Talk:Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet

Henry Greville's letter

Drdpw What is your objection to the following edit?

"In a letter to his mother (Lancaster, 29 May 1782) Lieutenant and Captain Henry Greville, 2nd Foot Guards (one of the 13 officers who drew lots) wrote: "We are all at this moment waiting with anxiety to know his fate, we think and hope the confinement and anxiety of mind will be his greatest punishment, every Person in this Town was affected at his Missfortune [sic]. There were more tears shed here the 27th May than ever fell on any occasion."

The Greville letter is 6 pages long, so there is a great deal more to it than the brief quote given above. When the Lancaster Historical Society were researching for their December 2019 journal, they searched high and low in America for Mayo's Appendix II - to no avail. They were astonished that they could not source it in America. They asked me to scan it and send it over to them since they wanted to cover all bases in doing their research. The edit in question is not a long edit - is sourced to Katherine Mayo, and is now available on Wikisource. What is your irritation over this edit? Anne (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Greville's firsthand account of the drawing of lots is a detail aprpos in Henry Francis Greville article and the Asgill Affair article, but not here in my estimation. Drdpw (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

For something that has been unavailable to Americans for so long - and since I have first-hand experience of the frustration that caused during research of the Asgill Affair in Lancaster, PA - I think your objection is petty when such a short quote is used. My main wish is to have the ability to give a link to Appendix II. There has already been far too much which has been "hidden" and "withheld" from this story, and I am simply trying to make information available to people, that is all. I would ask you to please revert the edit. Anne (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Drdpw I can't keep up with what is happening. First you amend the Gloucester escape plan, then you delete it in total. When an article is a biography of an individual, surely the purpose must be to show something of that man's character? Asgill was young, so didn't reach America until very late in the war, so all the more reason to include what little can be found. His part in the Gloucester fiasco has been recorded in the Bath Chronicle. Other editors use newspaper reports, so why not this account? Do you have an agenda to ensure Asgill's character is obliterated? Just a service number - nothing about the man himself? Anne (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Drdpw I just cannot believe what you want to do to this article. Are you absolutely determined to prove Asgill was the cad and the liar Washington deemed him to be? Is this your agenda? His autograph book tells something about HIM, not just an "example of his writing". How is it that an editor who so dislikes Asgill is not deemed to have a COI too, just as I do because I am related to him? Surely this COI thing works both ways, doesn't it? Or is it just Great Big America throwing her weight about? There is clearly not one iota of point in me trying to convey Asgill as a PERSON on HIS WP article. Not a chance. I will have the last laugh, though, dear Drdpw - when my book is published, and there will not be a damn thing you can do about THAT. But to not permit a missing document (Appendix II) is absolutely biased and unconscionable, when I have EXPLAINED the difficulty this gives researchers in America. Anne (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop making unfounded accusations and drawing erroneous conclusions about my edits to this article. Drdpw (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no possible explanation for not permitting both the Autograph book and Appendix II. Unless you WANT to continue to deprive America of yet one more "missing document" when researching the Asgill story? I have explained until I am blue in the face that the researchers in Lancaster could only source Appendix II by requesting it be sent to them from the UK. How much sense does that make? At least they KNEW it was missing - someone who doesn't know that, isn't going to look for something they do NOT KNOW is missing. So, this is another way to skew history. Anne (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've reverted some recent changes that need to be discussed per the agreement at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 195#User:Anne Ammundsen and George Washington/Asgill Affair. Anne Ammundsen, I don't understand why you deleted "From Lancaster Asgill was transferred to Chatham" - that leaves an unexplained change of location in the narrative. You also added "on the direct orders of William Franklin, colonial governor of New Jersey", which the source already cited doesn't appear to support. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I am extremely confused by your post. Made more confusing by your subsequent email to me saying you had misunderstood what I had done. Has your confusion settled matters, or is there something more you require of me? Please make it clear what I need to do. Anne (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I replied to your e-mail asking me about which sources I considered primary, but that doesn't have any impact on the agreement reached at the COI noticeboard that you would propose changes to the article here rather than making them yourself. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I was told to take a break from editing - which I have done. The objections to my editing were entirely because of my wish for further editing to be done on the GW page. Nothing I have done here has an impact on that. As for what I have "deleted" here, I am confused. As for William Franklin's role, please look at his WF's WP page, and you will see a reference for "Fleming pp 188-89" with regard to WF ordering Huddy's murder. This was the reason that Lippincott was exonerated of Huddy's murder when the British court martialled him. Because he was exonerated the British did not hand Lippincott over to Washington, since he was deemed to only be following orders, issued to him by William Franklin. I have no idea what I am supposed to do since I do not follow what I have done wrong. Does this reply give you enough to recify my edits/your reversions? Anne (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry More on William Franklin here: [1] "William Franklin became especially well-known as a die-hard Loyalist in his involvement in what became known as the Asgill Affair. In 1782, William was in charge of a raid in which a New Jersey militia officer named Joshua Huddy was arrested. Huddy was a known member of the Association of Retaliation, a group that violently attacked Loyalists and sometimes killed them. William was accused of ordering Officer Richard Lippincott to execute Huddy to avenge the execution of other Loyalists". How can this seriously be a contentious issue? Anne (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Cordless Larry, I am really wasting my time here. YOU found the Grimm quote for ME. I went overboard, absolutely overboard, publicly, in thanking you for getting me out of the mess I was in because of a totally dishonest lying vicar in New Jersey. Your response was "I can feel your pain" - for which I thanked you some more. You AUTHORISED the Grimm quote to be used. YOU linked the Grimm quote as proof that the rumours started before Asgill left America. Now, when I use it - suddenly it is absolutely not allowed. The double standards on WP are utterly appalling. It really is pointless attempting to get honest, neutral and useful information on to articles here. I am up against 2.5 centuries of lies surrounding the Asgill story - just little old me fighting a lonely corner. As for Drdpw disallowing a "missing in the USA" Appendix II - gobsmacked doesn't begin to cover it. Especially when an army of editors went out of their way to HELP me get that Appendix II on to Wikisource, but Drdpw comes along and wipes all of our efforts "just like that" like he was God Almighty - ONE editor wiping out all the efforts of many editors who believed that that "missing information" SHOULD be on Wikisource - and SHOULD be given as many links to it as possible. Anne (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

