Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow TO BRIGADIER-GENERAL HAZEN. - 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 BRIGADIER-GENERAL HAZEN. - 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 BRIGADIER-GENERAL HAZEN.

I have had the pleasure of receiving your private letter of the 12th instant. I cannot but think the conduct of [Congress], respecting the release of Lord Cornwallis very extraordinary. Is it reasonable that Mr. Laurens should be at full liberty, and acting as a commissioner in Europe, while Lord Cornwallis, for whose liberation he pledged his own honor, and consequently as a public man the honor of the States, is held bound by his parole? Either disavow the propriety of Mr. Laurens’s conduct, and let him be remanded by the British ministry, or set Lord Cornwallis at equal liberty. I am placed in a very delicate situation. Sir Guy Carleton has given me official information of the transaction, and has called for a confirmation of Mr. Laurens’s act. I have referred the matter to the proper place, and I can obtain no answer. In my letters to General Carleton I am obliged to be for the present silent, but I certainly must expect to hear from him again. Do, my good Sir, endeavor to obtain a decision upon this matter.1

Head-Quarters, 4 June, 1782.

Sir,

Your public letter of the 12th covers a resolve of the same date, authorizing me to propose a meeting of commissioners for establishing a cartel, &c. Here again I am somewhat embarrassed, never having yet received either the approbation or disapprobation of Congress upon the proceedings of the former commissioners, General Knox and Mr. Gouverneur Morris, although they were transmitted so long ago as the 30th of April last. It appears by the report of those gentlemen, that the negotiation was principally broken off on account of the disposition, which plainly appeared on the part of the British commissioners to procure the exchange of their soldiers in our hands without settlement of accounts, making any payment, or giving any security for the payment of the large sum which, we conceive, is due. Now Congress, in the resolve to which I have just referred, make no reference to any former transaction, but authorize me to settle a cartel, “taking care that the liquidation of accounts and settlement of the balance due for the maintenance of prisoners be provided for therein.” From this it may possibly be said, it may be inferred, that they do approve the former proceedings, and mean to make the settlement of accounts a preliminary; but this is an inference only, and may be a false one; and therefore I wish you would be good enough to endeavor to find out the true meaning of the House, and to procure a determination upon the former proceedings.

I have received your favor of the 27th of May, and am much concerned to find, that Captain Asgill has been sent on, notwithstanding the information, which you had received, of there being two unconditional prisoners of war in our possession. I much fear, that the enemy, knowing our delicacy respecting the propriety of retaliating upon a capitulation officer in any case, and being acquainted that unconditional prisoners are within our power, will put an unfavorable construction upon this instance of our conduct. At least, under present circumstances, Captain Asgill’s application to Sir Guy Carleton will, I fear, be productive of remonstrance and recrimination only, which may possibly tend to place the subject upon a disadvantageous footing.1

1 The same commissioners will probably be appointed upon our part, and, could they be assured their former principles were thought good, they would proceed with more confidence upon a future occasion. I confess to you, I have found so many difficulties thrown in the way of all former transactions of this nature, that I could ever wish Congress to be as full and explicit as possible, as to the points which they would have either conceded or demanded. I would prefer that mode on many accounts, as you may easily conceive, to unlimited powers. But what I principally now want to be assured of is, whether they do or do not approve the conduct of the former commissioners, and the principles which they seemed desirous of establishing. With much truth and affection, I am, &c.1

To remedy, therefore, as soon as possible this mistake, you will be pleased immediately to order, that Lieutenant Turner, the officer you mention to be confined in York gaol, or any other prisoner, who falls within my first description, may be conveyed on to Philadelphia, under the same regulations and directions as were heretofore given, that he may take the place of Captain Asgill. In the meantime, lest any misinformation respecting Mr. Turner may have reached you, which might occasion further mistake and delay, Captain Asgill will be detained until I can learn a certainty of Lieutenant Turner’s or some other officer’s answering our purpose; and, as their detention will leave the young gentleman now with us in a very disagreeable state of anxiety and suspense, I must desire, that you will be pleased to use every means in your power to make the greatest despatch in the execution of this order.

[1 ]“At the drawing of lots, which was done in the presence of Major Gordon and all the British captains within the limits prescribed, the unfortunate lot has fallen on Captain Charles Asgill, of the guards, a young gentleman nineteen years of age; a most amiable character; the only son of Sir Charles Asgill; heir to an extensive fortune and an honorable title; and of course he has great interest in the British court and army. The British officers are highly enraged at the conduct of Sir Henry Clinton; they have solicited my leave to send an officer to New York on this occasion, or that I would intercede with the minister of war to grant it. Being fully convinced, that no inconvenience could possibly arise to our cause from this indulgence, but, on the contrary, that good policy and humanity dictate the measure, I was pleased at the application, and with cheerfulness have recommended to the minister of war to grant the honorable Captain Ludlow, son to the Earl of Ludlow, leave to carry the representations of those unfortunate officers, who openly declare they have been deserted by their general, and given up to suffer for the sins of the guilty.”—Hazen to Washington, 27 May, 1782.

[1 ]The letter from Sir Guy Carleton and Admiral Digby to General Washington was referred by Congress to a committee, who, on the part relating to Mr. Laurens, “proposed and reported, that the General should he directed to empower his commissioners [for negotiating a cartel] to release Earl Cornwallis from his parole in return for the indulgence granted to Mr. Laurens; but Mr. Rutledge, one of the committee, inveighed against this with so much warmth and indignation, that it was rejected with a loud and general No from all parts of the House. Nothing was said on the proposition of exchanging soldiers for seamen. Congress deemed it inexpedient to touch upon that matter at present, or to do any thing that might serve as a pretext for refusing to settle a cartel; and apprehended, if a general cartel was established, provision might be made therein for a release of our seamen, as well as for preventing the capture of unarmed citizens.”—Charles Thomson’s MS. Sketch of the Debate in Congress, August 12th.

