Talk:Samuel Fraunces/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nonsense

Insisting that Samuel Fraunces was 12 years younger than his 1795 obituary states is nonsense. A more logical explantion is that the two birth years belong to different people of the same name. Refusing to acknowledge this possibility is intellectually dishonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.111.152 (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

One might say the same about insisting to use the obituary as the only record of birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.248.24 (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a matter of using best evidence. Samuel Fraunces's obituary, published the week of his 1795 death, is a vastly more authoritative source than a Jamaican baptismal listing for a "Mulatto Samuel" that doesn't contain a last name. How many untold thousands of "Samuels" were born between 1722 and 1734? Pick any one, and then announce -- without evidence -- that HE was Samuel Fraunces. If there is documentation from during his lifetime that Fraunces was of African descent, LET IT BE PRODUCED! Most of the sources quoted in this article come from a century after his death or later, and only echo each other. I, and dozens of others who have been publicly denounced as racists because we won't agree to fantasy being paraded as fact (especially those at Fraunces Tavern), would gladly welcome having this settled. Either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.249.61 (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, look! His age just changed again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.196.64 (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Can anything by Coroinn or CRCole be trusted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.251.231 (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

HAPPY BIRTHDAY UNSIGNED!! Well I would hope that an identified person is trusted a little more than unsigned or identified "I". Your comments seemed to be aimed at something other than this article. You should put them in the appropriate place. As far as Phoebe and Hickey Plot the same arguments as those for race and Samuel apply. The major writers who disagree with the PEA story are Ford in 1903, Freeman in 1951 and Bakeless in 1959. All three are arguing against the poision pea story more than 100 years after the occurance and in some cases 100 years after the recalled event. Phoebe was only about 10 at the time of the poison peas. After the arguments that Samuel was not of African Descent and That Phoebe was not his daughter come the arguments that the event itself was fictional. Mix in there someplace that when these effort to discredit did not stop the tradition of Phoebe saving Washington life the next step was to throw mud on her so she was then portrayed as Hickey's lover. Can we give the girl a break? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CRCole (talk • contribs) 05:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

continuing to remove the added wiki links is counter productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.75.28 (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Fantasy vs. Fact

Phoebe Fraunces may well be a fictional character. The name first appears in print in the January 1876 issue of Scribner's Monthly Magazine - 100 years AFTER the supposed poisoned-peas episode. Claiming that Elizabeth Fraunces was "Phoebe" - without presenting evidence to back it up - is grasping at straws. Fantasies should not be mixed with facts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.251.231 (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Still no identification to the poster?? On Samuel's page it says TRADITION under Phoebe. His daughter Elizabeth and/or the surname Thompson are the ones who the family traditions link to. Every descendant claiming lineage to Phoebe Fraunces in tradition links to the Thompson/Thomson's on paper. Maybe a list of all of the sources for Phoebe would be better placed and debated on her page. Overwhelingly there are numerous places where Phoebe Fraunces is indicated as Samuel's daughter when compared with one place that says she is not.

You pointed out the one place where she is despuited as Samuel's daughter and it is contexualized appropriately on the Samuel Fraunces page. You continue to debate without identification of yourself. Maybe a page on the Poison Peas would help sort this out for you. Since the pea incident has been additionally placed at the heart of the first execution (Hickey) for what came to be known as the United States of America there is much on the subject including but not limited to military and death penalty history.

No, you seem to misunderstand the evidence. In 1870, Benson J. Lossing is the first to publish the poisoned-peas tale, but doesn't identify the supposed housekeeper involved. The 1876 Scribner's Monthly Magazine article identifies Lossing's housekeeper as Samuel Fraunces's daughter, and is the first time that the name "Phoebe Fraunces" appears in print. This was 100 years after the supposed assassination plot against Washington. So, the crux of the matter is: What documentary evidence is there for "Phoebe Fraunces" from before the 1876 magazine article? Not just, was she involved in the supposed 1776 assassination plot? but, fundamentally, DID SHE EVER REALLY EXIST?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.251.231 (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Phoebe

Elzabeth Fraunces's mother-in-law was named Phoebe. Maybe she was the one involved with the poisoned peas, and the 1876 magazine reporter got things mixed up. Age-wise she seems to better fit the story. --Joanie F. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.91.2 (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Joanie, you may be right. Family stories do get mixed up, especially a century after an incident. But, without evidence to corroborate it, your theory is no more credible than the theory that Elizabeth Fraunces was Phoebe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.251.231 (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Three parts here. No I don't misunderstand. There is an incident of poison peas that is relayed by numerous sources Loosing is the one thrown out there most frequently as first. There is the identification of the housekeeper as Phoebe by numerous sources. Then there is the Hickey execution also reported and also studied by many. Then there are the counterfiet paper cases of the era in NYC. Then there are the stories which link al of those events as one.

