Talk:Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet/Archive 3

George Washington’s role in The Asgill Affair
While I wait for several people to get back to me on various outstanding issues, I would like to ask Editors a question please. It concerns George Washington’s role in The Asgill Affair. Before I ask, let me assure you that I have no personal gripe with Washington’s actions of 1782. He was doing his job and the decisions he made regarding Asgill would probably have been made by any man walking in his shoes at that time. Nevertheless, I think they were the wrong decisions, and he was the instigator of America’s first diplomatic crisis – and history has proved his choices were wrong. Even Huddy’s commanding officer pleaded for Asgill’s life to be spared, as did Huddy’s wife. However, if I could time travel back to 1786 I would have a huge bone to pick with Meigs and Dana, the editors of the ‘New Haven Gazette’. They changed the way history has been recorded (by not publishing Asgill’s letter) and I deplore their actions wholeheartedly. The power of the press in this instance has meant that The Asgill Affair has been recorded from one side only. But my point is this - Washington did not play a straight bat either – he deliberately withheld one of his letters when he ordered Colonel Humphreys to release his correspondence on Asgill, showing that he knowingly ordered a conditional officer to go to the gallows. I wonder if anyone else has noticed this in the intervening two centuries (and chose to keep quiet about it), or whether it needed the researchers in Lancaster to uncover this deception? 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.” Asgill was protected by the 14th Article of Capitulation, preventing retaliation on PoWs, so Washington was fully aware that he was acting unlawfully. He was impatient to get the deed done (Lots were drawn less than 10 days later).

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, unbiased, truthful and honest. So, now that the Americans in Lancaster have re-written this six-month episode in history, is it time for a brief mention on the Washington page concerning this? Or is it more important to preserve the sanctity of the great man and do nothing? Most people will know that Washington himself was a man who valued honesty – his conscience most probably pricked in 1786 (he was also known to set great store by thank-you letters). It most certainly wouldn’t be me to make any edits on his page, were it to be done – not a dog’s chance – but what do Editors think? If Editors vote for the status quo, they are voting for Wikipedia to be biased and not neutral – but only when circumstances warrant it. Just remember, I am only the messenger. It was not me who uncovered this fact. Arbil44 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the place to put it in the article would have to be under "Historical reputation and legacy". It would need to be a couple of sentences that state that Washington had a blatant disregard for Article XIV of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And while we're on the subject, Josiah Meigs greatest legacy was skewing history. When I found Asgill's letter the first institution I told about it was the history faculty at Yale. They really should have purchased the letter and put it in the public domain. They had historic links to Meigs. But they were not the least interested. Arbil44 (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dormskirk, I've edited the Meigs page at the end of 'History'. I cannot deny that I got some pleasure from the editing, but the IT was terrifying! I think I've got it right, except the link to the Journal is not live. Daft, I know, but that is going to be a bridge too far for me. How long do we wait for others to comment on this thread before 'you, as a very senior Editor', (definitely not 'me'!) make your proposed change to the Washington page? Arbil44 (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All editors are equal on wikipedia and it operates by consensus so let's wait for the views of others. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Dormskirk - I don't think anyone is going to comment here now, do you? Eighty odd people took a look at this thread and walked on by! Would you mind letting me know what you propose by way of an edit before doing it? If you put that here it might encourage responses perhaps? Arbil44 (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How about the following: "Washington can be criticized for his disregard for the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which ensured the protection of prisoners of war as evidenced by the Asgill Affair when a British officer suffered appalling treatment." Feel free to edit. I am not yet committing to insert it without support from others! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can sense your disquiet Dormskirk, but think of it as being the ethos of Wikipedia to be unbiased and neutral. That is the aim here. I think your suggestion is a little too bald and needs further clarification by adding something along the lines of "Washington did not play a straight bat either – he deliberately withheld one of his letters when he ordered Colonel Humphreys to release his correspondence on Asgill, showing that he knowingly ordered a conditional officer to go to the gallows. ".  The source is naturally important too, so please make a live link (so that I can copy what you do and put it on the Meigs page)! I'll repeat the source now for your ease of reference "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.”  I do hope others will join in and, hopefully, give their support. Arbil44 (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I really should add that this is not about what happened to Asgill after the drawing of lots (Washington, possibly, although unlikely, may not have known about his treatment at the hands of Timothy Day). It is all about him knowing that he was breaking the Articles of Capitulation and, four years later, covering that fact up. Arbil44 (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will be easy to get all this into a couple of sentences. Key points will be to demonstrate that Washington did it "knowingly" and that he participated in a "cover-up". I think it needs further thought. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

A phone call would be so much simpler! Wikipedia should introduce a system whereby editors can talk - get things sorted - then, and only then, put it in writing! Think how much time could be saved!!!Arbil44 (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the following might be edging nearer to what is required. Please don't be afraid of the truth Dormskirk. I will defend you to the hilt on this (if that counts for anything of course) and there is a letter from one of the Directors of LancasterHistory on my userpage which would be my first line of defence. I think it is particularly pertinent that it was a band of American researchers who uncovered all this, and they were really happy to be the ones to straighten out history. The entire team loved working on the December edition. If it had been British researchers it might be a different story and the Revolution might begin all over again! Personally I think editors should be given a week to "speak now or forever hold your peace", in the interests of honesty, neutrality and an unbiased account. Does the following seem OKish?


 * 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 showing blatant disregard for Article XIV of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected PoWs. 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. Those incomplete letters subsequently formed the basis of every account written about the events of 1782, in the following two and a half centuries. Arbil44 (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks pretty good to me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been 12 days, and 288 page views since I raised this Dormskirk. I am astonished that nobody has commented except you, for which thank you. Is there really any need to spin this out any further? May I know your views as to the way forward?  The Journal quotes, in full, the following letter from Washington to Hazen and analyses the situation which, as you know, meant that this letter was not included in all Washington's other correspondence regarding Asgill, in 1786. https://founders.archives.gov/?q=Moses%20Hazen&s=1111311111&sa=&r=200&sr= History has been skewed as a result and shouldn't continue to be skewed - surely? I have slightly amended my suggested edit, above. Arbil44 (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If a proposed addition to an article has been uncontested, then in general you should go ahead and add it. My only question here is whether the sources support the claim that the "incomplete letters subsequently formed the basis of every account written about the events of 1782", or if that's your (unpublished) interpretation? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for coming to the party Cordless Larry. I think my response would have to be that the Asgill Affair has been written about hundreds, if not thousands of times, in the past 233 years and two vital pieces of information have been unavailable to researchers. Firstly, the other side of the story, from Asgill himself. Secondly, since one letter was omitted by Washington himself from the New Haven Gazette (always referred to as The Washington Papers regarding Asgill) it stands to reason - and is plain downright logic - that history has been skewed. What other conclusion can be drawn?


 * Besides, the proposed edit only says "Those incomplete letters subsequently formed the basis of every account written about the events of 1782, in the following two and a half centuries." That is a cold hard fact. If you had read this story as often as I have you would see that even the same words and the same quotes come out time and time again. There has been only one source. Quite litterally - one source. [User:Arbil44|Arbil44]] (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to add this too. It is well known that Asgill's reputation has suffered badly as a consequence of the missing evidence. He has gone down in history as a cad and a liar - and worse if you read the Raftis book. This is the man who went to the aid of a wounded enemy Colonel. This is the man who refused to be captured by the British and saved from his fate. This is the man who refused to comment at all, after his return to England - until his anger was riled when he saw the account of events published by Washington in the New Haven Gazette. Then he let it all spill out. Then he was silenced for 233 years. Until December 2019. Furthermore, the entire rationale of the Journal was to set the record straight and to "Saving Captain Asgill('s)" reputation. Everybody on that team became invested in the man, and their mission. You know this - I have given you a copy of the Journal. Arbil44 (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This is what the Editor of the Journal had to say: "The Asgill Affair was a singular event in the history of the American War of Independence. The short of it is that a young British captain — a prisoner of war protected by a surrender treaty — was chosen to be hanged in reprisal for an event that happened elsewhere in the colonies. In time he was released and sent home, and that could have been the happy end of it. But a new battle of words commenced — a letter was lost — and only one side of the story was allowed to be heard. We devote this issue to telling a tale of early Lancaster and in publishing the long-lost letter, to tell both sides of the story." ..."By now the entire staff, board of trustees and Marketing Committee at LancasterHistory have been touched by the Asgill Affair. ... We owe everyone at LancasterHistory thanks for their support and ceaseless energy." Arbil44 (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Cordless Larry - Many thanks. Arbil44 - I have now inserted the paragraph: see George Washington. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Always a man of few words, you've just done something big, very quietly! Thank you very much Dormskirk. I do think it would be worthwhile adding a link to the letter of 18 May though, since the Journal is not online, but only if you think so. Arbil44 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I feel guilty. While I want to wade in, I sense that you will handle this better than me. Let me know if you want backup/further explanation though. I don't want to appear to be cutting and running. That's not my style!Arbil44 (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. Let's see how it develops. I may need your help if we get into the detail later on. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you handled the first volley really well Dormskirk and you got a good(ish) outcome, even though it is too watered down now. Well done. Are you a diplomat in real life?! I am not going to pretend that it is not galling to have to bow to an editor who had never heard of the Asgill Affair until a couple of hours ago, as opposed to someone who has read dozens and dozens of literary tomes on the subject, over a period of 18 years, but that is how the wind blows on Wikipedia. Thank you for taking one for Team Asgill! Arbil44 (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. As you say, that was just the first volley! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The editor who challenged you yesterday Dormskirk asked if the source supported the original statement. I am copying the following down here (from the OP) should you need to refer to it in the next volley, because the source indeed supports the original statement you posted, more than the watered down version! 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.” I just had to put that up on the Washington talk page I'm afraid. At least that way people can see the source material. Arbil44 (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for that. I would suggest that nothing more is added to the Washington talk page for the moment. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I know you are worried about me being a loose cannon compared with your diplomacy! I can be diplomatic, but only if I try very hard! However, in reserve I have the fact that Washington wrote to Hazen twice on 18 May. The letter in question was his second letter that day - a very quick and impetuous turn around in orders. I am going to find the first one because it highlights that GW was in termoil about how to deal with the situation and I think his second letter demonstrates that he just wanted the whole thing to 'go away' as quickly as possible and the only way of doing that was to include 'conditional' officers. Hence 'threw caution to the wind' which is rather a British coloquialism come to think of it.Arbil44 (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. I am wrong. GW's first letter to Hazen was on 3 May. So sorry for getting that wrong. He must have written two letters in one day to Dayton, later on, and I got confused. Arbil44 (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions on how to respond to the case that this was an "obscure incident" and that "undue weight" is being given to it? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