At the solicitation of Mr. Laurens after he was set at liberty, and after the return of Lord Cornwallis to England, Dr. Franklin sent to the latter a paper discharging him from his parole, but reserving to Congress the approbation or disallowance of the act. In consequence of this form of release, Lord Cornwallis considered himself at liberty, and took his seat in the House of Peers.—Diplomatic Correspondence, vol. iii., pp, 362, 373.

[1 ]On the 28th Washington applied direct to Congress for a determination of the following points, before he could carry the resolution of the 12th into effect: “Whether I am to confirm the exchange of Lord Cornwallis for the Hon’ble Mr. Laurens; and whether it is their intention, that the proposal contained in the letter of Sir Guy Carleton and Admiral Digby, of the 2d of August, “to exchange soldiers for sailors,” on the conditions mentioned by those gentlemen, should be acceded to. The last, should we be fortunate enough to obtain a liquidation of accounts (and we must go prepared to suppose that we shall be able to effect it), will be the great point in controversy; and, as it is one of the vast political importance, I wish to be explicitly instructed by Congress upon it.”—See Journals of Congress, 9 September, 1782.

[1 ]“What can Induce Congress to restrain the Issues of the full Number of Rations to any Officer in the Army, which his Rank entitles him to?—when if they mean fair, it is to the public a mere matter of moonshine, whether the Financier pays the Value of them to that Officer if he does not draw them—or to the Contractor if he does?

“Can these things fail to irritate—and irritating, are they not pregnant with mischief? Is it policy—is it Justice to keep a sore constantly gangreened, when no good End is, or possibly can be answered by it? Should men, who have indured more, & received less of their pay than any other Class of people in public Service, have so little Consideration or Attention paid to their Interests or Comforts?

“Would to God, false policy, Inattention or something else, may not be productive of disagreement which will prove irreconcilable.”—Washington to the Secretary at War, 21 August, 1782.

[1 ]“At the drawing of lots, which was done in the presence of Major Gordon and all the British captains within the limits prescribed, the unfortunate lot has fallen on Captain Charles Asgill, of the guards, a young gentleman nineteen years of age; a most amiable character; the only son of Sir Charles Asgill; heir to an extensive fortune and an honorable title; and of course he has great interest in the British court and army. The British officers are highly enraged at the conduct of Sir Henry Clinton; they have solicited my leave to send an officer to New York on this occasion, or that I would intercede with the minister of war to grant it. Being fully convinced, that no inconvenience could possibly arise to our cause from this indulgence, but, on the contrary, that good policy and humanity dictate the measure, I was pleased at the application, and with cheerfulness have recommended to the minister of war to grant the honorable Captain Ludlow, son to the Earl of Ludlow, leave to carry the representations of those unfortunate officers, who openly declare they have been deserted by their general, and given up to suffer for the sins of the guilty.”—Hazen to Washington, 27 May, 1782.

[1 ]The letter from Sir Guy Carleton and Admiral Digby to General Washington was referred by Congress to a committee, who, on the part relating to Mr. Laurens, “proposed and reported, that the General should he directed to empower his commissioners [for negotiating a cartel] to release Earl Cornwallis from his parole in return for the indulgence granted to Mr. Laurens; but Mr. Rutledge, one of the committee, inveighed against this with so much warmth and indignation, that it was rejected with a loud and general No from all parts of the House. Nothing was said on the proposition of exchanging soldiers for seamen. Congress deemed it inexpedient to touch upon that matter at present, or to do any thing that might serve as a pretext for refusing to settle a cartel; and apprehended, if a general cartel was established, provision might be made therein for a release of our seamen, as well as for preventing the capture of unarmed citizens.”—Charles Thomson’s MS. Sketch of the Debate in Congress, August 12th.

At the solicitation of Mr. Laurens after he was set at liberty, and after the return of Lord Cornwallis to England, Dr. Franklin sent to the latter a paper discharging him from his parole, but reserving to Congress the approbation or disallowance of the act. In consequence of this form of release, Lord Cornwallis considered himself at liberty, and took his seat in the House of Peers.—Diplomatic Correspondence, vol. iii., pp, 362, 373.

[1 ]On the 28th Washington applied direct to Congress for a determination of the following points, before he could carry the resolution of the 12th into effect: “Whether I am to confirm the exchange of Lord Cornwallis for the Hon’ble Mr. Laurens; and whether it is their intention, that the proposal contained in the letter of Sir Guy Carleton and Admiral Digby, of the 2d of August, “to exchange soldiers for sailors,” on the conditions mentioned by those gentlemen, should be acceded to. The last, should we be fortunate enough to obtain a liquidation of accounts (and we must go prepared to suppose that we shall be able to effect it), will be the great point in controversy; and, as it is one of the vast political importance, I wish to be explicitly instructed by Congress upon it.”—See Journals of Congress, 9 September, 1782.

[1 ]“What can Induce Congress to restrain the Issues of the full Number of Rations to any Officer in the Army, which his Rank entitles him to?—when if they mean fair, it is to the public a mere matter of moonshine, whether the Financier pays the Value of them to that Officer if he does not draw them—or to the Contractor if he does?

“Can these things fail to irritate—and irritating, are they not pregnant with mischief? Is it policy—is it Justice to keep a sore constantly gangreened, when no good End is, or possibly can be answered by it? Should men, who have indured more, & received less of their pay than any other Class of people in public Service, have so little Consideration or Attention paid to their Interests or Comforts?

“Would to God, false policy, Inattention or something else, may not be productive of disagreement which will prove irreconcilable.”—Washington to the Secretary at War, 21 August, 1782.