Second Elizabeth Fraunces was the wife of Samuel Fraunces and they had a daughter Elizabeth who used the name Phoebe to distinguish her from Elizabeth Sr. Elizabeth Sr's mother in law would be Samuel's mother. Samuel's mother was Margaret nickname Madge. Elizabeth Jr's mother in law was the mother of Atcheson Thompson/Thomson. Atcheson's step father was Simmon Sparks but the given name of Simon's wife is not known. It is often proposed that her surname was Cunningham, because Cunningham and HArrison are used in the names of her children and the Harrison is supposed to be associated with Thomson. Are you saying that Simon Sparks was married to a womman named Phoebe?

Third there is a way to get a signature with Wikipedia but that means you have to sign in and identify yourselfs in some manor beyond the computer you are using. If indeed you are interested in discussing these that would be the way to go. I could sign anything here and be working from anywhere.

CR Cole-- CRCole (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a Fact

Coroinn/CRCole's own Website lists Elizabeth Fraunces and Phoebe Fraunces as different people:

"ELIZABETH FRAUNCES, b. Bet. 1760 - 1770, New York, New York; d. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ...
Fraunces, Phoebe Birth - Death: fl. 1758-1798"
Source: http://www.coroinn.com/DescendantsofSamuelFraunces.htm

It's possible that these were the same person. But, without documentation to support it (and an explanation as to why you changed your mind), your current claim that Elizabeth's nickname was "Phoebe" is a theory, not a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.251.231 (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Still unsigned, That page was posted years ago and they tell me it is in the process of being updated. Because of software incompatibility the entire site has to be redone corrections can not be made on a page by page basis. The original information I was furnished cited a family history at PA historical society which can not be verified.

Since then there have been several family members come forward who have a tradition that they are descendants of Elizabeth "Phoebe" Fraunces Thompson/Thomson. They can all be verified back to Thompson/Thomason in DC. If they all want their personal info out there they will post it. It is not for me to post.--CRCole (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned, Here is a link two naming practices or naming ways. http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_names.htm --CRCole (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up Links

Controversy aside, much of the lower section is a series of annotated links disguised as text, of the form: "Here, look at this one: http://here.there.org/ridiculously/long/address/spanning/several/lines".

BTW, I looked this page up after hearing "The Negro in Early America", part of "There's a New World a'Comin'!" radio series from 1944-45. The poison peas may not be accurate history, but are quite effective as myth.

This is the series that formed the backdrop for John Dunning's novel "Two O'Clock, Eastern Wartime". I couldn't locate "New World" on archive.org, but the full run of 49 episodes are on tennesseebillsotr.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbabwe (talk • contribs) 12:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Portrait of Samuel Fraunces

Portrait of Samuel Fraunces, unknown artist, circa 1770-1785, Fraunces Tavern Museum, New York City.

Continually deleting the Fraunces Tavern Museum's Portrait of Samuel Fraunces from the Wikipedia article will not prove that he was Black. If advocates have to resort to deception and vandalism to hide conflicting evidence, their case for his racial identity must be pretty pathetic.