That is so subjective that it is hard to respond without being subjective too. All I can say is that everybody at LancasterHistory embraced the chance to be the ones to change history. Just about everything has had a reboot - including the names and regiments of the other 12 officers drawing lots, which history has hitherto not got right. They have dotted the 'i's and crossed the 't's of what was in effect America's first diplomatic crisis. If it was so insignificant, why did it take Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette to save Asgill's life? The whole of Europe was up in arms with Washington's plans and wanted no part in it. This was not "obscure" - this was an importasnt event at the end of the revolution. I honestly don't know how to respond to such a ludicrous contention - what else can I say? I'll probably think of the perfect answer in the middle of the night. I think matters are getting confused with GW's part in it all. He violated the terms of the very treaty he had signed and then he covered up that fact. If it has been "obscure" then it is time it came to light. I don't know if any of this is any help, but perhaps you'll find something buried within? Arbil44 (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As for this "Does anyone even have an idea why Washington did what he did here?" - the answer to that is given - atoning for Huddy's murder by the Loyalists. Seriously, how does one deal with any situation on Wikipedia when those who know nothing about a given situation get involved? Arbil44 (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. We should not rush to respond. Per WP:BRD the onus is now on us to come up with a response to the criticisms and secure consensus. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So, it's gone. That was brief. Is that permitted, just to wipe an entry supported by a source? The editor should get a copy of the Journal before being allowed to wipe the edit. So much for Wikipedia being unbiased. This is really disgusting. Arbil44 (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposed edit sat here with no responses for 12 days. How on earth do we get round this? The Journal is dealing with facts - new facts - which history has wiped from its collective consciousness. If it is a POV issue, then the entire staff, board of governors and the legal team in Lancaster are involved in it. Please hold on to the fact that I, personally, am not involved in the Washington revelations. I had nothing whatever to do with that. There is huge bias being allowed here. Is it time to use Rosemary Krill's letter (Board of Directors of LancasterHistory)? I know I am liable to 'lose it' if they get away with this. Arbil44 (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to respond yourself, but under WP:BRD you need to respond to the specific issues being raised. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't duck out on me now Dormskirk. You know that I am hot-headed and, as I said before, a loose cannon. Have I not furnished you with sufficient ideas to put something together? I know your calm diplomacy is likely to work better than my approach ever will. I am too angry right now and my heart is pounding. The POV issue is easy because it involves about 126 people - the number is listed somewhere on the LancasterHisory website. Rosemary Krill puts it all quite succinctly. Gregory Urwin, an American professor of history, is blown away by the Journal, as is Robert Tombs at Cambridge (both reviews on my userpage). We are talking about a very professional team in Lancaster, not a bunch of cowboys who have cobbled something togetheer. How do you argue about it being an obscure event? Why were so many French plays written then if it was so obscure? I think Asgill was bout 53 years old when the last one was written. Why is it still being written about in recent years - i.e. The Economist in 2014 I think it was. For heavens sake - why? Why was it aluded to in The Washington Post just a few weeks ago - BECAUSE IT WAS NOT AN OBSCURE EVENT. As for why did GW do what precisely?  Why did he violate the treaty?  To pacify the rebels in Monmouthsire where Huddy was murdered. Why did he hide the fact that he had violated the treaty by holding back his letter. I can only guess - because he was ashamed?  The clincher should be that Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased and wiping your edit is bias in the extreme. You can see I am near to boiling point here can't you? It would be great if Cordless Larry could support Team Asgill.Arbil44 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The editor involved is into stamps - point him to the first day cover of 1982. That'll clinch it. Which reminds me - why would someone pay $16,500 for Asgill's letter if it was such an obscure event? Now a lovely (Padre) has arrived. Maybe he brings with him reinforcements? Arbil44 (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have used the Unwin and Tombs material which is helpful. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks as if there is acceptance that something should be included but in the commander-in-chief section rather than the legacy section. I don't think there was much wrong with Anastrophe's last draft but you may want to give it thought. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I promised you that I would support you all the way. I did not know that was not going to work in reverse. I made a wrong asumption and I am paying the price now. I was on the Washington page until 3am and I am left to fight the banditi alone and I am being abused from all quarters now. They don't even understand what is under discussion. I expect the next thing is that I will be banned. What's new? I'm either ignored when I ask questions - Nthep and others on the copyright page. Or I am abused. This is a terrible experience. All because I thought Wikipedia was supposed to convey the trth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.Arbil44 (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The key point is that there is now consensus that something needs to be included somewhere and that is very helpful. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. Apologies that I could not support you at 3am but, as you know, I am at work during the day and you seem to have done a pretty good job without any help! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am being threatened with yet another COI - how do you think I feel about that? COI is step one of being banned - and certainly being unable to edit.  I have worked very very hard on Wikipedia since you authorised the culling of the Asgill page on 21 August 2019 (certainly with masses of assistance from you after that, which I will never ever deny). I am being told I am not neutral (when I stated that any other man would have done the same as Washington). Frankly, Asgill would be totally shocked those words came out of my mouth. We have often had exchanges at 1am or even 2am. 3am is extreme even for me and of course I didn't expect support at that hour, but we are dealing with Americans and they are only now getting up. I have no idea if you have read my posts there but I asked specifically for your help to get the first day cover link right. If you won't come to my aid now I hope you will prevent me from being banned. I don't deserve to be banned. I have done vast amounts of work off piste since August last year. I have worked on everything on a full time basis ever since. I gave up playing bridge in August last year in order to be able to do so. While the IT side is vital here, it is a question of not being able to teach an old dog new tricks and I constantly feel like a sub-human here because of it.  The information gathering is what I am good at. And, by the way, why is Cyril's Times obitury of no interest?  OK, it isn't a source for the church, I accept that, but he was a very interesting man with a very interesting life story. He was also a fabulous human being.Arbil44 (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi - In reponse to you message above: 1. You won't get banned for COI as long as you stick to editing the talk pages rather than the related articles. 2. The links relating to the commemorative cover look identical between the Asgill article and the Washington talk page, so I think it's fine. 3. Don't upload the times obituary: it is not that I am not interested - I am not a copyright expert but I suspect it would be a breach of copyright. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * In response to 1. Are you saying I am banned from editing Asgill, Mary Ann, Cyril Lloyd, James Gordon etc. pages Dormskirk? I edited two of those today. 2. The link to the cover is wrong - on a talk page it could not appear as a reference at the bottom of the page. I simply C&Pd it from the Asgill page where a link at the bottom is needed. 3. Thank you for the warning re copyright - I had no idea! Arbil44 (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi - 1. WP:COI says "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly...you may propose changes on talk pages" My recollection is that you have been observing these rules. Certainly I have done most of the editing for you on Asgill and Lloyd. You are not related to Mary Ann (she was Asgill's mistress). And as far as Washington is concerned you have not edited that page at all (I did). 2. I now understand what you mean; "reflist talk" is not mandatory but does make things tidier and I have inserted one. 3. No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * PS. I like Anastrophe's draft proposal and think we should go with it. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Dormskirk. Long long ago Cordless Larry said I could go ahead and edit and this I have been doing. You will not know, if I do it without your help, and this is often the case (believe it or not). I come running to you when an IT issue floors me, otherwise I edit, but it sounds as though you have added something to prevent me doing so. Mary Ann was my g-g-g-grandmother and that is my link to Asgill, through their son, Charles Childs. I am no blood relative of Cyril Lloyd - he was my godfather. However, all that now remains is for me to hear from the church - and I will let you know what they say first, and I have big problems regarding the Mansel letters, but nobody is answering my questions. Once these two things are "Done", as you would say, I am off and back to the bridge table.

I have not yet seen the edit, but I will look soon. Arbil44 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Arbil44 - Apologies for repeating myself but my advice to you would be to accept Anastrophe's draft proposal. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I would not be prepared to accept anything produced which was not historically accurate, and that wasn't. Anne (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Citation does not support text
I tagged the claims that Washington held back the letter. A citation that does not support that claim was entered, and the tags were removed. I'm not going to edit war, but this needs to be fixed.

The encyclopedia text says the following, emphasis mine: "His letters on the matter were printed in the New-Haven Gazette and the Connecticut Magazine on 16 November 1786, all except one, which was held back by Washington, making his Papers on The Asgill Affair an incomplete record for posterity. The letter he held back had been written to General Moses Hazen on 18 May 1782, ordering him to include conditional prisoners in the selection of lots, thereby violating the 14th Article of Capitulation."

The source offered says this, emphasis mine:

"On May 18, 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.[8]"

The source offered refutes the motive that the text claims as Washington's. As has been endlessly pointed out elsewhere, we cannot imply or state explicit motive on Washington's part, without a neutral, reliable source identifying evidence that the omission of the letter was by Washington's hand. Anastrophe (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd encourage you to fix the text,, or at least suggest a revised version here. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections, I'll merely adjust it to reflect that the letter was missing, without implying a reason, since that is unknown. Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Just a query: you noted in your edit summary here that you removed a non-supporting reference, but that reference was there in support of the quote (which I checked was in the source). Has there been a misunderstanding? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Which quote did it support? There were no quotes in the immediately previous text that I can see. Did I remove the wrong reference? Anastrophe (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The block quote introduced by the text "The Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society states:". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's confusing because the 'reference' was included textually rather than as a proper "<ref". I'm willing to accept that the Lancaster journal has evidence that Humphries held the letter back, so I'll adjust the text, and add the journal quote as a proper ref. Anastrophe (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a reference at the end of the quote: . Cordless Larry (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, just realized that. Fixing. Anastrophe (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Showing my ignorance here, is there a way to include the quoted text within an already named reference link? Anastrophe (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. You can either include it in the text of the article, or use a fresh citation template. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood, will do. Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I believe I've added it back correctly. However, I think it may be a bit problematic that the references to the Lancaster Journal are little more than a link to the web store purchase page, which seems promotional, if only slightly. It would probably be better to use other sources for details that are already in the public domain (not for this specific ref we've been discussing of course), such as https://www.historynet.com/washington-came-thisclose-to-executing-an-innocent-man.htm Just a thought, hardly pressing. Anastrophe (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We could remove the link to the web store, but it's perfectly acceptable to cite a publication that's not available online, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, I understand that - it's merely a matter of appearances, going directly to 'add to shopping cart'. It's too trivial a matter to expend any further effort however. Anastrophe (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Since I was banned, I was unable to post here until now. During my absence changes were made to the Asgill page, which have seriously downplayed the newly discovered information, which came out in December 2019, as discovered by Americans, not me. The quote was previously in a “block quote” to highlight what has never been known before. Since it is revolutionary information the page needs to be restored to how it was before yesterday’s edits, which were made to the text as well as the quote. It is even a possibility that new text, as follows, should be added. “'''In a military context, the buck stops with the C-in-C – everything done in the name of the C-in-C becomes the responsibility of the man in charge. The court martial of Lippincott came to exactly the same conclusion regarding William Franklin being the man to order Huddy’s death, although Lippincott was the man who murdered him.'''” There is so much new information now available (even the now corrected details concerning the other 12 officers who drew lots) that none of history’s previous accounts (including the numerous accounts in Further Reading) are any longer the true account of The Asgill Affair, and can no longer be regarded as what actually happened. I am no longer permitted to edit on Wikipedia, so I would ask that editors here give serious consideration to my request for (a) the Asgill page to be restored and (b) for new text, as above, to be added. I refer to source [15] on the Asgill page, which now has to be clicked on rather than as it was before, a block quote. I hope there are some military experts available to comment here, especially ones who are prepared to accept that history has, indeed, been changed. Could someone please ping Cinderella157 since they are a military expert?

I'm afraid I had no say in how the source material was marketed. Nobody asked me my views on the matter, but regrettably it is not available elsewhere and the link given previously is the only link to the source. I was not paid for my work in any way whatsoever. Anne (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging per request. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

For the avoidance of all doubt the following has just been C&Ped from the source document, and highlights what is under discussion:
 * Appendix D (page 153)
 * 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 in which Washington ordered Hazen to find
 * a soldier not covered by treaty and his next letter 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.

and then (on page 154)
 * On May 18, 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 [N.B. Four years later] (see Chapter VI), chose not to include :this letter which shows Washington violating Article XIV of the Yorktown Articles of :Capitulation.

