and we would need reliable sources that use such terms. We would also need more than one RS that uses such terms, since this borders on controversy. For balance we would have to include terms like 'liberator' or 'freedom fighter' or 'revolutionary', or some such, again, per reliable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

King George III said the colonists were in rebellion. Washington would have been a leader in the rebellion against Britain. As far as I know, I don't believe George III ever publically or formally said Washington was a traitor or a renegade. It is only speculation had Washington been captured how the British would have treated him. Washington, had the Patriots lost to the British, would have fled West, according to Chernow 2010. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

overrided

As I'm not registered I cannot edit this article, but I believe that "that overrided" should be "which overrode" in the sentence "On February 12, 1793, Washington signed into law the Fugitive Slave Act, that overrided state laws and courts, allowing agents to cross state lines to capture and return escaped slaves." Perhaps some registered user would care to make a correction? —49.147.202.146 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done – thank you very much. You'll probably now see a flurry of activity over "which" vs. "that" (some editors from my neck of the woods don't get it, and don't that much care) but at least we will have killed off the bizarre "overrided"! Oh and if you get an account, it's painless and useful and then you can edit what you like! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2019

The page says....he urged broad religious freedom in his roles as general and president.

--the two roles have always be delineated...."as general and president"...as a general, and as president. Karled68 (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done I can't tell what you want changed. It strikes me as a bit odd that the article is claiming he urged religious freedom in his role as general, but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Dubious tag in Slavery Section

Historian James Flexner maintains that Washington's attitudes toward his slaves were patriarchal, paternal, and commercial, but lacked empathy for their plight; however, he disliked separating slave families and would not separate them without their consent.

I've tagged this sentence as dubious for two reasons:

1. It conflates two different separations. One is permanent separation by sale, which many sources do indeed confirm Washington disliked. However, in the slaves' living arrangements Washington "showed no concern for keeping families together day by day. He routinely separated husbands from wives and fathers from children" by accomodating them on different farms and in doing so "institutionalized an indifference to the stability of slave families." (Wiencek pp. 122–123);
2. The idea that separations were subject to the slaves' consent is at best WP:UNDUE; only Flexner's general work is provided as a source, while none of the dedicated works on Washington and slavery used to source the article, by Kenneth Morgan, Philip Morgan, Henry Wiencek, Peter Hirschfeld or Dorothy Twohig, state that separations were subject to slave consent. At worst, the idea is a misuse of a WP:PRIMARY source; I don't have access to Flexner, but I believe he is quoting a letter from Lund Washington concerning a specific incident, not drawing a general conclusion about the sale of slaves written in his own voice. Factotem (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The disputed sentence has been changed with this edit to read:

Historian James Flexner maintains that Washington's attitudes toward his slaves were patriarchal, paternal, commercial, and lacking empathy for their plight but, also, he did not separate families without their consent.

...and the disputed tag removed. Sorry, but the same issues identified above still exist. Wiencek specifically uses the word "separated" when speaking of Washington's indifference to family stability by splitting up families across different farms. And the questionable idea of consent is still present. I've left the edit, but restored the tag. Factotem (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed wording: "Although Washington demonstrated great concern that slave families should not be permanently separated by sale or purchase, he was indifferent to their day to day living arrangements, and husbands were routinely accommodated on farms separately from their wives and children." This wording, or similar, would more accurately capture what the sources say about the separation of families and remove the idea of consent. Factotem (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe it was Morgan 2000 that said this, not Flexner. Why is Flexner getting the credit ? Families were seperated at Mount Vernon. Washington did not want to seperate families outside of Mount Vernon. We don't know what Washington liked. That is speculation. He would say he disliked slavery then he would buy a slave. That is saying one thing and doing another. We can't figure out Washington. Neither should the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2019

The facts have to be correctly altered. For example the vise president. I care about people being able to access the history without wondering if it is true or not. LukeLuke2019 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Favonian (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2019

"Washington owned [[George Washington and slavery|slaves]]" says the introduction. Please change this to [[George Washington and slavery|Washington owned slaves]]. Right now, it looks like a link to slave or slavery, not a link to George Washington and slavery. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, in note "b" about 1731 versus 1732, please add a link to Old Style and New Style dates. "Old Style" appears in the note, but without a link it's not very useful if you haven't heard of OS and NS. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done. First link text updated, but the second is explained in greater detail along with a link in the adjacent note, so linking wouldn't be that helpful. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Office established" lower/uppercase, italicized or not