As I've explained before, no editor has the power to "authorise" additions. All decisions about article content are taken by consensus. The Grimm quote was removed by Victoriaearle in this edit; restoring it requires discussion here to try to reach consensus. As for "on the direct orders of William Franklin", that just requires a source. The one you quote above doesn't quite do it for me, as it uses the word "accused", which suggests less than certainty. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

So, you are saying the findings of a court martial, in 1782, are wrong, and you know that as fact? You are also saying that Fleming is also wrong, and you also know that as a fact? What special ESP powers do you have that you have not revealed? William Franklin was the President of the Associated Loyalists - at the very minimum - the buck stopped with him, and he is also mentioned on the Huddy WP page. "Capture and execution. On February 1, 1782, Huddy was given command of the blockhouse, a small fort, at the village of Toms River that was built to protect the local salt works. The salt was needed to cure meat destined for American troops, and the Toms River was an important launch point for Patriot privateers. On March 24, a large, irregular force of approximately 80 Associated Loyalists, an organization headed by William Franklin, overwhelmed Huddy's small band of defenders and took the fort. They destroyed the blockhouse, salt works, local mills, and razed all but two houses in the village". It is well known that Lippincott was exonerated - what more proof than that is needed, since WF was in charge of the organisation to which Lippincott himself belonged and was representing. I actually cannot believe I am having to say all this. Anne (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