It is in relation to the 2nd quote here that I am suggesting the additional text, which I put in quotes in my OP above. Anne (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Cordless Larry, I have now found an irrefutable secondary source (that Washington ordered his papers on the Asgill Affair to be published in 1786, four years after the event), so could this matter be brought to a speedy conclusion please? Here is the secondary source: “History of New York During the Revolutionary War: And of the ...,” Volume 2 (Note XXX) By Thomas Jones “Washington denies the fact and has his papers on the subject published.” In particular see page 485 for a fuller description of what happened. This is a side issue, but I would urge editors to note that this source was published by New York Historical Society, in 1879 (a hundred years after the event). The writer had not had access to Asgill's own account of what happened to him in captivity, since that account has only just been printed for the first time, in 2019. I was told recently that The Asgill Affair was 'obscure'. I've just done a tally on Google Books alone. It came to 448 books which have a mention of 'Charles Asgill'. Anne (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "Since it is revolutionary information the page needs to be restored to how it was before yesterday’s edits, which were made to the text as well as the quote" and "The quote was previously in a “block quote” to highlight what has never been known before." This is false. The quote that was in block quote, which you yourself reproduced here regarding W's letter to Hazen of 18 May ("Hazen to choose one of the officers protected by Article XIV. Interestingly, Col. Humphreys in his newspaper defense of Washington [N.B. Four years later] (see Chapter VI), chose not to include this letter which shows Washington violating Article XIV of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation.") is certainly true - but it is not newly discovered, revolutionary information. The letter of 18 May wherein W' orders the inclusion of conditional officers was published long before 2019 - as early as 1835: https://books.google.com/books?id=fKFIAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA296&ots=bgW-bx00Da&dq=washington's%20letter%20to%20hazen%2018%20may%201782&pg=PP9#v=onepage&q&f=false. A letter published in 1835 is not a 'revolutionary new discovery'. Asgill's unpublished letter is a new discovery. Not W's letter to Hazen of 18 May
 * Asgill's recently discovered letter, as you have stated yourself elsewhere, is unrelated to the material here in question.
 * "I have now found an irrefutable secondary source (that Washington ordered his papers on the Asgill Affair to be published in 1786, four years after the event)," - there is no dispute that Washington ordered his papers published in 1786. Why bring it up?
 * The text suggested for inclusion ("In a military context, the buck stops with the C-in-C – everything done in the name of the C-in-C becomes the responsibility of the man in charge. The court martial of Lippincott came to exactly the same conclusion regarding William Franklin being the man to order Huddy’s death, although Lippincott was the man who murdered him.") is narrative, and adds nothing to what is already in evidence - that the letter of 18 May was not included in the Gazette.
 * The quote re 18 May letter has not been removed, only its inclusion in the body, since it was submitted as a reference. I have no objection at all to the quote being in the body. But, as has been said endlessly (elsewhere), you cannot imply motive on W's part. It is entirely possible that it was W's motive and intent to hold back the letter. Absent reliable evidence that the letter was held back by W, either by his own hand or by order to someone else, we don't add speculations of motive to an encyclopedia. The quote presented says that Humphreys held back the letter. Then that's what we say, not that Washington held it back. The source does not support the claim that was in the encyclopedia, therefore, the encyclopedia must conform to the source. Anastrophe (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There might not have been dispute about the fact that Washington ordered the papers be published, but it lacked a clear source, so I've added a reference to that book. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the link Cordless Larry, that is very helpful and puts the matter to rest. I think you will find that Washington ordering the publication of his papers was exactly the problem - it is clear in the OP of this thread. What I would appreciate is if you would revert the Asgill page to how it was before all those edits a couple of days ago (when I was banned and couldn't post my responses at the time) because the entire point of the block quote, (and the text as it was before - and you yourself helped me out with the correct link when it was added) is to emphasise that the Journal produces information never known before - that Washington held back one of the letters - the one demanding that 'conditional' prisoners (protected by treaty) be included in the drawing of lots. Could we just start again please (but then you would need to re-add the link you just so kindly added). People are very confused by the fact that history has recorded the drawing of lots, and, as has been said elsewhere - that is very well known - but what has never been well known is that (a) Washington ordered 'conditional prisoners' and then, 4 years later, did not include that letter for publication. It is important to make the distinction.  And thank you for your tireless assistance to me ever since 21 August last year. Anne (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't restore the previous text because it included interpretations not supported by published sources, Anne. I'd support moving the quote back to the main article text, but other than that I think the current version is very clear. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much Cordless Larry - that is important - and very much appreciated. I'll be able to focus on reading it again better when it looks familiar! Anne (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I still don't understand the disconnect here between what is claimed to be known and what is claimed to be "newly discovered".
 * "because the entire point of the block quote, (and the text as it was before - and you yourself helped me out with the correct link when it was added) is to emphasise that the Journal produces information never known before - that Washington held back one of the letters - the one demanding that 'conditional' prisoners (protected by treaty) be included in the drawing of lots." The blockquote, specifically, does _not_ state that Washington held back the letter of May 18th. It states that Humphreys held it back.
 * "what has never been well known is that a) Washington ordered 'conditional prisoners' and then, 4 years later, did not include that letter for publication." Again, this is simply false. This is not new information, and it contradicts what the very source you are referring to states. The letter of 18 May ordering that conditional prisons be included in the lot, is in a book that was published in 1835 - I direct you again here https://books.google.com/books?id=fKFIAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA296&dq=washington's%20letter%20to%20hazen%2018%20may%201782&pg=PA297#v=onepage&q&f=false. Therefore, that letter is not a new discovery. That the letter was not included for publication in 1786 is also not a new discovery - the Gazette itself by its lack of that letter is evidence of...the lack of that letter. And nothing in the quoted material that you present as a reference states that W held the letter back - it states that Humphreys held it back.
 * Once more, I don't know how this can be any clearer: The source you present states that Humphreys held back the letter of 18 May. The text in the article stated that Washington held the letter back. The source contradicts what is claimed in the article.
 * We do not add material to the encyclopedia that is not supported by the reference that is provided. The text as it was previously presented in the article makes a claim unsupported by the reference. Anastrophe (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry – please will you ensure I am not banned again for finding myself having to explain, at huge length, yet again, after already writing several ‘books’ in long posts on the GW talk page, (for which I have been severely censured and ultimately banned), on this subject, that I must repeat myself here, again, to try to explain to Anastophe. Anastophe had never heard of Asgill until a few days ago and – given the complexities of the whole Asgill Affair - it is probably understandable that it is difficult to comprehend. I found it difficult, back in 2002, because I did not then know that a ‘Tory’ was a ‘Loyalist’ – this conspired to confuse me dreadfully and hampered my understanding of the case. In a nutshell – Washington ordered protected prisoners to draw lots, in a letter he wrote to Hazen on 18 May 1782 – and four years later (at which time nobody knew it had been put into writing) he then covered up this fact by holding the letter, of 18 May 1782 back from publication. Some years later, possibly after Washington had died, all his letters were published. However, it was not until December 2019 that a TALLY was done – comparing one set of existing letters - against the set published in the NHG on 16 November 1786. The TALLY did not match up – one letter was left over – the letter of 18 May 1782. I'm sorry, I still don't understand the disconnect here between what is claimed to be known and what is claimed to be "newly discovered".
 * The Asgill Affair is well known and I found well over 400 references to Charles Asgill on Google Books today.

"because the entire point of the block quote, (and the text as it was before - and you yourself helped me out with the correct link when it was added) is to emphasise that the Journal produces information never known before - that Washington held back one of the letters - the one demanding that 'conditional' prisoners (protected by treaty) be included in the drawing of lots."
 * As I have said so many many times before – Lancaster did a tally of all GW’s letters regarding Asgill – alongside all GW’s letters published in the NHGazette - and found that there was not a match. One letter had not been included for publication.

The blockquote, specifically, does _not_ state that Washington held back the letter of May 18th. It states that Humphreys held it back.
 * Cordless Larry added an additional source today, a publication produced by the NY Historical Society 100 years after the event, which gives a very very clear account that Washington ordered Humphreys to carry out his orders to publish his letters – so “Washington ordered his papers to be published” is now established. It has never been known before December 2019 that one of the letters was held back – that is now covered by the Journal as given a couple of posts back on this thread (I quoted exactly what is written in the Journal)..

"what has never been well known is that a) Washington ordered 'conditional prisoners' and then, 4 years later, did not include that letter for publication."
 * In what way is this false? The Journal proves one letter was held back (the block quote) and the NY Historical Society proves that Washington ordered the papers to be published, but the papers he published were missing one letter – the letter of 18 May 1782.

This is not new information
 * ”This” being what?

and it contradicts what the very source you are referring to states.
 * One source proves one aspect and the other source proves a different aspect

The letter of 18 May ordering that conditional prisons be included in the lot, is in a book that was published in 1835 - I direct you again here https://books.google.com/books?id=fKFIAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA296&dq=washington's%20letter%20to%20hazen%2018%20may%201782&pg=PA297#v=onepage&q&f=false.
 * Your source was produced in 1835 – which is 50 years after the time period under discussion - which is 1782 (ordering conditional prisoners to draw lots) and 1786 (ordering the letter showing that he was breaking a solemn treaty to be withheld from publication).

Therefore, that letter is not a new discovery.
 * Washington did not burn the letter of 18 May 1782, he simply hid it from publication. It eventually emerged, but I do not know exactly how many years later because I am only dealing with what happened during 1782 and 1786.

That the letter was not included for publication in 1786 is also not a new discovery - the Gazette itself by its lack of that letter is evidence of...the lack of that letter.
 * If the public had never queued up to read their way through GW’s personal correspondence, and therefore didn’t know about a letter they had never been shown before, in safe keeping in GW’s letterbook, how were they to know that this ‘unknown’ letter was not published? You don’t miss seeing something you never knew existed.

And nothing in the quoted material that you present as a reference states that W held the letter back - it states that Humphreys held it back.
 * That is why there are now two – yes two – sources. As stated above, the Journal proves one letter was held back and the NY Historical Society proves that Washington ordered Humphreys to get the letters published. But since nobody knew, 50 years after the event, that a letter was held back, how could they report more than it was Washington, not Humphreys? It needs the two sources to cover the one subject – basically because this was a ‘cover up’ on GW’s account, which he, himself, ordered.

Once more, I don't know how this can be any clearer: The source you present states that Humphreys held back the letter of 18 May.
 * The NY Historical Society makes that clearly untrue – they state that GW ordered Humphreys, just as is normal for a C-in-C to do with a subordinate member of staff. An ADC is not a Chief of Staff. An ADC is a personal aide who does nothing other than his master’s bidding. I had hoped that Cinderella157 might be able to confirm that that is the case.

The text in the article stated that Washington held the letter back. The source contradicts what is claimed in the article.
 * As stated, so many many times already, here and in previous discussions, two sources are needed now, in 2020, because the cover-up had never, ever, not once, on zero occasions ever been known about before. It therefore makes those 400+ books on Google Books irrelevant, because nobody, anywhere, ever knew about this cover-up before. It is very surprising and somewhat shocking new ‘news’.

We do not add material to the encyclopedia that is not supported by the reference that is provided.
 * Even, in this thread, I have explained several times now, that it is necessary to give two sources for one piece of information and this has now been done by Cordless Larry.

