Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow TO JAMES McHENRY. - The Writings of George Washington, vol. X (1782-1785)

Return to Title Page for The Writings of George Washington, vol. X (1782-1785)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: War and Peace
Topic: The American Revolution and Constitution

TO JAMES McHENRY. - George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, vol. X (1782-1785) [1891]

Edition used:

The Writings of George Washington, collected and edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford (New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890). Vol. X (1782-1785).

Part of: The Writings of George Washington, 14 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


TO JAMES McHENRY.

Recrimination would be useless. I forbear, therefore, to mention numerous instances, which have stained the reputation of your arms, marked the progress of this war with unusual severity, and disgraced the honor of human nature itself. While I wave this ungrateful discussion, I repeat the assertion, that it is my most ardent desire, not only to soften the inevitable calamities of war, but even to introduce on every occasion as great a share of tenderness and humanity as can possibly be exercised in a state of hostility.1

My dear Sir,

I have the honor to be, &c.

Mr. Lindsay handed me your favor of the 14th. The disposition of the Prisoners is not with me, but I have accompanied your request to the Secretary at War, and have no doubt of his acquiescence. If the Ladies should derive as much additional pleasure from the allurement of this Band, as I wish them, they will soon be at the summit of happiness.

[1 ]“In answer to my letter the British general informs me, that a court-martial is ordered for the trial of the persons complained of; but at the same time says, that those people offer, in justification of the fact, a number of instances of cruelty committed by us, and particularly in Monmouth county. Though this is by no means admitted, but on the contrary orders are given to designate and send to camp a British officer, who, if my demand is not complied with, will be executed; yet I cannot forbear observing to your Excellency, that, whilst we demand satisfaction from the enemy for the violences they commit, it becomes us to be particularly careful, that they have not a like claim on us; and I must beg you to make it known to all persons acting in a military capacity in your State, that I shall hold myself obliged to deliver up to the enemy, or otherwise to punish, such of them as shall commit any act, which is in the least contrary to the laws of war, I doubt not of your doing the same with those, who come under the civil power.

“The enemy also complain of the detention of Hatfield and Badgely, who, they say, were out by direction of our commissary of prisoners under sanction of a flag. I must beg your Excellency to inform me, as soon as possible, of the circumstances attending their capture, and the causes of their detention. If those causes are not strictly just, I could wish they were sent in.”—Washington to Governor Livingston, 6 May, 1782. One Hatfield had offered in the spring of 1780 to supply Washington with intelligence, and though the General was “suspicious of the man” he did employ him, but to what extent is not known. This was thought to be Moses Hatfield, and may have been the same who is thus associated with Isaac Badgely. These two men were condemned as guilty of treason by the civil tribunal of New Jersey.

“As I had the honor in my last [June 10th] of transmitting the circumstances relating to Hatfield and Badgely, to inform you, that, finding them entirely in the hands of the civil power, it was not within my line to say any thing further on the subject; so, from the tenor of your letter, it becomes necessary for me now to be very explicit in mentioning to your Excellency, that, in matters of civil resort, I am not authorized, in any case, to make the least interference. The civil laws, within the several States, having been passed without any agency of mine, I am equally excluded from any part in their execution; neither is it to be supposed, that they are under any control or influence from me. The civil power, therefore, of the States only being competent to the discussion of civil points, I shall leave them solely to their consideration, being determined to confine myself to the proper line of my duty, which is purely military.”—Washington to Sir Guy Carleton, 22 June, 1782.

[1 ]“In answer to my letter the British general informs me, that a court-martial is ordered for the trial of the persons complained of; but at the same time says, that those people offer, in justification of the fact, a number of instances of cruelty committed by us, and particularly in Monmouth county. Though this is by no means admitted, but on the contrary orders are given to designate and send to camp a British officer, who, if my demand is not complied with, will be executed; yet I cannot forbear observing to your Excellency, that, whilst we demand satisfaction from the enemy for the violences they commit, it becomes us to be particularly careful, that they have not a like claim on us; and I must beg you to make it known to all persons acting in a military capacity in your State, that I shall hold myself obliged to deliver up to the enemy, or otherwise to punish, such of them as shall commit any act, which is in the least contrary to the laws of war, I doubt not of your doing the same with those, who come under the civil power.

“The enemy also complain of the detention of Hatfield and Badgely, who, they say, were out by direction of our commissary of prisoners under sanction of a flag. I must beg your Excellency to inform me, as soon as possible, of the circumstances attending their capture, and the causes of their detention. If those causes are not strictly just, I could wish they were sent in.”—Washington to Governor Livingston, 6 May, 1782. One Hatfield had offered in the spring of 1780 to supply Washington with intelligence, and though the General was “suspicious of the man” he did employ him, but to what extent is not known. This was thought to be Moses Hatfield, and may have been the same who is thus associated with Isaac Badgely. These two men were condemned as guilty of treason by the civil tribunal of New Jersey.

“As I had the honor in my last [June 10th] of transmitting the circumstances relating to Hatfield and Badgely, to inform you, that, finding them entirely in the hands of the civil power, it was not within my line to say any thing further on the subject; so, from the tenor of your letter, it becomes necessary for me now to be very explicit in mentioning to your Excellency, that, in matters of civil resort, I am not authorized, in any case, to make the least interference. The civil laws, within the several States, having been passed without any agency of mine, I am equally excluded from any part in their execution; neither is it to be supposed, that they are under any control or influence from me. The civil power, therefore, of the States only being competent to the discussion of civil points, I shall leave them solely to their consideration, being determined to confine myself to the proper line of my duty, which is purely military.”—Washington to Sir Guy Carleton, 22 June, 1782.