That John Dean did not figure more prominently in the accounts of the capture is due to several reasons. In the first place, he himself

CAPTURE

ANDRE

reported to Jameson that Paulding, Williams, and Van Wart were alone directly responsible for the capture; in the second place, it appears that Dean regarded the taking of a spy as of the nature of hangman's work, with which few people should care to be associated. It is known, furthermore, that tins feeling on his part gave rise to a disagreement with the other members of the party, a circumstance which may in part have made the others the more willing to belittle Dean's share in the capture. That Dean died ( 1817) long before the most, if not all, of the rest may be cited as a final reason why he has not been given the credit he deserves; for some of the statements -- Dean himself never made any -- collected from the survivors date later than 1830, statements which, like those of aged people generally, are found to vary widely in matters of fact. There have been two tendencies evident in the accounts which come from the men themselves: the first is for the captors to rather ignore their association with the remainder of their party, and the second is for the latter to demand greater recognition than they deserve. From the first tendency the men were not apt to refer to John Dean, a man who himself did not want to be associated with the capture of a spy, and from the second they were most apt to ignore the claims of the one who might, had he been so disposed, have given them in his report the credit that they wished. The fact seems to be that Dean had a golden opportunity of advancing himself, and knowingly rejected it, as he did his share of Andre's effects, which the others divided.