The text as it was previously presented in the article makes a claim unsupported by the reference.
 * Again, that is why there are now two sources.  Anne (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The second source, nowhere in it, unambiguously demonstrates that GW himself held back the letter.
 * It is not helpful to keep repeating how ignorant I am on this matter. Your opinion in that regard has been duly acknowledged. Please focus on the content, not my ignorance.
 * You wrote "It has never been known before December 2019 that one of the letters was held back" - again, this is patently false. I provided a link above to a book of Washington's writings written in 1835 that included the letter of 18 May. That source invalidates a claim that the letter of 18 may 1782 was never known before 2019. If you are claiming that it is the contention that the letter was held back rather than lost or misplaced, the Lancaster Journal says that Humphries hid it. Perhaps the Journal describes how they came to that conclusion. But either way, it doesn't say that Washington held it back.
 * The Lancaster Journal source that you put in the article states, unambiguously - that Humphries held back the letter. The text that you entered into the body of the article stated that Washington held back the letter. That is what I challenged. The source and article conflicted.


 * Here's the second source. Please highlight the sentence that lays bare that Washington ordered a coverup of the letter:


 * "The allegation that Washington personally directed the cruel treatment of Asgill, unfounded as the charge was, caused the former so much feeling, that he determined that all the papers in his possession relating to it should be published. They were, after much delay and trouble, found, and copied by Tobias Lear, his Secretary, and with a letter dated September 1, 1786, were sent by Washington to Colonel Humphreys, who had been one of his aids. Colonel Humphreys arranged and published them himself, not referring, of course, to Washington's agency in the matter, in the Columbian Magazine, for January and February 1787. In the letter to Humphreys accompanying them, Washington makes this remarkable statement: "There is one mystery in the business, which I cannot develop, nor are there any papers in my possession which explain it. Hazen was ordered to send an unconditional prisoner. Asgill comes. Hazen, or some other, must have given information of a Lieutenant Turner, under the former description. Turner is ordered on, but never came. Why? I am unable to say; nor is there any letter from Hazen to be found which accounts for a non-compliance with the order. If I had not too many causes to distrust my memory, I should ascribe it to there having been no such officer, or that he was also under capitulation; for Captain Shaack seems to have been held as a proper victim of this"."


 * Damning, since GW's letter to Hazen making that order became known later, as early as 1835? Absolutely! Does it say that GW - himself - held back any letter? No. Does the Lancaster Journal source say that GW himself - held back the letter? No. It is worth noting that the source quoted above points out that Washington was dreadfully sick when he wrote above about the 'mystery'. Suffering fever and chills, he may have been in no mind of the missing letter. We can only speculate. And speculation does not go into the encyclopedia.


 * All we know, as factual information, is that GW ordered his letters regarding the Asgill affair be published; Tobias Lear was tasked with gathering them; David Humphries was tasked with getting them published. That's it. We don't know if Tobias Lear hid the letter. We do know - according to your source, that Humphries held back the letter. No source tendered shows that GW held back the letter.
 * Please. I again implore you. Stick, specifically, to this one particular contention. Not Asgill's unpublished letter to the Gazette that was never published - that is new - but it is not relevant directly to the question of who held back the 18 may letter from Washingto to Hazen. It is also not about how utterly ignorant I am. Speculations that it's 'obvious that George Washington conspired to hide the letter' are meaningless unless you have sources that says as much. Anastrophe (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, it is half past midnight in the UK and I am going to bed now. Sometime tomorrow I shall be doing a very careful check of the Asgill page to see what has been deleted. The notifications made it look like great swathes had been taken out, but maybe I am wrong. I will not know until I do a double-check with my husband. Once I have done so, sometime tomorrow, I will return here to field questions, although I will not be addressing my replies above, again. I have done so so often already that I am really unable to face doing so any more. Am I required to do so again? I'd be most grateful if you would be able to reinstate the block quote please. That is the new 'news'. Anne (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * As I've already said, I'm entirely fine with the quote being in the article body - so long as the text it ostensibly is supporting matches what your source says. We are required to accurately represent in the article what the sources say. The sources do not say that Washington held back the letter. Simple. Anastrophe (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I feel compelled to add, because Anne misstates it above - "[...]long posts on the GW talk page, (for which I have been severely censured and ultimately banned)". This is untrue. You were temporarily blocked from editing - for less than 24 hours - for making legal threats, not for writing long posts. Anastrophe (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Anne and others. I am responding to my ping, though I don't think I would call myself a military expert, I acknowledge your confidence. I am trying to follow the issue and determine its crux. I believe it has to do with this edit, removing the quote that was added to satisfy the addition of ctation needed tags. If you look in the editing screen, you will see how I have used what are called diffs. The view history tab shows a history of page edits. Clicking "prev" will open a page that shows the diff or what was changed by that particilar edit. The web address of the diff is in the toolbar of your browser - ie https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_Charles_Asgill,_2nd_Baronet&diff=next&oldid=941745573 for what I called "this edit". Creating links to diffs can make it easier for someone like me to pick up the thread. Hope this is a help.

On the actual issue (having come late), here are some comments. Anne, you are understandably very invested in this article. Tags, such as citation needed can be perceived as a slight. I believe that the editors involved are acting good faith to improve the article even if they have not expressed their concerns in a way that you understand. Their is no fault in this; only a need to strive for understanding. Please try to focus on the issues being raised and not the person raising them; otherwise, it is likely to lead to things getting heated. Avoid things like: you are, you did, you didn't or you don't. I hope all this helps. Please call again if you need - before things get out of hand. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a principle, a military commander is ultimately accountable for the conduct of their command. In practice too though, the culpability of a commander may be mitigated by "due diligence" and whether actions were willfully concealed from them. Your assertion is not incorrect but I must qualify this and specifically address the issues being discussed.
 * Yes also, there is a clear distinction between and AdC and a Chief of Staff - their duties, responsibilities and the discretion they might normally be permitted to exercise. An AdC is to effect, an executive assistant.
 * What is evidenced by the secondary sources is that GW instructed the disclosure of correspondence. It is also evidenced that Col. Humphreys in his newspaper defense of Washington ... chose not to include this letter. The latter indicates the action of Humphreys, not GW.
 * It may be reasonable to assert that GW was ultimately responsible for the actions of his subordinate in that respect (whether by act or omission); however, to make such an assertion in WP's voice, such a conclusion must be explicitly stated in a secondary source. Herein lies the crux of the matter. It is not explicitly supported by the source cited.
 * Making such a statement that is not explicitly supported falls to either WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH or WP:SYNTHESIS.
 * The act of willfully omitting to act is itself an act, while omitting to confirm that a direction has been acted on is negligence. A military person will recognise there is culpability in each case. At the most, based on the evidence (or lack of), we could assert that GW took no action to correct the omission. But even this would probably fall to synthesis in WP.  This is, for-better-or-worse, the nature of writing in WP. Sometimes, we must rely on our readers to reach their own conclusions.
 * I appreciate from my own experiences that such subtleties can be frustrating. I hope that I have been able to clarify the issues for you through openly discussing them.
 * Thanks for your considered comments, . I would endorse all of that, although just to note that it's not so much that one edit, but this series (which included adding the quote back in, but to the citation rather than the main text). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would like to add my sincere thanks too. You have explained kindly, and very clearly what is the situation here ('terse' requirements on Wikipedia upset me dreadfully because it goes totally against my own personality/character and reverses who and what I really am, and the 'hothead' in me emerges). This in particular "Sometimes, we must rely on our readers to reach their own conclusions" is precicely what worries me. The Asgill Affair is terribly complicated, and has been written about so many times - each and every account I have read is full of masses and masses of mistakes. This is the reason I have requested that the block quote be returned as a block quote and - furthermore - that two sources (as explained, below) be added to that block quote itself. Thank you again - you are one of my favourite Wikipedians and I well remember your input on 'Colonel of the Regiment' (oh, dear, here I go again - introducing levity - another banning is just around the corner - watch yourself Anne). Anne (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One can present the facts to the readers in a neutral way but by such that they might apply their own logic. Doing so can be a fine line to tread. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Anne (again). Could you confirm if my instruction on posting diffs has been successful? Could you please post a recent diff below this with a brief description of what that edit was (say, the edit you refer to in the section below). I am considering proposing a protocol to make dealing with your COI easier but it relies on you being able to link to a diff. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Citation does not support text continued