Almost as pathetic as posting a portrait that has NO documentation, no know origin. The portrait has changed dramatically over the years and the museum does not authenticate at any point. This newest version is no different. It has changed electronically since the flicker version was posted. That is why it is removed. 71.58.75.28 (talk) 03:20, 6 Aug 2011 (UTC)

This is not The Picture of Dorian Gray. Claiming that "It has changed electronically..." is absurd. The portrait of Samuel Fraunces below and the one on Flickr are different paintings. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not fantasies.

all any one has to do is put the two portraits side by side. Sometime after 2007 the museum has made changes to the portarit. Maybe you should look for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.75.28 (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Portrait of Samuel Fraunces below was published in the 1920s. There's a black & white photo of it on the NYPL Website.[1] Your claims that it "has changed dramatically over the years," and that "the museum has made changes to the portarit [sic]... [s]ometime after 2007," are fantasies. Please, stop making things up. 173.59.124.196 (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please get an older version posted both Black and white and color or stop posting this new version this is rediculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.75.28 (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The NYPL site does not give a date or a source for the portrait.As of 1914 several Articles had denied exsistence of any portrait of Samuel Fraunces. In 1936 the portrait recalled by Gilder was a different portrait altogether. In 1970's The portrait provided to Newspapers by Museum was similar but not the same. In 2007 the portrait was different. Please either leave this portrait out or provide all of them. Including the sketch furnished by the family in 1900. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.75.28 (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A black & white photo of the Portrait of Samuel Fraunces (below) is in the New York Public Library's Historical and Public Figures: A General Portrait File to the 1920s.[2] According to the NYPL Website this collection dates from the 1920s. The portrait appears to be the same as it was 90 years ago. 173.59.124.196 (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The portrait dates from the 1920's to present the museum does note know where or when it came from or who it is of or who the artist is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.75.28 (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, stop with the fantasies. They are bordering on irrational.

The portrait does not appear to have been "whitewashed," as you claim on this article's History page. And your above comment misrepresents the position of the Fraunces Tavern Museum. Unless you can present evidence to the contrary, I'm going to believe the facts supplied by Fraunces Tavern Museum 173.59.124.196 (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarity, at last

Thank you, GramereC, for your additions to the Samuel Fraunces article. As far as I can suss out, there are 3 images:

• 1. The original oil portrait owned by Fraunces Tavern (above).
• 2. An amateurish copy of that portrait, also at Fraunces Tavern and viewable on Flickr.
• 3. The sketch that was published circa 1900.

The 1920s NYPL photo seems to be of the original portrait, as does the other (cropped) photo.

And the Rodman de Kay Gilder description of the portrait: "With his pleasant dark face and his brown eyes, curls, soft mouth and tapering fingers, and the beginnings of a double chin, looking as if he himself appreciated the good food and drink for which he was famous." from 1936, IS consistent with the original portrait owned by Fraunces Tavern. 173.59.124.196 (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not seeing his dark face here in the portrait. Gilder's is not the only written description of a Fraunces portrait held by the museum that is in conflict with the portrait presented here in wikipedia as Fraunces. This image is not offered by the Fraunces Tavern Museum it is from another website and the Fraunces Tavern Museum does not offer an image of Fraunces on their website. This image on wikipedia comes from another website as does the description. The portraits are all different in subtle ways including the B&W and several cropped versions. The progression over time of the changes to this image of Fraunces are astounding. Leave the links in here all anyone has to do is look and question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs) 23:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Website you are disparaging is ExplorePAHistory.com, part of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. Their credit for the portrait reads "Courtesy of the Fraunces Tavern Museum / Sons of the Revolution in the State of New York, Inc." What evidence do you have that their credit information is untrue?

Leaving out the amateurish copy on Flickr, I don't see changes in the oil portrait over the past 90 years. 173.59.124.196 (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I think ExplorePAHistory(OPINION) took their information from another site IHA. When you google the portrait and click on the versions offered NONE are from the Fraunces Tavern Museum yet this is the reference we offer with this article. Classification as "amateurish is your opinion and not a fact offered or published anywhere else. Details like when was this portrait was restored since 2007 and by whom would be GREAT!!! or is it a photoshop mixed media change? I have several photographs taken at the Museum and they mimic the one published on Flickr with little likeness to the portrait offered with this article. Neck size, skin coloring, clothing and background are all changed(Fact). I understand it is your opinion the change is not enough for concern or mention by you but they have been recently changed and questions continue. Especially since the museum and the Sons do not know where the painting came from or when they acquired it or who the artist is they can't document.GramereC 11:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Just because something is unavailable online, does not mean it is UNKNOWN. I'm sure the NY Sons know where their portrait came from and when they acquired it. I doubt that they would have allowed Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission to publish it online as Portrait of Samuel Fraunces unless their records supported that. And I doubt that PHMC would have done so without evidence. (I know 2 of the historians who examined the Samuel Fraunces evidence for PHMC.)