This article says that William Franklin signed the death warrant - does that suit you? https://allthingsliberty.com/2018/10/joshua-huddy-the-scourge-of-new-jersey-loyalists/. Anne (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. To clarify, I wasn't suggesting that this was wrong - just unsourced. Please don't add material to the middle of a sourced sentence without an additional sources to support it (if the existing source doesn't). If you do this, it makes it difficult to tell what's sourced and what isn't, and it can lead to unfounded accusations of cuckoo editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for my error - I was not trying to be sneaky - it was a genuine mistake. Sorry you did not use my source of the JAR though, since that mentioned WF signing the death warrant, and you cannot get more conclusive than that. You're not going to tell me that JAR is an unreliable source, are you, with their 3 million readership? The editor (a published author several times over) of which I know personally, and know him to be an absolute stickler? For every edit I made, I gave my reason; everything was true and everything was relevant. It has all been removed without explanation given. I am expected to be a mind-reader and know exactly what Drdpw's reasons were (apart from his own personal opinions). I await being told how it is not valid to have links and mention of the missing Appendix II (especially since putting that up in the first place was a collaborative event, which has now been disallowed by one editor). I do not see democracy at work here on WP. As for removing the autograph book - how can that possibly be justified? As you know, I am not at all happy about Baron von Grimm suddenly being unacceptable when you yourself put it on the articles initially. I am not being treated fairly by anyone involved. Anne (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Victoria's rationale for removing it was that it was too much detail for this article. It would make more sense to add the quote to the Asgill Affair article first and foremost, as the present article should only contain a shorter summary of what's detailed at greater length there. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I asked several questions. You have replied to one without saying which one. The only recent edit I can see by VE is the correction of a spelling mistake Siege of Yorktown. I see no evidence that she has removed anything. Since I have no idea what you are referring to, I can do nothing about it. If you are referring to Appendix II does that mean I can put a link on the AA article? Or that you will? Drdpw is rampaging around WP deleting anything and everything I ever contributed - (at times and in places showing a remarkable lack of understanding of the subject). Why is he allowed to do this, to satisfy his own personal agenda, giving no explanation other than his own personal view. This is no more of a consensus than you are accusing me of.Anne (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry - short for time. I was talking about Grimm. A link to Victoria's edit is in one of my comments above. On the source for Franklin, I opted to use the same source that's used in Asgill Affair as I didn't see a reason for using different sources for the same thing in different articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I am taking it, then, that a link to the Appendix II can be put back on the AA article and shall do so now. I rather suspect that other editors who were involved at the time would have been as astonished as I was that it had ever been removed. Perhaps you have forgotten that you were one of them. Anne (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I've been so astonished about the Appendix II removal that I gave a nonsensical response above. Now that I know you were talking about Grimm, I have reinserted it in the Asgill Affair article. That leaves the unanswered question of what is so unacceptable about the missing (in America) Appendix II, which several editors helped me to get linked some considerable time ago. I still have no idea.Anne (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Replying to Cordless Larry. I removed the von Grimm material because it was cited to a primary source. As you know, Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, explains that a secondary source should be used if it's available. As it happens Henriques addresses this point in his 2020 book, First and Always, p. 71-72. He writes:

The matter was "a great national concern" and expanded into an international cause célèbre thanks in part to Lady Asgill, who had enough influence to arouse an international outcry. The public prints all over Europe resounded with the unhappy catastrophe," writer and diplomat Friedrich Melchior, Baron von Grimm, recorded in his memoirs. It "interested every feeling mind ... and the first question asked of all vessels that arrived from any port in North America, was always an inquiry into the fate of that young man." "Does Asgill still live?" Henriques, Peter. First and Always, (2020), pp. 71-72

I believe we can summarize Henriques and use it instead of using the original source published c. 1815. At this point I have no opinion whether it should be here or the other article. Victoria (tk) 22:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, Victoriaearle. Do you and Cordless Larry think the following would be an acceptable alternative to the edit I made on the Asgill Affair page? I have read Peter's book and thought it very good, but must confess I had forgotten this part, even though the book is in a nearby drawer. If you both agree, it might be best if one of you do it since I am unlikely to get the reference formatted correctly.

Rumours had begun circulating, in the summer of 1782, while Asgill was still a captive in Chatham, and as Peter Henriques writes, enquiries as to whether he still lived were asked whenever a ship arrived from North America:

The matter was "a great national concern" and expanded into an international cause célèbre thanks in part to Lady Asgill, who had enough influence to arouse an international outcry. "The public prints all over Europe resounded with the unhappy catastrophe," writer and diplomat Friedrich Melchior, Baron von Grimm, recorded in his memoirs ... It "interested every feeling mind ... and the first question asked of all vessels that arrived from any port in North America, was always an inquiry into the fate of that young man." "Does Asgill still live?"