 * Cordless Larry,
 * a) It was during the course of my banning that I was severely censured for making long posts. You yourself have censured me on this and made me promise to be concise.
 * b) It was during the course of my banning, and so I was silenced from speaking up, that the Asgill page was altered. Anastrophe made a comment along the lines of "if everyone is happy then I'll make the edits" - all the while knowing full well that I had been silenced. You permitted someone who has not yet got the hang of the story, to make edits. I have not yet had time to check the page word for word, but I will.
 * c) The Journal states very very very clearly that Humphreys held back one letter, so the holding back of the letter is totally established. The reference you added yesterday makes is absolutely clear as daylight that Humphreys was acting on Washington orders. In fact, it goes into some detail about the whole process.
 * d) Humphreys was Washington's ADC - his humble personal aide. Is Anastrophe suggesting that Humphreys rifled through GW's letterbooks on Asgill, decided to have them published, all but one, without GW knowing anything about it? Had that happened, Humphreys would have been court martialled.
 * e) You, Cordless Larry, added a reference yesterday, produced by the NY Historical Society, in which it is clearly stated that WASHINGTON ordered that his papers be published. It was not known, 100 years after the events, that one letter was held back - that information only came to light in 2019 - so the NY Historical Society could not enlighten their readers on the matter. Clearly they did not bother to do the TALLY performed by the Lancaster Historical Society.
 * f) Cordless Larry, is it not permitted to have TWO sources, each clarifying a different aspect of the same story? - is LOGIC forbidden on Wikipedia? The role of an ADC is another aspect I had hoped Cinderella157, as a military expert, would comment on. ADCs are personal aides whose sole function is to do the bidding of their master (I've been one myself, so I really do know - the aiguillettes on my left shoulder prove it). ADCs are not Chiefs of Staff, who are far more elevated and independent in their remits.
 * g) As you well know, for medical reasons, I needed to leave Wikipedia on 1 October 2019. Do you think I will make that target by 1 October 2020, or will I still be going round and round the mulberry bush? When is time called on all of this - or will there be yet more encores? Anne (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If by logic, you mean combining two different sources to come to a conclusion not supported by either, then yes, that is forbidden. See WP:SYNTHESIS for an explanation of that. The book added as a source yesterday establishes that Washington instructed Humphreys. It's also established that Humphreys held back one letter. However, unless we have a source that establishes that Washington ordered Humphreys to withhold that letter, we can't report that, however certain it seems. The place to publish original interpretations of events is a history journal, not Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, so you have won! I humbly request that a compromise be reached. I request that the block quote be reinserted and that attached to that block quote be two sources 1) the Journal and 2) the source you added yesterday - rather than way down the text as you have it (unless it is permitted to have the NY Historical Society source quoted in both places}? I will not spend more time on this now, until (hopefully) you have accepted my wishes here. When all that is over, then I will go through the Asgill page with a fine tooth comb, because, aside from my request (below) I also have another edit request. But I prefer to deal with one thing at a time. Anne (talk) 08:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I just went to restore the quote to the main body of the article, and on considering the matter again, I think it makes things less clear to have it there than in the footnote. Part of the confusion is due to the wording of the final sentence of the quote: "chose not to include this letter which shows Washington violating Article XIV of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation". The lack of a comma before "which" confuses me. Does it mean that choosing not to include the letter shows Washington violated the article, or that the letter showed that? It's also confusing that the quote mentions Col. Humphreys, who hasn't been mentioned in the text to that point (so we don't know who he is). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've pointed out several times, I have absolutely no qualms or objections to the footnoted quote being directly in the article, though - based upon the confusion noted above by editor Cordless Larry - I think paraphrasing it in the body while keeping it as a footnote is the better presentation. I would submit -if it is agreeable - the following minor modifications instead of what's currently in the body of the article (I am not including the references here simply for readability - I fully support inclusion of both sources discussed):
 * "Washington was perturbed that the young man did not deny these rumours, nor did Asgill write to thank Washington for his release on parole. Speculation mounted as to his reasons; Washington ordered that his correspondence on the Asgill Affair be made public. These letters were printed in the New-Haven Gazette and the Connecticut Magazine on 16 November 1786—with the exception of his letter written to General Moses Hazen on 18 May 1782, in which Washington ordered Hazen to include conditional prisoners in the selection of lots. That order violated the 14th Article of Capitulation."
 * As well, to ease Anne's concerns, the only portion of this article that I edited is the material in question here. I've made no other edits to this article - easily enough confirmed by going to the article history page and searching on my username.
 * If I should choose to perform any other edits here - a choice I would not undertake lightly considering these recent issues - I would confine it to copy editing, which is largely what I do here on WP. Anastrophe (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Anne, it is not about winning or loosing. It is all about reaching a consensus. One cannot necessarily live with a compromise. A consensus is (idealy) something everybody can live with. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I am getting so confused here now. There should be a comma before which, but I C&Ped the quote directly from the Journal - can you add ', sic'???!!! I don't understand Cinderella157's "diff" - I hardly know what a 'diff' is and am rapidly sinking beneath the waves here- the block quote should be the full quote stating that 'Humphreys' withheld one letter (I'll not repeat my feelings about this and have come to the conclusion that, actually, this is Lancaster History's one failing in the Journal. Anne (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the ambiguity created by the omission of the comma myself. I don't have a problem with the proposed text per either. Adding the comma ie [,] also appears to be reasonable. Is the last of these objectionable to anyone else? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I just don't think the quote is very clear in general, I guess. We could perhaps replace "which" with "[that]", but I think I favour leaving the quote in the reference and paraphrasing the important parts for inclusion in the main text (the current approach). Cordless Larry (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry (just back from having breakfast) I think the quote needs to be highlighted as a block quote, I really do, because this is what is new 'news'. As mentioned, I would be most grateful if the two sources could be added to the block quote, however, if you and Cinderella157 think differently, then who am I to nay say? I definitely would like it settled. If I may read it all very carefully after that, and be allowed to comment (but only if needed) after the edits are done - that is my preference now. Anne (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies Anastrophe, I did not realise you were up in the US! Let me say I too support your edit here. Is it at all possible to have a block quote and your edit as well? If I may be permitted to say, though, that GW actually was livid! There are several letters, written between people in the UK to those in the US (strongly worded enough to reignite the revolution all over again!) - and it wasn't just GW who was livid. All his supporters were livid. "Perturbed" doesn't begin to cover it! Anne (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Anastrophe - please will you accept that I have been censured by several people now (some by email) for long posts. I have not said, anywhere, that you (a very-long-poster-yourself) were among those who censured me. 'Blocking' - 'Banning' - I don't know the technical difference, but being unable to post, at a critical time, was stressful.
 * Cinderella157 - I have not understood you on the matter of 'diffs' and my COI I'm afraid. I'm as thick as a plank on IT matters, but this is the quote I am hoping will be permitted as a block quote:
 * On May 18, 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. Anne (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The quote (as written) is (of itself) a "fact". Changing it might be construed as synthesis. Whether "which" or "that" and the application of a comma is more a matter of the semantics of grammar than of the meaning and that does not change the "fact" of what was stated. I am often corrected by MSword myself. Perhaps this is an ENGVAR (English variation between US and Brit) thing. To me, the letter shows Washington violating Article XIV of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation - not that omission of the letter was a violation of the articles. To my mind, let the quote speak to itself (with or without [,] - on which we might agree). On the otherhand, whether GW was "livid" or "perturbed" is a matter of WP voice and the latter (unless quoted) might be editrialising and synthesis. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, and don't want further discussion on the matter really. My only concern is casual browsers (who will not bother with clicking on links) - the actual historians, who want to look into this themselves, will read about what was being said in the coffee houses and London newspapers. These rumours got back to GW - let's just say he was not a happy bunny. If "Perturbed" is what we are going for I shall simply hope the seriously interested will look into it all for themselves, and not bypass it as something which no more than "Perturbed" GW. Anne (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha,ha, this is going on my wish-list! Shame I have to wait until October for birthday presents! It even mentions the "international incident". I shall be interested in this new take on matters. Reviewer, Tiffany, has this to say “okay, he did do a lot, but he was far from the perfect, never tell a lie, god-like figure most of us learn about in history class and from reading other biographies.” - You Never Forget Your First Anne (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry - As mentioned, I do not want to look at the Asgill page until revisions have been made, but I was just checking out Source [14] and couldn't help spotting this: "French plays were also written, and his descendant Anne Ammundsen writes that these "embellish[ed] the facts of the affair, often turn[ed] his very real tragedy into little more than a soap opera"." While I am utterly gobsmacked to see this, I cannot actually understand the purpose of the (ungrammatical) additions? Has the editor, who made these changes, purchased two of the French plays? - paid to have them trasnslated? - read them and therefore be able to comment about them - as I have myself? One of the plays has Asgill marrying Huddy's daughter, and the other play has him marrying Betty Penn - the daughter of a Quaker from Pennsylvania (who could that possibly be I wonder)? Would these marriages seem 'fanciful' to any researcher who bothers to go to the lengths I have gone with my research, not just me? Is this a fair edit on the Asgill page (it comes across to me as sarcastic)? Please tell me your views as to whether this is the type of editing permitted? Anne (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That edit was made by me (I've now fixed the grammar). Previously, the article reported that "French plays were also written, trivialising his plight to the point of reducing it to a soap opera", as if the latter part of that sentence was a fact, whereas it's your interpretation. That's why I attributed the interpretation to you as a historian (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). I haven't read the plays (doing so and coming to my own interpretation would be original research), but I have read what you have written about them, so the new version of the sentence attributes the interpretation to you. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I am certainly paying a massively high price for having gone onto the GW talk page in an attempt to uphold wikipedia's mantra about honesty, neutrality and lack of bias. I wish I had left, as I needed to, on 1 October last year. I'll be lucky to have two sentences left on the Asgill page, to represent all my work. I'm definitely not appreciated, that much is very clear - as I say, the edit comes across to me as very sarcastic.Anne (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What a strange response. I have directly credited your research in the text of an article, and you take this as a sign that you are not appreciated. I give up. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why the change was even necessary Cordless Larry. It comes across, to me, as though it is sarcastic. Rather like the newspaper article which stated "Who 'says' she is a descendant" - with the implicaion clearly being "well, that sounds implausible, for a start, since he died childless." - (legitimate childless that is). Am I not allowed even a point of view now? Anne (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It needed to be changed for the reason I gave above: because the previous wording reported your opinion ("trivialising his plight to the point of reducing it to a soap opera") as a fact. I don't see how it comes across as sarcastic, but you are of course free to suggest an alternative wording. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If this edit was, indeed, necessary - and if it wasn't written with sarcasm - then I would suggest it is explained why I came to that conclusion, and would suggest the following, and with the [] removed since they honestly look messy:
 * "embellished the facts of the affair, often turning his very real tragedy into little more than a soap opera. One play has Asgill marrying the daughter of Joshua Huddy and another has him marrying a Betty Penn (the daughter of a Quaker from Pennsylvania)".
 * I'm sorry if I misunderstood the situation - but by the same token would you please try, just try, to understand that I have had one hellava pasting in the past two weeks. I tried to take on the mighty wikipedia (single-handedly, against a fierce opposition, after Dormskirk left) trying to enforce its proclaimed 'mantras' - and got slaughtered in the process. Please also remember that you sent Dormskirk and me into the Lion's Den - we went on your say-so - lambs to the slaughter. And now the Asgill page is almost right back to where it was on 21 August 2019 - and my struggles to get anything done are right back to that point in time, having to wait for decisions to be made and others to do the edits. Like I am some sort of semi-criminal for having a famous ancestor. We don't make these choices ourselves when we are born. My mother only found out (through me) that she was a descendant one year before she died. She simply couldn't believe it, it seemed so far-fetched. Then on the GW page I was mockingly called "Lady Anne" - that was really lovely - not. Anne (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we can't change the wording of direct quotes without indicating that we've done so using the square brackets. The idea that the article is back to its 21 August state is a bit ridiculous (changes since then visible here), so I won't engage with that point. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would have been good manners to inform me that my name was going to appear in the text of the Asgill page - I nearly fainted when I saw what had been done and, for some unknown reason, I did not get a notification when it occurred. I would therefore suggest:
 * In her History Today article, Asgill's descendant, Anne Ammundsen, writes that the play performed at Versailles (commissioned by Queen Marie Antoinette, in honour of the Asgill family, and dedicated to Lady Asgill - Asgill, written by J.S. le Barbier le Jeune), "is a fanciful piece and bears little resemblance to reality." The author sent a copy of this play to Washington, but since he did not speak French, he thanked Barbier explaining that he had been unable to read it.
 * I have now found that letter Washington wrote, to insert as a source, but in the process of looking I found this: I do not believe there is any point in continuing with the main thrust of these discussions about Washington's 'withheld letter' until all parties involved in these discussions have read it, to inform themselves of the sequence of events leading up to GW deciding to publish (all but one) of his letters. It will be noted that all historians, writing these pieces, were unaware of GW's letter of 18 May 1782 being withheld from publication in 1786.


 * From this source it is now clarified that it was not until 1859 that ALL GW's letters were published and, therefore, in the public domain, by which time nobody was in the least bit interested in doing a TALLY as to whether all letters had been sent to New-Haven for publication (this source has the wrong date and title for that publication). In today's world this would be regarded as as "Cover Up".


 * Please also note - GW was "impassioned" - not "perturbed" Anne (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:BATTLE, WP:COI, WP:NOTAFORUM. Please. Please. The article talk page is for discussion regarding how to improve the article. This personal narrative has no direct relevance to improving the article. These posts only succeed in derailing the editorial process. You are, by every rational measure, too close to this subject. You should not be editing these articles at all. That's not my personal opinion, it is what the policy prescribes, and you agreed to abide by that to escape your recent block from editing. This suggests that you did not understand the conflict of interest guidelines, thus why I plead with you, again, to not just read the guidelines, but try to understand them. Please. Please. Anastrophe (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think what you are saying is that a) I am not supposed to be feeling bruised right now b) I should be a robot with no personal emotion or feelings and c) I am not allowed to go near the page I created (which I am not, because that would lead to instant and permanent blocking) even though I was 'left in peace' here for 12 years. Are you further saying that I should not be part of the discussion regarding edits at all? OK, will try harder to do just that, but it confuses me, when people ask me questions, and ask me to suggest edits. I don't know if I am on my head or my heels. It really would be best if I just left you all to knock about the page at will.Anne (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:BATTLE?
 * Have you read WP:COI?
 * Have you read WP:NOTAFORUM?
 * I couldn't carefully read all three of those in the brief interval since I just posted them. If you read those articles (though there are many more that are relevant), you should understand why this additional commentary isn't accomplishing anything. I personally don't want you to go away, or not contribute, or be blocked, or to be banned. It would be Wikipedia's loss if that happened. Please read those articles - even if you've read them before. Please. Anastrophe (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Source No. 14
I am delighted that Jjjjjjjjjj has added source No. 14 (although it is not pertinent to the present discussion and probably was not intended as such). However, this was one of the most crucial letters ever written in the whole of the Asgill Affair and led directly to Asgill being imprisoned at Timothy Day's Tavern, where he was badly abused. The quote from this letter ends with Washington's wish for Asgill to be treated well (this has never ever been denied by me - those were his wishes - but they were not carried out). Please may I request that the whole of what follows be included in the quote, because without the whole, it is very misleading to a reader who knows little about the story.