Lastly, I doubt that the New York Public Library, which identified their 1920s-or-earlier photograph of the portrait as being of Samuel Fraunces, would have done so without evidence. 173.59.124.196 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I wish it was lastly. This is the description of where the portrait is at the NYPL: Image Title : Samuel Fraunces.Source

Print Collection portrait file. / F / Samuel Fraunces. Location

Stephen A. Schwarzman Building / Print Collection, Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs Digital ID: 1240455

Record ID: 593221 Digital Item Published : 12-8-2004; updated 6-22-2011 No where does it say the date they acquired or where it came from. It can be searched in the file for Portraits of people who lived before 1920.GramereC 15:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If you read about the history of this image collection, you'll learn that New York Public Library amassed it in the 1920s and before. The opposite of what you are claiming. 173.59.124.196 (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny that is not what they answer when questioned about the photo in the file.71.58.75.28 (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Three images of Samuel Fraunces are known to exist: the digital image of the oil on canvas portrait (above), now at Fraunces Tavern Museum; the oil on canvas has never been authenticated and orgins are unknown. The portrait is referenced as "acquired old portrait of Samuel Fraunces" in 1913 by Henry Russell Drowne [2]. Unlike the other portraits referenced there is no provenance given.GramereC 23:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

This is a link to another photo of the portrait from a few years ago. http://nymag.com/listings/attraction/fraunces-tavern-and-museum/photo_gallery2.html is yet another example of what the portrait look likeGramereC 15:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.hmdb.org/PhotoFullSize.asp?PhotoID=42563 and this is a story board at the museum.GramereC 15:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Call The New York Times!

WOW! Fraunces Tavern Museum acquired its Portrait of Samuel Fraunces around 1913 (above, you stated that the museum didn't know when or how it was acquired), the museum allowed the portrait to be photographed (the 1920s-or-earlier photo at the New York Public Library), THEN the museum mysteriously changed the portrait (no explanation from you as to why), put it on display in the tavern (multiple photograph of it there), and NOW the museum has changed it back.

That's an amazing story! It should be on the front page of The New York Times!

Except, the more logical explanation is that we're talking about 2 different paintings: the original portrait and a copy.

However hard you try to discredit the Portrait of Samuel Fraunces, whatever fantasies you make up to do so, you don't convince. 173.59.124.196 (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well at least some of us are looking for answers you are just re-posting the same stuff and not identifying yourself. After sending the museum the reference and speaking to them again is it obvious you are not speaking for them.GramereC 14:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Racial Identity

"Another puzzle is the question of Samuel Fraunces' racial identity. Fraunces was nicknamed "Black Sam", leading to the assumption by some that he was black. After extensive research by Fraunces Tavern Museum, however, no primary source that substantiates the belief that Samuel Fraunces was of African descent has been uncovered, while there is evidence to believe otherwise. Other than the appearance of the nickname, there are no known references where Fraunces was described as a black man. In the Federal Census for 1790, he was listed as a free, white head-of-household. He was also a member of the elite Trinity Church in New York City and a registered voter."
— Jennifer Patton, Director of Education, Fraunces Tavern Museum, New York City.[3]

this is removed the link is to Jennifer Patton and not Samuel Fraunces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.75.28 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

How can you remove the entire section on Racial Identity? That's an important section to retain and to contest. Further, please copy-edit what you post. It's tiresome to continue to correct misspelled words and awkward syntax in postings. The word is "themselves" and not "themselfs," for example. It's very hard to take a reasoned argument seriously with such overt blunders. Further, if you wish to deny competing perspectives, then please leave Wikipedia and post on your private website, where you can post whatever you want. On Wikipedia, competing understanding of the facts needs to share one space, acknowledged and presented. Finally, whenever you cite outside sources, please be sure always to reference your sources. Unreferenced assertions of facts are violations of the rules of Wikipedia. Again, you are free to do that on your private website. Don't do that here, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.38.163 (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The block quote from Jenifer Patton is not placed by Jenifer Patton. It was unpublished correspondence.--71.58.75.28 (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC

Thank you for posting Fraunces Tavern Museum's findings about Samuel Fraunces's racial identity. I hope it will not be erased again. 173.59.124.196 (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The block quote comes from the pre-visit materials for teachers on the Fraunces Tavern Museum's website.[4] I would call that a reliable source. -- BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

While the museum findings are left up they were not very honest. The pargraph about WEB Dubois also was less than truthful. I hate block quotes but in this case I posted because it certainly is different than the previous statement that he found no information on race. WEB Dubois and Florence Kelley were lifetime friends he certainly knew what the family knew. He came to the same conclusion on race anyone reading primary documents would come to. GramereC 00:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

birth records

The birth records are cited and available on microfilm for "personal use". — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs) 12:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

conflict aside

The block quote from FTM is removed again. I spoke with them and they are aware that i remove it as often as i see it. There is no active link to the quote from their web page.GramereC 14:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop posting blog references to birth, moving the portrait section to the bottom away from the portrait, and placing the unpublished block quote about race from the museum.GramereC 14:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

GramereC / 71.58.75.28, Please stop your disruptive editing.

• 1. No one is interested in your fantasies about the portraits. That's why I moved them to the bottom. Note, I did not erase them.

• 2. You have repeatedly blanked the "Ethnic Identity" section. People ARE interested in what Fraunces Tavern Museum has to say about Fraunces's ethnic identity. The statement from the museum's Website is a summary of its findings based on decades of examining the issue.

• 3. You have repeatedly blanked the "Presidential Household" section. People ARE interested in Fraunces's service in George Washington's presidential households.

• 4. You have repeatedly blanked the "See Also" section. This links to information about Fraunces and the enslaved Africans who worked under him.

• 5. You have been cautioned about disruptive editing elsewhere.[5] You have made more than 100 edits on the Samuel Fraunces article in the past 3 weeks. And your intolerance of the opinions/contributions of others, your introduction of fantasies presented as facts, and your imperious blanking of whole sections of information is the DEFINITION of disruptive editing.

6. I am sending copies of this message to the BOT who cautioned you, and those who reverted your blanking of others' work.

Someone else (above) urged you to go back to your own Website, where you can write whatever you want. I concur. 173.59.124.196 (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

GramereC / 71.58.75.28, Please stop your disruptive editing.

1. No one is interested in your fantasies about the portraits. That's why I moved them to the bottom. Note, I did not erase them.

ANSWER As of close of business today the origin of the portrait is still unknown. The answer is at some 1913 Auction in NYC. Yes it has been restored twice in recent years and the DATE of the Portrait is late 18th Century to Early 19th Century. In life not yet. GramereC 01:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

2. You have repeatedly blanked the "Ethnic Identity" section. People ARE interested in what Fraunces Tavern Museum has to say about Fraunces's ethnic identity. The statement from the museum's Website is a summary of its findings based on decades of examining the issue.

ANSWER A Block quote of an opinion is not really a good source. References made were covered and cited in the last section here. It was not removed.GramereC 01:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

3. You have repeatedly blanked the "Presidential Household" section. People ARE interested in Fraunces's service in George Washington's presidential households.

ANSWER Yes they are interested and I think you have that covered with a separate article. President's House (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)GramereC 01:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

4. You have repeatedly blanked the "See Also" section. This links to information about Fraunces and the enslaved Africans who worked under him.

ANSWER I think these might be caught in your own blanket revision. Try adding just that section.GramereC 01:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

5. You have been cautioned about disruptive editing elsewhere.[6] You have made more than 100 edits on the Samuel Fraunces article in the past 3 weeks. And your intolerance of the opinions/contributions of others, your introduction of fantasies presented as facts, and your imperious blanking of whole sections of information is the DEFINITION of disruptive editing.

ANSWER Yes I was Cautioned about using a blog reference.GramereC 01:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

6. I am sending copies of this message to the BOT who cautioned you, and those who reverted your blanking of others' work.

ANSWER I hope you sign that one. GramereC 01:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone else (above) urged you to go back to your own Website, where you can write whatever you want. I concur.