In the infobox Washington was the first to serve many offices. Should the first letter in "Office established" be lower case or upper case, and should the whole phrase be italicized or not? P.S. sorry if this has already been discussed and I'm just unaware. - Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020

Another level of protection should be added because he was the presidant. He should recieve more security on the pages which talks about him Campr248 (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. aboideau^talk 20:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we find a way forward please

Firstly, I had very much hoped that it would not be necessary for me to return to these negotiaitons in person, but Dormskirk has now been under personal attack on his talk page (as I was here at the beginning of this) and he, like me before, has now walked away. The difference is, that while this is bringing me to my knees, and the time difference with the US/UK, means I cannot go to bed before 3am, I am not a quitter.

I do believe that Anastrophe and I may be able, eventually, to find a resolution to all this because while they admit that they are ignorant of the circumstances of this case, I believe they will be prepared to listen to facts. As I comment below, my response to their latest is on my talk page.

The action I have now taken is (a) requested Cordless Larry to confirm that the Journal, a very respectable published document, reveals that Washington violated the 14th Article of Capitulation, and then covered it up, 4 years later, by not submitting his second letter, which proved this, for publication - including only his first letter. These are the only facts relevant to this case (hence why Dormskirk's latest is a total reflection of what is printed in the Journal) and the wider Asgill Affair is only background noise. Washington's thoughts, on the eve of Asgill's release, and what happened to Asgill in prison really is irrelevant. Hazen also proved what I say in his letter to Washington of 27 May 1782, and that letter is on the Asgill page. It is time for editors here to do their own research, and accept the unpalatable truth - I've been researching for 18 years. And (b) I have informed the Editor of the Journal that his integrity is now under attack too and that the Journal is not being accepted here as the only source for this new material. There are no other sources yet since it was only published in December 2019. I have been told endless times, by Dormskirk, that sources Do Not have to be only online sources.

Everything else I have to say can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arbil44#Negotiations_on_16_February_2020 - once you have read that I will revert to commenting here. I would end by saying that, like the member who attacked Dormskirk, I too am only interested in "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", which I thought was the wikipedia mantra? My IT skills are rubbish, I'm 75 years old, and I am now a nervous wreck. My daughter has problems and this is all taking me away from 'being there for her' as I should, and she is very very angry with me. If I don't respond it means I have had a nervous breakdown, which I am very close to doing. Good luck to us all going forward. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It has been suggested to me that I quote from the Journal:

Appendix D

The Fateful Correspondence between Commander in Chief George Washington and Brigadier General Moses Hazen

On May 3, 1782, Brigadier General Moses Hazen received the first message from Washington ordering him to “designate…an unconditional prisoner” to be hanged in retaliation for the murder of Joshua Huddy. This was the same letter Humphreys used in his article in The New-Haven Gazette (see chapter VI). We show it again here (though in its National Archives transcription) so as to keep this thread of correspondence complete and to show the contrast between this letter [of May 3, 1782] in which Washington ordered Hazen to find a soldier not covered by treaty and his next letter [of May 18, 1782] in which he ordered Hazen to find any soldier, regardless of whether they are covered by treaty or not. The balance of the correspondence described a state of affairs that grew in confusion.

Then on page 154 it is stated:

Interestingly, Col. Humphreys in his newspaper defense of Washington (see Chapter VI), chose not to include this letter [of May 18, 1782] which shows Washington violating Article XIV of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation.

Hope this helps to clarify the situation. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Arbil44 apparently Washington wanted an unconditional POW but there were none.
  I'm copying a passage from page 30 of Henriques, Peter R, "George Jury and Executioner: That time General Washington proposed to execute an innocent man", American History. Feb 2020, Vol. 54 Issue 6:

Washington assigned General Moses Hazen to find a cadre of POW captains who had surrendered on their own. Hazen's search for a proper target foundered. Inexplicably, when he could not fine unconditional prisoners of war Washington decided to make the fatal selection from a group of 13 British captains....Under the terms of their surrender they were guaranteed haven from reprisal.

'It was much my wish to have taken for the purpose of Retaliation an officer who was an unconditional Prisoner of War - I am just informed by the Secty at War that no one of that description is in our power,' Washington wrote Hazen.