 * I am informed that Capt. Asgill is at Chatham, without Guard, & under no constraint—This if true is certainly wrong—I wish to have the young Gentleman treated with all the Tenderness possible, consistent with his present Situation—But untill his Fate is determined, he must be considered as a close prisoner & be kept in the greatest Security—I request therefore that he be sent immediately to the Jersey Line, where he is to be kept close prisoner, in perfect Security ’till further Orders. Anne (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Could this be dealt with? The current edit ends with how kind GW was, totally failing to mention the rest of the P.S. which states he is to be under close confinement. This close confinement led to Timothy Day's Tavern - which led to leg irons - and regular beatings. I consider that this is non-neutral - biased - and only half the truth. Anne (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Cinderella157, Cordless Larry and Anastrophe, please see my following post regarding the quote on the main page ("Please also note - GW was "impassioned" - not "perturbed" Anne (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC) Many thanks. Anne (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I copy from the main page:


 * Following Asgill's return to England, lurid accounts of his experiences whilst a prisoner began to emerge in the coffee houses and press. French plays were also written, and his descendant Anne Ammundsen writes that these "embellish[ed] the facts of the affair, often turn[ing] his very real tragedy into little more than a soap opera".[15] Washington was perturbed that the young man did not deny these rumours, nor did he write to thank Washington for his release on parole. Speculation mounted as to his reasons; Washington ordered that his correspondence on the Asgill Affair be made public.[16] His letters on the matter were printed in the New-Haven Gazette and the Connecticut Magazine on 16 November 1786, with the exception of his letter written to General Moses Hazen on 18 May 1782, ordering him to include conditional prisoners in the selection of lots, thereby violating the 14th Article of Capitulation.[17]


 * I object to the word "perturbed" and request some re-wording to reflect the truth, which was "impassioned".


 * I request that the block quote, from the Journal, be reinserted, with a link (1) to the Journal since that is the source to reveal these new revelations, and the other article, published in February and sourced by Victoriaearle, to be the secondary source. The latter reflects some of what is in the Journal, but is a very short article by comparison and does not cover the new information in nearly as much detail as the Journal.


 * I do not want my name on the main page. I want some re-wording to reflect what I have suggested, in the above thread (about Versailles etc), although I included my name because Cordless Larry insisted it was necessary, rather than simply linking (I do not understand why linking is not adequate, but then I understand little of what goes on on wikipedia)


 * I have ordered a copy of You Never Forget Your First (also published in February 2020) - and, once read, if there any new revelations I will be letting you all know. Please note - all who imagine that The Asgill Affair is "obscure" - there have, to my knowledge, been no less than 3 publications out since Christmas now.


 * Cordless Larry - we are most definitely back to 21 August 2019 - a committee has to agree every single word to go back onto the Asgill page, so what is not to understand about that, now that I am not allowed to edit myself?Anne (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

On Anne's quote per plays
and Anne, Per this edit, is "turn[ing]" a more accurate representation of the quote. Please revert if not. I hope this is otherwise now settled to everybodies satisfaction? For my part, I think it does. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The original source uses "turning", so there's no need for the brackets. I've reverted. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If editor Anne would prefer not to be named in the article for the quote, it should be fine to paraphrase and put the direct quote in a reference, I would think. Anastrophe (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

perturbed v angered
Per earlier talk, I've change the expression of GW's temperment regarding Asgills failure to rebut the rumors of his treatment from 'perturbed' to 'angered', which is supported by the source I've added. Anastrophe (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Direct links to Lancaster Journal
As I've mentioned before, the references to The Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society edition regarding Asgill are simply a link to their 'add to cart' page, which contains merely a paragraph summary; you have to purchase the journal for anything more than that brief snippet. However, the article in the Lancaster News Online edition goes into considerable detail about what is contained in the Journal's pages. Since the newspaper is picture-perfect secondary source, it would be far more desireable to use that as the reference rather than the purchase page for the Journal. Likewise, at the end of the article it has a prominent 'How to order the Journal' with a shorturl link to the purchase page - thus accomplishing exactly what the Journal purchase page accomplishes, but with rich details that can be easily verified by other editors. Thoughts? https://lancasteronline.com/features/lancaster-history-journal-publishes--year-old-letter-about-mistreatment/article_89211fbe-3fb5-11ea-bcc0-b352274300f4.html Anastrophe (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine where the Lancaster Online source supports the material, but in other instances, we still need to use articles in the journal, because there's much more detail in them than the secondary source can cover. In those instances, we can remove the link to the purchase page if there's consensus to do that. I would say though that when we reference a journal article with a DOI (as in many Wikipedia articles), those links do frequently take readers to paywalls, which is somewhat analogous. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, I think we should remove the link, because no full text is available online, and Template:Cite journal states that the field is for the "URL of an online location where the text of the publication named by title can be found". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Both are sources in their own right and could be cited as such. The online cite might also be added to the existing citation as a "see also". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed on all counts - where the Lancaster History Journal is the only authoritative source for what the text described, it is obviously the correct choice. For other places where the text is supported by both the Lancaster History Journal and the Lancaster Online newspaper's article about it - well, there's no harm in using both sources, for clarity. Anastrophe (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Spintendo's Request
Following Spintendo's involvement, and their comment that this matter may have fallen by the wayside, I see no option but for me to comment myself now. May I make it quite clear that this is almost physically painful for me to do, having to post here once more. Cordless Larry and Cinderella157 have mentioned to me that they are very busy, but it should be noted that they are both now in receipt of the Journal. If Anastrophe is around, would they consider, therefore, the following outstanding edits?


 * with Asgill drawing the paper which put him under threat of execution - should be changed to read: "drawing the unfortunate lot, putting him under threat of execution". The Journal or History Today is the reference. I have only ever seen it referred to as “the unfortunate lot” since that was how Asgill himself described it in his Service Records, which are in a block quote on that page - Edited to add - it should be in a block quote, but isn't. Changing the wording is wrong.


 * comte de Vergennes - The French use a lower case ‘c’ for comte
 * return to England in December 1782 should read "on 20 November 1782" - Ambrose E. Vanderpoel is the reference for this – his book is referenced elsewhere and is also in Further Reading. It happens to be the best record of all – until the Journal changed what has been previously recorded.


 * Reference [14]. This, as it stands, is biased. The quote ends with Washington’s wish for Asgill to be treated well. While true, it cuts out the most important bit, which is that Asgill must be held in close confinement, which is directly responsible for the dreadful abuse dished out towards him at Timothy Day’s Tavern (neither the tavern, nor the treatment dished out, has ever been recorded in history before - this is entirely new information from his now published letter). Therefore the Journal supports this. This GW to Dayton letter is one of the most important letters in the whole Asgill Affair and it is presented in a very biased way. I really do suggest that this is rectified and the entire quote from the letter be included on [14] (or the quote be removed and only a link to this important letter remain).


 * "and his descendant Anne Ammundsen writes that these" - I am extremely unhappy to have my name on the main Asgill page and have expressed this already. It feels like a violation of my human rights that my request has been ignored. I appreciate Anastrophe's willingness for this to be rectified. I made an entirely new proposal, accompanied by a document from the Mount Vernon papers, along with a letter from GW to the author, Barbier, but this too has been ignored,


 * In all other respects, I think the paragraph with my name in it is OK. While I had really wanted the block quote, from the Journal, to be reinserted (for dramatic effect!) I can see that that quote is complicated by the mention of GW’s ADC, Humphreys. It is best to leave the Humphreys complication out and have the bald facts, as now stated on the page, which are: – GW ordered a protected (conditional) prisoner to go to the gallows, and then, 4 years later, covered that fact up. [18] is the correct and only source for this information – i.e. the Journal. This has never been known before.

Separately, since I promised to inform editors - You Never Forget Your First by Alexis Coe arrived two days ago. I can see no evidence of any mention of The Asgill Affair in this book (regrettably, since "first diplomatic crisis" was in the blurb). Even Humphreys only gets one mention on one page and it has nothing to do with the matter here.