Anne (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

References

I've just checked out the Henriques quote and find that he did not go on to complete Grimm's words: "It is known that Asgill was thrice conducted to the foot of the gibbet", which is a shame, since the quote proves the rumours were circulating before Asgill's release, but does not prove just what the false rumours were. Never mind - it is better than nothing. Anne (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I wouldn't be opposed to including that little bit extra from the primary source, as the fact that Henriques quotes parts of it lends it credibility, but others may disagree. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Random break

Thank you - I will change over to the Henriques quote now. Then perhaps the debate can concentrate on whether (and how) to add the bit extra from Grimm. However, could my question about Appendix II please be addressed? And will you put the autograph book back because that has been there for a decade without anyone taking exception to it. I am at a total loss as to why these two are so unacceptable. Anne (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The Asgill autograph book page with the quotation has been restored to the article. The quote from Greville's letter was initially removed here and later, after being restored, here and then here. The quotation is apropos in Henry Francis Grevile article and the Asgill Affair article. In this article, however, the quotation is secondary background information. In looking at those articles I noted that the quotation is not used in either the HFG or the AA article, and that Appendix II of Mayo's book is used as an inline citation in the HFG article, but surprisingly used nowhere in the AA article, not even linked to in the Further reading section. Drdpw (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how this will work, here, but the following was put up on the Asgill Affair article by Cordless Larry - I would like it to be restored to the AA article - especially since it gives a link to the missing Appendix II and an explanation of some errors which were included by the original transcriber:

In a letter to his mother (Lancaster, 29 May 1782) Lieutenant and Captain Henry Greville, 2nd Foot Guards (one of the 13 officers who drew lots) wrote: "General Hazen whose behaviour throughout the whole affair has been Noble and Generous, immediately granted his [Gordon's] request and again appologized [sic] for being Obliged to execute his orders, he said he was but a Servant and as such must behave" ..."Asgylle, [sic] tho' evidently affected with his Fate, yet bore it with uncommon resolution, he thanked Gen^l Hazen in the prettyest [sic] style for the politeness he had shown him, and took his leave. I walked home with him and endeavoured to keep up his spirits, at first he was melancholy and thoughtfull, [sic] seemingly very unhappy, but it gradually wore off, and no person to have been in his company could have supposed he was doomed to die." ... "We are all at this moment waiting with anxiety to know his [Asgill's] fate, we think and hope the confinement and anxiety of mind will be his greatest punishment, every Person in this Town was affected at his Missfortune [sic]. There were more tears shed here the 27th May than ever fell on any occasion."

Anne (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Anne (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

References

All that needs to be discussed on the Asgill Affair talk page, rather than here on this page. Drdpw (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the final sentence can be put up here, with a link to Appendix II. I'm running out of energy for all the stress and tension involved in going from talk page to talk page - having to constantly fight alone. This has all been going on for months, and I'm pretty much done in by it all now.Anne (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Even that is tangential to this article. Perhaps, for your own wellbeing, it would be beneficial to limit for now your wiki-focus to the Asgill Affair page. Drdpw (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely do not accept that a link to Appendix II (the most detailed account of the drawing of lots) has no bearing on the article about the man who was selected to die that day. It is absurd to say it is irrelevant. Any sentence or two could be chosen to use as an introduction to the link. I have explained often enough that researching this Affair was made more difficult given its unavailability in America. There is far less chance of research being done about it in the UK, where it is available. Cordless Larry why is Drdpw suddenly the sole arbiter of this article? As for the AA article, I most definitely will not embark on discussions in two places at once.Anne (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion regarding Appendix II is going nowhere just now - insanity to suggest it is irrelevant when it discusses the day an innocent man was selected to go to the gallows. But in the interim these words have been removed from the article "Washington's orders to Hazen had been urgent, and clear". Why? They were so urgent that the letter of 3 May was overridden by another on 18 May - the one which was then hidden from the official account because it violated an international treaty. Not only did Washington want the job done and dusted, but when the lots had been drawn, on 4 June he turns on Hazen telling him he had made a "mistake" - leaving Hazen carrying the can. I therefore object to the quoted words being removed from the CA article. Whatever process is undertaken to protect GW on the GW page should not be brought over to the CA article - this is COI too. Anne (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That Washington's orders to Hazen were urgent and clear is borne out in an earlier paragraph and emphasized by citation quotes. That is why I modified the sentence to state that Hazen carried out Washington's orders, his "explicit orders" as the sentence concerning them now reads following your objection. Drdpw (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is Grimm's book a primary source, since he is quoting from the rumours circulating in the press and the coffee houses, as Asgill himself explains in his letter. Anne (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Because it is original material – his memoirs. See: Primary source and WP:PST for further information. Drdpw (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Well I never did - Cordless Larry found it, to help me out of a difficult situation (when I was in trouble, thanks to a lying vicar in New Jersey). He then uploaded it, so I simply did not know. However, as Cordless Larry says, with Peter Henriques authenticating Grimm, I would like to add the extra sentence explaining just what the false rumours were. Otherwise, readers will wonder. I don't know how that sentence gets added on, so I hope the debate will continue. Anne (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how adding more quotes is improving the article. It's supposed to be written in summary style. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Including von Grimm's observations / reporting of facts does seem unnecessary here in this article. Details surrounding concern in Europe for Asgill's wellbeing and fate, along with von Grimm's words, appear in the AA article. To bring this concern more to the forefront in this article, I wish to add a couple sentences (with secondary citations) just prior to the last sentence in the Chatham subsection (He sent the matter to be decided at the Continental Congress.):