• Is this corroborated by the other source? Also selected quotes, complete with bibliographic info such as author name, title, journal name, publication date and page numbers are very very helpful. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 13:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Adding, okay I see from the above you posted while I was also posting that Henriques has read the relevant literature and makes the same points. His article is posted online, here if anyone wants to read it, (though it does have ads). I have a pdf version if anyone would like me to send it on. Victoria (tk) 13:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I have lost track of how many times the Journal has been linked here, too many times to count. Here it is again: [1] A direct quote from this publication is in my above post. I am hoping to hear back from the Editor, who has been informed that his integrity is being questioned and his publication not accepted as proof. If you have not even read the Asgill page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Charles_Asgill,_2nd_Baronet#The_%22Asgill_Affair%22 which gives details about the fact that James Gordon found unconditional prisoners, and Hazen wrote about this, then do you really qualify to comment? In the END no unconditional prisoners were found. This changes nothing at all. Washington ordered Hazen, in his SECOND letter, to select an officer who was protected by treaty [all 13 who drew lots were protected by treaty], the treaty which Washington himself had signed. Four years later this fact was covered up. If this had been a court of law the trial would be deemed flawed and a re-trial would be called for. If flawed evidence is used for all further accounts, this means history itself has been flawed. Need I repeat myself yet again? My research trip to the US last year is well documented on my userpage. Arbil44 (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I forgot that the cover provides author/volume etc. I have tried to get in as a guest but unsuccessfully. Can you provide a page number for the quote from Appendix D? Victoria (tk) 14:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ps. no one has questioned anyone's integrity. Victoria (tk) 14:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Integrity is questioned when a source is deemed unacceptable - but that aside, thank the Dear Lord Above for Peter R. Henriques' article of February 2020. And thank you very much Victoriaearle for posting the link. PRH has read the Journal and I have read his article! Perhaps the accusation of the whole Asgill business being "obscure" will have finally been put to bed too? My critique follows:

“For a man regarded as having astute judgment, Washington was making one of his poorest decisions ever”. Yes, indeed. I would point out that not once have I indicated that Washington was happy to send an innocent man to the gallows. Not once.

“Perhaps Washington was hoping Asgill would escape and solve both their dilemmas. If so, he was disappointed.” If you read the James Gordon page (linked on the Asgill page) you will see that the British did, indeed, rescue Asgill, but Asgill refused to go with them. He was a man of honour, and he had been selected.

“We got clear of shedding innocent blood by a wonderful interposition of Providence,” Elias Boudinot. Yes, some members of Congress, but certainly not all, and certainly not so quickly as mentioned, were thankful that the French had given them a way out. You see, French intervention kicked off Asgill’s release, as I have been saying ‘til I’m blue in the face.

“Asgill apparently was telling people his captors had erected a gibbet outside his prison window as a taunt, that Washington countenanced such abusive behavior, and that only Rochambeau’s intervention had saved his life.” Asgill hotly denies this in his letter, but nobody here has read Asgill’s letter and it is totally irrelevant to the matter in hand anyway.

“The general angrily responded that Asgill’s statements were baseless calumnies”. Asgill did not respond publicly, once, until he wrote an 18 page letter, 4 years later. His letter has been hidden for 233 years. He was seen, 10 days after returning home, with his legs damaged from leg irons. Rumours stemmed from this. It was years and years later before he made a brief statement in his Service Records about it all.

Appendix D is on page 153. I should add (later) - the Journal quotes the Articles of Capitulation in full. The Journal quotes the entire New Haven Gazette in full. The Journal quotes, in full, all Washington's correspondence on this matter. The researchers there must have done a letter by letter comparison with the NHG (and GW's letters) to find that one of them, the 18 May 1782 one, had not been submitted for publication. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

[after (edit conflict)]It's important on Wikipedia that we assume good faith - see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. But to explain: I wasn't questioning the source but rather I simply wanted to read it, which isn't possible. I did register at the site for two free views, was allowed to read a single article, but when I went back to read more received a message asking me to become a subscriber. I also asked at the library whether it's possible to get a copy of the journal, but to no success. I did, however, find Henriques article, a link to which I posted here several days ago.

Another question for you, since you can see the source. Does it say anywhere whether it's known why Hazen's letter wasn't published? Henriques writes (page 33):

Washington ordered his aides to publish his letters regarding the affair. The New Haven Gazette and Connecticut Magazine carried the correspondence in their editions of November 1786.