I would deem it a personal favour to have these edits attended to - especially appreciated would be editors not calling me back again by asking questions only I can answer. I've said it all a million times! My life is calmer and happier away from wikipedia. Please don't put me in this position again but Spintendo will be calling for other editors to get involved if action is not taken (see the edit records). Anne (talk) 12:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not willing to make any changes specifically on your behalf, editor Anne, I'm sorry. You have a conflict of interest - "as clear as day". There are no "personal favors" performed here on Wikipedia. One editor does not decide what the article says, in particular an editor with a patent conflict of interest. There is only consensus.
 * There are corrections to be made, and they will be made in due course. I sympathize with editor Anne's plight, but here is not the place to air it.
 * I have in my possession as of today a copy of the Lancaster Historical Society's Journal Vol 120. I will read it at my leisure. Three editors now have the Journal in hand, and the three (or any others who may percolate up) of us can collaborate - at our leisure - as to how to interpret it appropriately for encyclopedic consumption by non-expert readers. There is no urgency to fixing what errors may be extant. None.
 * I am delighted that Anastrophe now has a copy of the Journal. Three is good. Anne
 * I am pleased that you benefitted from taking a break. I would encourage you continue doing so, and to let go of this whole issue as specifically regards wikipedia. There is no need for this tempest in a teapot to continue; it does not benefit you, nor the encyclopedia. Your conflict of interest precludes your participation. I know it's frustrating - but you have no power to change that fact, so it would be best if you just let it go. Anastrophe (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would very much like to take your advice, but if I see something going horribly wrong it is going to be very difficult for me to stay silent, unless I am banned again, which I hope won't happen. Anne
 * I think you have made the COI point very adequately now. I didn't think my post today was a "tempest in a teapot" - I had hoped it would come across as a reasonable post. Anne
 * re "*comte de Vergennes - The French use a lower case ‘c’ for comte". That may be, however, according to the manual of style, there is no consensus regarding capitalization, and there is no material harm nor benefit to leaving it as it is. Since this is the English wikipedia, it's not an important distinction. Anastrophe
 * OK, if that is the situation. All I wondered was whether, when referring to a French comte it would be more appropriate to use the French style. I only wanted to draw attention to the distinction. Anne
 * re "with Asgill drawing the paper which put him under threat of execution - should be changed to read [...] Changing the wording is wrong.". No, that's not the case. WP prefers that source material be 'interpreted' - think 'digested' into articles. Quotes are fine, however over-reliance on quotes is discouraged. The characterization in the article is perfectly adequate - particularly since Asgill's characterization of it is quoted later on the page. Anastrophe (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies for misunderstanding. I suppose when I have only ever read, in all accounts, the use of the word "unfortunate" it simply looks weird to me to see different terminology. Please accept my apologies. Anne
 * re "return to England in December 1782 should read "on 20 November 1782"". As written the sentence is accurate - Asgill did not reach England until December of 1782 - he left for England in November, but the voyage at the time was at least six weeks.Anastrophe (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "The Swallow" made the fastest time, ever I think, in just over 4 weeks. Again, my apologies, but I thought that readers might be interested to know that he left on 20 November and arrived on 18 December. I certainly found it interesting when I read Vanderpoel's account. Anne
 * re Reference [14] - close examination of the sentence it is attached to shows it bears absolutely no direct relevance to the text it supposedly supports, which text is instead clearly described as being derived from Summit New Jersey, From Poverty Hill to the Hill City by Edmund B. Raftis. I have removed reference 14. The opening text referencing the book by raftis should instead be wrapped into a reference itself, but I will leave that for another time. Anastrophe (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Removing a reference, and such an important one, added by Jjjjjjj, unilaterally seems very strange to me. Jjjjjjj's addition was very valuable and belongs at the juncture when Asgill departed Dayton's house and went to TDT. Other editors may consider it needs to be reinstated, perhaps in a different spot. Anne
 * Would all editors please note. The Raftis book refers only to the map - nothing else whatsoever. I tried to get copyright permission from Raftis himself to use his (much better) map but failed in this attempt. My letter to him was returned to me yesterday as undeliverable. Anne
 * I've removed mention directly within article space of Anne Ammundsen - the quote is referenced, that is more than adequate. Anastrophe (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is very much appreciated. Anne (talk) 23:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I disagree with this decision. The quote presents an opinion and should be attributed in the text, per WP:INTEXT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would propose eliding the characterizations, as they are not important. Thus:
 * "Following Asgill's return to England, lurid accounts of his experiences whilst a prisoner began to emerge in the coffee houses and press, and French plays were written about the affair." retaining the reference at the end. Anastrophe (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Having Asgill marry Huddy's daughter and another having him marry the daughter of the [man aluded to being] the Founding Father of Pennsylvania is "reducing his very real tragedy to a soap opera", so could we go back to Cordless Larry's version please, much as I do not have any wish to have my name on the page, but accept the inevitability. Anne (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Those details are not important to Asgill's biography here on Wikipedia. Anastrophe (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've modified the sentence to remove the quote for now, pending any further discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * re "Removing a reference, and such an important one, added by Jjjjjjj, unilaterally seems very strange to me." Where the reference was located in the article it bore no relationship to the text it was ostensibly supporting. It may be a perfectly valid reference source, and indeed it is a perfectly valid reference - but not for the text it accompanied. It can certainly be used elsewhere in the article where it supports the text it accompanies. It may have simply been accidentally placed, but I'll leave that to the original editor to determine/repair if that case it may be. Anastrophe (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Summarizing and re-ordering
“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 known what follows since 2007, but it could not have been added until the Journal was published, so, here (and following on from the above wording), please will editors insert a new paragraph, reading:

“After leaving Lancaster, Asgill was transported to Chatham, New Jersey, under the close guard of 20 Dragoons, to await his execution, where he was initially accommodated at the home of Colonel Elias Dayton, who was in charge of the Jersey Line. On Washington’s orders, he was treated with kindness by the colonel. Asgill was even permitted to ride his horse for exercise, in the knowledge that he would return. However, it is known that Major James Gordon did, in fact, arrange for Asgill to be captured by the British, whilst out riding, thus saving him from execution. Nevertheless, Asgill refused to go with them, declaring that he had been chosen and would abide by it. [citation, Mayo and Vanderpoel – more of this is on the James Gordon page] Two weeks later, Washington, having heard that Asgill was not under close arrest, wrote to Dayton, on 11 June 1782,[citation, GW’s letter to Dayton originally inserted by Jjjjjjj] ordering him to be transferred to the [prisoner] huts. It is not known why this did not happen, but rather Asgill was placed under close confinement, in leg irons [the citation for leg irons is already given following his return to England], at Timothy Day’s Tavern. For the remainder of his six month imprisonment Washington’s orders that he be treated with respect were disobeyed, and Asgill suffered much abuse at the tavern, where money was paid by those who wished to beat or taunt him. He was also denied edible food; had jeering onlookers surrounding his bed at night, and was not given letters from his family.” [citation the Journal].


 * The paragraph commencing “Following Asgill's return to England, lurid accounts….” needs to be repositioned below the above. The entire chronological sequence of events seems to have become muddled and very confusing to anybody unfamiliar with the story. I’m not even sure if these suggestions will entirely sort the chronological issue. I'd be grateful for editors to help to get the story to 'flow' better. If we wait for Jjjjjjj to rectify their misplacement of the GW to Dayton letter, I fear we may be waiting for a long time. I am not aware that they have visited this page before or since. Anne (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * modified the reference, but wasn't the person who originally added it. See here. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * They annotated the original citation, making its relevance appear questionable? One would therefore need to look to the source and not the annotation for relevance. Too late tonight for me.  This might be a case of mixing citations with notes.  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Cordless Larry. You know I am totally lost on those edit/diff pages. I presume it was me "wot done it"? If so, I must have been asleep on the job and have totally forgotten. As Cinderella157 says - it was the "half quote" which gave a wrong overall impression. It was the "half truth" that I objected to.  I think it should be quoted in full in the link, or be only a link to the letter itself. I have proposed a new paragraph be inserted so that there is, then, a proper place for it. Anne (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Far too much detail in your proposed edit. The section on the Asgill Affair is steadily taking over this biography. It is an important aspect of Asgill's life, but this is gradually becoming a retelling of the book. We are here to SUMMARIZE the material for readers of the encyclopedia. The sources/citations/references exist so that interested readers can find and read the details elsewhere.
 * Once again, I am forced to remind editor Anne of the profound conflict of interest at play. I am keenly reluctant to seek engagement of formal sanctions; the thought of doing so leaves a bitter, metallic aftertaste for me. But you are not heeding any of the cautions you have been given countless times, by myself and other editors. You should not be editing this article, nor contributing on the talk pages of this article, or any article that pertains to Asgill - you are too close to the subject to contribute neutrally. I'm sorry, but every effort by other editors here is smothered by your insistence on controlling exactly how the narrative is written, which is entirely inappropriate. Please disengage, and let other editors do their job without attempting to supervise the process. Anastrophe (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Please would Cordless Larry and Cinderella157 confirm that the only person who knows this story inside out, is forbidden to even comment on the talk page? For instance, it was right that there was no appropriate place for the GW to Hazen letter - but now that I have drafted a proposed extra paragraph, to accommodate that very important letter, now that is also unacceptable. Anne (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless there's someone who's been banned without my knowledge, no one is forbidden from commenting on this or any other related talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur. I do not see that a COI intrinsically prohibits an editor from participating in a "related" talk page. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:OWN. Please re-read WP:COI. You are welcome to comment on the talk page; I suggested that you should not. Per WP:COI, you should confine your comments to simple corrections, and keep your comments short and to the point. The section on the Asgill affair already goes into far more detail than necessary. We are supposed to summarize Asgill's life. Every minute detail isn't needed. The problem is that if you keep on this path, you will wind up banned. I think it's probably inevitable that will happen, since you refuse to conform to policy on these matters. Anastrophe (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you show me how the very important letter, from GW to Hazen of 11 June 1782, can be accommodated, without an extra paragraph explaining why it was written in the first place? You were right to point out that there was nothing appropriate previously. Anne (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ""Washington had ordered that Asgill be treated kindly by his captors, who thus gave Asgill considerable liberty during his early imprisonment. Upon learning that Asgill was not being closely guarded, Washington ordered that he be placed under close confinement; he was then relocated to a local tavern for this purpose. For the remainder of his imprisonment Washington’s orders for kind treatment were apparently disobeyed; Asgill claimed to have suffered much abuse, being taunted and beaten, denied edible food, and not given letters from his family." [citations]"
 * We summarize the material. I don't expect the above is absolutely perfect, but it is a serviceable summary of what you wrote. Endless small details are unnecessary. Wordsmithing happily accepted. Anastrophe (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "Washington ordered that Asgill be treated kindly by his captors, who thus gave Asgill considerable liberty during his first two weeks imprisonment with Colonel Dayton.[the map I was unable to use gives clear answers to just where Asgill was located, so it is important to mention Dayton, whose house was only demolished in the 1970s] Upon learning that Asgill was not being closely guarded, Washington ordered that he be placed under close confinement; he was then relocated to a local tavern for this purpose. For the remainder of his imprisonment [not necesssary in such a short para to have Washington’s orders for kind treatment repeated in my view - it seems to be overlabouring the point] Asgill claimed to have suffered much abuse, being taunted and beaten, denied edible food, and not given letters from his family."
 * It's a shame to lose the bit about the British capturing Asgill, and him refusing to go along with it, since it demonstrates his character, but so be it, if the other two editors agree as well. Would it then be possible to include the 11 June letter, either quoted fully, or not at all, with simply a link to it? Anne (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * so, proposed: ""Washington had ordered that Asgill be treated kindly by his captors,[insert ref to GW letter] who thus gave Asgill considerable liberty during his first two weeks imprisonment with Colonel Dayton. Upon learning that Asgill was not being closely guarded, Washington ordered that he be placed under close confinement; he was then relocated to a local tavern for this purpose. For the remainder of his imprisonment, Asgill claimed to have suffered much abuse, being taunted and beaten, denied edible food, and not given letters from his family.""


 * ...Inserting other references as appropriate. We should now wait for other editors to chime in. Anastrophe (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear here, the above is a suggested summary, largely demonstrating that we can trim details as needed. In proposing it, I'm not suggesting it needs to be this terse, nor that I'm 'married' to any particular version of it. I think something in between the original proposal and this one would suffice. We merely need to collaborate on the specifics. Anastrophe (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Anastrophe. I can live with that, but would simply ask for further opinions regarding the British arresting Asgill etc. which was described by both Mayo and Vanderpoel. Anne (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you again Anastrophe. Would you, and the other editors, be prepared for the following to be added?
 * It is known that Major James Gordon arranged for Asgill to be captured by the British, whilst out riding, thus saving him from execution. Nevertheless, Asgill refused to go with them, declaring that he had been chosen and would abide by it. [citation, Vanderpoel, Mayo and the Journal]. Anne (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

More re-ordering needed
Reading from top to bottom, the 'Asgill affair' section is pretty badly jumbled. The narrative is there, but it vacillates in describing events before, during, and after his confinement in a choppy way. I may be up to the task later today. Anastrophe (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Anastrophe. I completely agree - it is not chronological is it. I think that is what happens when little edits are made here and there and then the whole ends up muddled. I believe that Cinderella157 is about to make some suggestions, so would you be prepared to wait until we hear from them? Anne (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this particular form of "corruption" occurs frequently on WP, it's a side-effect of dispute/discuss/adjust cycles. I'm in no hurry. On the other hand, the nature of WP is that it neither abhors nor embraces a vacuum. If I work on the ordering, and it's not sufficient, Cinderella157 can adjust to what Cinderella157 intuits is best, and so it goes... Anastrophe (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

To summarise and order the key points
Hi Anastrophe, Anne, Cordless Larry, User:Jjjjjjjjjj, User:Dormskirk and anybody else following this page.