During the months of Asgill's confinement, his fate drew considerable international public attention and also the direct intervention of the government of France on Asgill's behalf. Under pressure to spare Asgill, but unwilling to publicly back down from his position, Washington decided late that summer that the case had become "a great national concern, upon which an individual ought not to decide." He therefore sent the matter to be decided by the Continental Congress.

Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Drdpw, you may be aware that there are moves afoot to have me permanently blocked from Wikipedia, so this may be the last opportunity for me to make a comment to you. First, re your proposed edit - why not - however, may I simply point out that Asgill went to great pains (talking about it first, and at length in his 18-page letter) to deny the truth of the rumours. He specifically says that there was no gibbet in front of his cell window, and he definitely did not go to the gallows three times. Given his denial, I thought it worthwhile having those false rumours laid out. Only Grimm, as I recall, does so, so I wish (as per Cordless Larry's suggestion) that it were possible to include his one-line comment about '3 times to the gallows'. That is my only motive. Nothing more sinister than that. Since I may not get another chance, I would like to complement you on your occasional willingness to accept new information, not previously set out in old accounts of Asgill or the "Affair" (but are in the Lancaster Journal, which was NOT written by me, but I was credited because I provided Asgill's letter). While you have conflicting viewpoints to my own, I have noticed you bend on occasion. If I may finish by saying that the edits I did today are important - particularly Asgill's reasons for not writing a thank-you letter to GW - and his desire not to seek vengeance (reproaches). Give some consideration to whether my edits can be restored, and the previous section on the Asgill family visit to France. There is so much more, but I have said it all here (above/below) already. Anne (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

That is regrettable Anne. But one again, over the course of the past few days, you have come out swinging and have failed to get the point I and others have been trying to get across about over use of primary source material in summary style sections of Biographical articles and concerning collaborative consensus building. Now, regarding your edits to the AA article earlier today, I invite you to look again at my subsequent refinements (and accompanying edit summaries), this time non-defensively and to assume good faith. "Everything I have done today has been undone" is not an accurate assessment. What I did was restate the key points laid out without relying so heavily on primary source material. Please also note that I moved the family visit to France section with the prose intact (and with a rationale for removing the portrait). Now, other editors will, over time, refine what I have done today on that page. Drdpw (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am now at the end of my rope. None of this is worth it, is it. I cannot cope with any more 'diffs' which so often confuse me. The time has come for me to stop caring. Anne (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Drdpw I have no objection. But, do you have Chernow? He addresses the issue on pp. 426-27, from a slightly different perspective, and in very few words. It might be worth incorporating some from that. Also Cordless Larry the claim that William Franklin ordered Huddy's death is in Chernow, page 426, so that might be a better source to use there. Victoria (tk) 17:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added that source. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)