Thanks, Victoria (tk) 15:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Post edit conflict: so it seems that if the Journal examined the documentation and found that the Washington to Hazen May 18 letter was left out, it doesn't explain why? Am I correct in this? Thanks. Victoria (tk) 15:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The Journal does not attribute blame. It presents its readers with facts. The fact that GW did not present his letter to Hazen, of 18 May 1782, (which, in Dormskirk's words, not mine, portrayed him as a war criminal, in his own words) was not included for publication, well, any reader would have to conclude GW did not wish that fact to be known. Please refer to my direct quotes from the Journal. Without repeating the whole chapter, which copyright prevents, I really cannot say more. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am delighted that you are taking such an intelligent interest in this Victoriaearle. I have found it extraordinarily difficult, up to now, dealing with editors who want to bring in totally irrelevant aspects, including historically inaccurate information. Much of the wider story is covered elsewhere on wikipedia - the Asgill page, and the Gordon page for instance. I say again, the staff in Lancaster have done a simply amazing job and have re-written pretty much all of the Asgill Affair (only specially obvious to anyone who know the 'old story' I suppose because they have not gone out of their way to trash anyone's reputation). I mean, seriously, even the names of the 13 officers and their regiments have not gone down in history accurately. Who, reading the Journal, will even notice that? Absolutely nobody but them and me! They have dealt in facts. They have dealt in truth. They have done a far more detailed coverage than in the article you posted, which was a skim through of the facts - mainly good article that it was! Anne Arbil44 (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it worth closing this entire discussion down until you, or someone other than Cordless Larry, has read the Journal? It is a huge strain on me having to repeat myself, when someone new comes on the scene and wants me to say things I've covered a million times; and, additionally, I have not been regarded as a reliable source because I am related to Asgill. Please try to see it from my perspective. I am emailable should you want to ask questions in the meantime. It would also give others time to do some reading. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As far I can tell, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the new pieces of information are 1., the fact that the May 18th letter Washington wrote to Hazen did not get published with the other correspondence, for whatever reason (here's a facsimile of that letter); and 2., the long letter Asgill wrote as rebuttal to the The New Haven Gazette and Connecticut Magazine. The first issue is interesting, but without more information there's not a lot we can do on Wikipedia except wait for other historians to pick it up, do their research and publish, all of which takes time. The second piece of information is equally interesting but should link in here from elsewhere. There might be enough material to justify a separate article, i.e The Asgill Affair where it's all spelled out.

I was simply trying to sort out what's what and would have wanted to take a look at the Lancaster Journal had it been readily available, but I don't edit often so can't do much more. I am opposed to adding a huge long paragraph about all of the affair, the various letters, etc. to this article per arguments put forth elsewhere. Victoria (tk) 17:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

There are only 2 pieces of information, both of which I quoted from the Journal above - 1) Washington's letter of 18 May 1782 telling Hazen to select from conditional prisoners and 2) covering that up 4 years later. I also explained that Lancaster must have done a letter by letter comparison of what was in the NHG and all the letters which are now available online. Clearly they were left over with one letter - GW's letter to Hazen of 18 May 1782. Please tell me why GW did not want that letter published because it is very clear to me.

Asgill's letter was also not published but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that was down to Washington. The Editor of the New Haven Gazette simply didn't publish, and nor did any other newspaper. either. I call it "the power of the press" (to distort history)! I do wish the subject of Asgill's letter could be put to bed permanently. It has nothing whatever to do with the matter under discussion - any more than any of the other aspects, incorporated by other editors, has to do with it either. I do not personsally want any mention of Asgill in the edit, other than a link to The Asgill Affair on his page. Dormskirk posted an edit suggestion yesterday, but please don't ask me to find it again - somone will find his post I am sure. It perfectly reflects what is stated in the Journal - which I have posted here earlier today. Nothing more and nothing less. So far as I am concerned it fits the bill and I have nothing further to add on the subject. The Journal is the only major source, but you Victoriaearl, have now provided a secondary subsidiary source, and I am really very grateful to you for that. Massively so actually! How can I thank you for finding something I am no longer looking for?! Anne Arbil44 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Victoriaearl, I keep getting notifications that you have posted, but I cannot find them as you seem to be adding to previous text. If there is something else you want to know, could you post below here please? Thanks. Please remember, wikipedia IT scares me rigid and I go into panic mode! Anne Arbil44 (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

If it was a comment about the Journal not being a valid source, or something like that, my comment was not directed to you. It was simply a general comment that I have been treated badly here; not believed, and told that I am biased. Even received complaints about being "English" and living in "England". I am 1/4 American (paternal grandmother) and very proud of that 1/4! I have American ancestors going back almost as far as the Mayflower and Hicks Street in Brooklyn is named after them. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)