To my mind, the previous (recent) discussions identify a need to identify, summarise and achieve consensus on the key points of the "Asgill affair" and the order in which to present them. To this end, I have prepared a summary of what I percieve to be the key points (presented in an order) at User:Cinderella157/sandbox 5. The purpose for this is to facilitate discussion with an end of achieving a consensus. Armed with this, we might amend and populate the existing section with text that reflects such a summary. Please note, that I have suggested a sub-section for the "Public reaction to the Asgill affair", or similar.

To this end, I invite everybody with an interest to engage in a work-shopping of the summary points on the linked page. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Cinderella157. You have my grateful thanks for the huge amount of time and effort you have put into this. Thank you. Anne (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it later tonight (I'm in US/Pacific TZ). Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The Asgill Affair Video
Whilst looking for something else on YouTube, the following came to my attention. Could someone please put a link on the Asgill page? “The Asgill Affair - The Random Execution That Almost Reignited the Revolutionary War” – YouTube video 25 May 2020 by Jason Mandresh. Just a shame the author says "hung" (as in the laundry) when he meant "hanged". Anne (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dormskirk. Would be grateful if you could include "25 May 2020 by Jason Mandresh" - or somehow include the author and the date? Anne (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Seeing this prompted me to think that you should lobby Horrible Histories to cover the Asgill Affair, . Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am always delighted to be given suggestions like this Cordless Larry. I will investigate! Anne (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have now contacted HH through FB. Fingers crossed they get back to me! Anne (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

First and Always: A New Portrait of George Washington
Something has happened which I have dreamed of happening for a couple of decades. And it has brought me to tears! I am lucky enough to have been sent an advance copy of the chapter on the Asgill Affair (“Unfortunate” The Asgill Affair and George Washington’s Self-Created Dilemma) extracted from First and Always: A New Portrait of George Washington by Peter R. Henriques (the author of ). This chapter is the most wonderfully accurate, detailed and unbiased account ever to be written and he did all this without having set eyes on The Journal, much less Asgill’s letter! So much bias has entered the equation in the over 200 years of writing this story, that it has become worse and worse for Asgill in terms of his reputation. This professor has vindicated him - and vindicated me too in so doing. Is it too soon (publication in September) for this book to be included in Further Reading? My only regret is that I cannot remember the name of the female editor on the GW talk page who introduced me to Henriques – because I would like to thank her again, but can’t. Peter also volunteered that he hopes his book will lead to the film, without knowing that that has always been my dream too! I’m very happy at this turn of events! Anne (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's very good news. But I would wait until September before mentioning the book under further reading: wikipedia readers need to be able to obtain the book if they want to. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Advance copies can be ordered now, but if it must wait, will you deal with this in September please ? Please don't crush my excitement - the link I gave was a 'for sale' link - did you click on it? Anne (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added it now (in case I don't remember in September!) Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As often seems to be the case with books these days, there's a preview on Google Books before it's officially published. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dormskirk. And, wow Cordless Larry - amazing and unexpected. To my astonishment I was able to leave a review!Anne (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The Asgill Affair
I have long been aware that this section is chronologically a mess and I have therefore spent some time getting the sequence of events correctly recorded. I have expanded slightly on Moses Hazen's role, and also included a short section regarding the part played by Elias Dayton, thereby being able to include Washington's letter to him of 11 June 1782, telling him that Asgill must be confined as a close prisoner. I have kept the sources intact so I am afraid what follows looks horribly like the edit page. I hope the wood will still be extractable from the trees and that someone will be kind enough to replace the following and delete what is currently on the page:

The "Asgill Affair" In April 1782, a captain of the Monmouth Militia and privateer named Joshua Huddy was overwhelmed and captured by Loyalist forces at the blockhouse (small fort) he commanded at the village of Toms River, New Jersey. Huddy was accused of complicity in the death of a Loyalist farmer named Philip White who had died in Patriot custody. Huddy was conveyed to New York City, then under British control, where he was summarily sentenced to be executed by William Franklin, the Loyalist son of Benjamin Franklin.

Huddy was held in leg irons aboard a prison ship until 12 April 1782, when he was taken ashore and hanged, after first being allowed to dictate his last will. Loyalists pinned a note to his chest reading "Up Goes Huddy for Philip White" and his body was left hanging overnight. Following his burial at Old Tennent Church by Patriotic supporters, a petition was collected demanding retribution for Huddy's death and presented to American commander General George Washington.

Washington responded to this pressure by declaring that a British captain would be executed in retaliation for the killing of Huddy. On 27 May 1782, lots were drawn at the Black Bear Inn, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, with Asgill‘s name being drawn by a drummer boy, together with the paper marked “Unfortunate”, which put him under threat of execution. Asgill's fellow officer, Major James Gordon, protested in the strongest terms to both General Washington and Benjamin Lincoln, the Secretary of War, that this use of a lottery was illegal.

After lots were drawn on 27 May 1782, Brigadier General Moses Hazen who had been in charge of the proceedings, wrote that same day to Washington to inform him that Major James Gordon had identified unconditional prisoners, but that Asgill was on his way to imprisonment for the next six months, where he awaited the gallows on a daily basis. He also told Washington that his orders of 3rd and 18th May 1782 had been painful for him to carry out. "Since I wrote the above Majr Gordon has furnished me with an Original Letter of which the inclosed is a Copy, by which you will see we have a Subaltern Officer and unconditional Prisoner of War at Winchester Barracks. I have also just received Information that Lieut. Turner, of the 3rd Brigade of Genl Skinner’s New-Jersey Volunteers is in York Goal—but as those Informations did not come to Hand before the Lots were drawn, and my Letters wrote to your Excellency and the Minister of War on the Subject, and 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 [on 3rd May], 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". From Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Asgill was conveyed to Chatham, New Jersey, where he was under the jurisdiction of Colonel Elias Dayton, and in close proximity to the people of Monmouth County, who wished him to atone for Huddy’s execution. Dayton housed Asgill in his own quarters and treated him kindly.  However, in a P.S. to his letter to Dayton of 11 June 1782, Washington wrote telling him to send Asgill to the Jersey Lines under close arrest, adding that he should be “treated with all the Tenderness possible, consistent with his present Situation”. In the event, however, Asgill was sent, under close arrest, to Timothy Day’s Tavern.

On hearing of her son’s impending execution, Asgill’s mother, the doughty Sarah Theresa, Lady Asgill (of French Huguenot origin), wrote to the French court, pleading for her son's life to be spared. King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette ordered the comte de Vergennes, the Foreign Minister, to convey to General Washington their desire that a young life be spared. Since France had also signed the Treaty of Capitulation, protecting prisoners of war from retaliation, they too were bound to honour the terms. Asgill was thus protected by the 14th Article of Capitulation in the document of Cornwallis's surrender, safeguarding prisoners of war. Such an unjustified execution would have reflected badly on France, as well as the newly emerging independent nation of America. Lady Asgill’s letter, together with that from Vergennes, were presented to Congress for their consideration. These letters arrived just as Congress was about to vote to execute Asgill, but after much debate Congress agreed that young Asgill should be released on parole to return to England. He arrived home in December 1782, following his six month captivity. A year later, together with his mother (who had been too ill to travel sooner) and his two eldest sisters, he went to France to thank the King and Queen for saving his life. The visit commenced on 3 November 1783. Asgill writes about this experience in his Service Records, in which he states, "The unfortunate Lot fell on me and I was in consequence conveyed to the Jerseys where I remained in Prison enduring peculiar Hardships for Six Months until released by an Act of Congress at the intercession of the Court of France."

On page 44 of Summit New Jersey, From Poverty Hill to the Hill City by Edmund B. Raftis there appears a map of Chatham in 1781. Clearly marked is the home of Colonel Dayton and also Timothy Day’s Tavern, the first and second locations of Asgill’s imprisonment. The map also shows that the population of Chatham at that time was approximately 50 homesteads, most of these homes having been notated with the names of the occupants. A 21st century map shows that the present day location of Timothy Day’s Tavern would be in the vicinity of 19 Iris Road and Dayton’s house was on what is now Canoe Brooke Golf Course.

It was recorded in The Reading Mercury (a British local newspaper) on 30 December 1782, that Asgill (newly returned home following imprisonment in America) was at the levée for the first time since his arrival in town. This newspaper also recorded that Asgill's legs were still damaged from the use of leg irons.

Following Asgill's return to England, lurid accounts of his experiences whilst a prisoner began to emerge in the coffee houses and press, and French plays were written about the affair. Washington was angered that the young man did not deny these rumours, nor did he write to thank Washington for his release on parole. Speculation mounted as to his reasons; Washington ordered that his correspondence on the Asgill Affair be made public. His letters on the matter were printed in the New-Haven Gazette and the Connecticut Magazine on 16 November 1786, with the exception of his letter written to General Moses Hazen on 18 May 1782, ordering him to include conditional prisoners in the selection of lots, thereby violating the 14th Article of Capitulation.

It was five weeks before Charles Asgill was able to obtain a copy and sit down to read the account of his experiences, as recorded by George Washington. He wrote an impassioned response by return of post. His letter was also sent to the editor of the New-Haven Gazette and the Connecticut Magazine.

Asgill's 18-page letter of 20 December 1786, including claims that he was treated like a circus animal, with drunken revellers paying good money to enter his cell and taunt or beat him, was not published. Supposedly left for dead after one such attack, he was subsequently permitted to keep a Newfoundland dog to protect himself. "I leave for the public to decide how far the treatment I have related deservd acknowledgements — the motives of my silence were shortly theseThe state of my mind at the time of my release was such that my judgement told me I could not with sincerity return thanksmy feelings would not allow me to give vent to reproaches"

Asgill's unpublished letter was offered for sale by an antiquarian bookseller in the United States in 2007, priced at $16,500. It was purchased by an anonymous private collector. It has since been published, in the Winter 2019 issue of the Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society.

On 12 April 1982, a bicentennial commemorative cover for the Huddy-Asgill affair was produced.

Historian Louis Masur argues that the Huddy-Asgill affair, in particular, "injected the issue of the death penalty into public discourse" and increased American discomfort with it.

Many thanks. Anne (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Before I made the changes,, could you just confirm that the reference fixes I applied in this edit are OK? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC


 * It is looking perfect to me and is therefore ready for you to upload when it is convenient for you to do so. Just a reminder that ref [9] above needs to tie in with all the other mentions of the Journal!  One final point. I linked Hazen to his WP page, but is there any way to adjust it so that the link goes directly to mention of the Asgill Affair on his page? It will be a great relief to get the section in proper order after waiting so long. My grateful thanks again. Anne (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's now done,, with the exception of the Hazen link, as I disagree with you on that - when clicking the name of a person, the reader should reasonable be expected to be taken to their overall bibliography. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I am grateful for the revised update, but having now done a word-for-word check, I regret to say that a short section has somehow been omitted. Following on from "thereby violating the 14th Article of Capitulation.[22]" the following needs to be reinserted (it was on the previous page, now deleted): On May 18, Washington had 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.  Looking back at my original revised draft in a Word document, I think the error originated with me somehow interfering, unintentionally, with the citations. Anne (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely that just repeats what's reported by "His letters on the matter were printed in the New-Haven Gazette and the Connecticut Magazine on 16 November 1786, with the exception of his letter written to General Moses Hazen on 18 May 1782, ordering him to include conditional prisoners in the selection of lots, thereby violating the 14th Article of Capitulation", ? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hard to argue with your reasoning really! Maybe I've gone stir crazy with the task of unravelling what was a chronological mess?! I just have a nagging feeling, which I cannot put my finger on, that some mysterious nuance has been lost! Never mind, let's call it a day! Anne (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)