weighed the circumstance urged in its favor; and that the disavowal of the outrage by the British general, and a solemn promise to pursue the guilty authors of it, afforded the most honorable ground on which Congress might make their retreat. Others, again, contended for an enumeration of all the reasons which led to the measure. Lastly, others were against a recital of any reason, and for leaving the justification of the measure to such reasons as would occur of themselves. This last opinion, after considerable discussions, prevailed, and the resolution was left as it stands on the Journals. The second question was, whether this release of Captain Asgill should be followed by a demand on General Carleton to fulfil his engagement to pursue with all possible effect the authors of the murder.
On one side, it was urged that such a demand would be nugatory, after the only sanction which could enforce it had been relinquished; that it would not be consistent with the letter of the Count de Vergennes, which solicited complete oblivion; and that it would manifest to the public a degree of confidence in British faith which was not felt and ought not to be affected.
On the opposite side, it was said that, after the confession and promise of justice by General Carleton, the least that could be done by General Washington would be to claim a fulfilment; that the intercession of the Count de Vergennes extended no farther than to prevent the execution of Captain Asgill and the substitution of any other innocent victim, and by no means was meant to shelter the guilty; that, whatever blame might fall on Congress for seeming to confide in the promises of the enemy, they would be more blamed if they not only dismissed the purpose of retaliating on the innocent, but at the same time omitted to challenge a promised vengeance on the guilty; that, if the challenge was not followed by a compliance on the part of the enemy, it would at least promulge and perpetuate, in justification of the past measures of Congress, the confessions and promises of the enemy on which the challenge was grounded, and would give weight to the charges both of barbarity and perfidy which had been so often brought against them.
In the vote on this question, six states were in favor of the demand, and the others either divided or against it.
The preceding question having been taken again, on a further discussion of the subject, there were, in favor of the demand. New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and of the other states some were divided.
A motion was made by Mr. RUTLEDGE, of South Carolina, "That the commander-in-chief, and of the southern department, be respectively directed, whenever the enemy shall commit any act of cruelty or violence, contrary to the laws and usage of war, on the citizens of these states, to demand adequate satisfaction for the same; and in case such satisfaction shall not be immediately given, but refused or evaded under any pretext whatsoever, to cause suitable retaliation to be forthwith made on British officers, without waiting for directions from Congress on the subject."
When this motion was first made, it was espoused by many with great warmth, in particular by the delegates of North Carolina and South Carolina, as necessary to prevent the delays and uncertainties incident to a resort by the military commanders to Congress, and to convince the enemy that, notwithstanding the dismission of Captain Asgill, the general purpose of retaliation was firmly retained.
Against the motion it was objected, first, that the time and place in which it stood would certainly convey an indirect reprehension of General Washington, for bringing before Congress the case of Captain Asgill and Huddy; secondly, that it manifested a distrust in Congress, which, however well founded it might be with respect to retaliation, ought not to be proclaimed by themselves; thirdly, that political and national considerations might render the interference of the supreme authority expedient, of which the letter from the Count de Vergennes, in the late case, furnished an instance; that the resort of the military commanders to the sovereign for direction in great and difficult cases, such as those of retaliation would often prove, was a right of which they ought not to be deprived, but in the exercise of which they ought rather to be countenanced. These objections reduced the patrons of the motion to the delegates of North Carolina and South Carolina alone, or nearly no. In place of it, the declaratory motion on the journal was substituted. This again was objected to, as implying that, in the cases of retaliation taken up by the