ANSWER two way streetGramereC 01:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)173.59.124.196 (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

GramereC 01:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please observe the protocol for Talk pages: keep things in chronological order, sign your posts, and don't tamper with someone else's posts. This is supposed to be an accurate record of the discussion.

Fraunces Tavern Museum's educational materials for teachers and students is a legitimate source.[7] This is not a blog (as you claim above), this is not a person's opinion, this represents the official findings of the museum. 173.59.124.196 (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Just A Note

I only took a look at this because I was considering buying my granddaughter a book about Samuel Fraunces for Black History and received flack from one of her aunts. I really doubt whether any question of his racial identity could be resolved. He apparently looked white enough to be listed on the census as being so. Additionally, black people were known to own slaves. People of mixed parentage have also been known to pass as white to afford themselves a better life. Once you start dealing with people with multiple recent racial inputs in their background you can't tell what race they are when they are standing right in front of you, let alone from a picture or a photograph. Actually, unless someone is undeniably one race or another, their racial identity is a matter of individual preference and community consensus.claimman75 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition to holding enslaved ancestors in brutal bondage, Samuel Fraunces SOLD THEM. I doubt that he was a Black man, even with his nickname. And if he was, his actions were shameful. 71.178.3.53 (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the controversy going unresolved, it should just be noted in the article that it is still up in the air. That way people looking at this get the most relevant info.Beefcake6412 (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The Royal Gazette (New York City), August 29, 1778. Samuel Fraunces advertizes the sale of a 14-year-old boy. What kind of man would do that to his own people? 71.178.3.53 (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hickey info

The information pertaining to Samuel Fraunces and his letter to George Washington and subsequently the congressional record do not reference Hickey in any way shape or form. The letter and record where he is requesting payment is on NARA Publication M247 Record Group 360 Roll 26 page 329 National Archive Catalog ID 1938489. They are accessible on line with Fold3.

In this Fraunces article someone says" although the formal charges against him were for attempting to pass counterfeit bills.[28][note 2]

note 2 reads: Fraunces's 1785 petition to Congress is the primary source documenting an assassination plot against Washington and his generals. At least 4 contemporaneous sources corroborate it: Dr. Solomon Drowne to his sister Sally Drowne, New York, June 24, 1776; Dr. Solomon Drowne to his brother William Drowne, New York, July 13, 1776; both quoted in Henry Russell Drowne, A Sketch of Fraunces Tavern and Those Connected with Its History (New York: Fraunces Tavern, 1919), pp. 8, 10; Peter T. Curtenius to Richard Varick, New York, June 22, 1776, quoted in Robert Hughes, George Washington (New York: 1927), p. 392; and Joseph Hewes to Samuel Johnson, Philadelphia, July 8, 1776, in William Powell, ed., Correspondence of William Tryon 2 (1768-1818) (Raleigh, NC: 1981), p. 862. Significantly, Congress's investigation of Fraunces's petition did not question the existence of the assassination plot. "Report of the Committee on Samuel Fraunces," March 28, 1785, Papers of the Continental Congress, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Someone is saying this 1785 petition to congress is the primary source and it says nothing about the plot. https://www.fold3.com/image/400702 https://www.fold3.com/image/400707 https://www.fold3.com/image/400713

Henry Russel Drowne wrote a 23 page booklet of A sketch of Fraunces Tavern and Those Connected with its History in 1919. This is after the building was demolished and rebuilt. The Dr. Solomon Drowne letters are his family correspondence and again say nothing.

There is a list of articles about the poison incident found at http://www.nedhector.com/SamPhoebeFraunces.htm

Hickey's trial has records why do we keep coming back to this on the Samuel Fraunces page it has no relevance. Make a page for Henry Russell Drowne and put it there.

GramereC 19:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggested New Material--Wife's Family, Time in New Jersey During War

Rather than editing the article unilaterally, I am using the Talk page to suggest new material to add. After some weeks of debate, and agreement, I will seek to add details on Fraunces' wife's family, and eventually some color on Fraunces' time during the Revolutionary War in New Jersey (where Fraunces' wife's parents owned a farm).

First, mention should be made that when Fraunces was presidential steward in New York his wife, Elizabeth, ran one of his taverns on Courtland Street. This is important to understand gender roles in the era, and his attitude toward equality. Second, and more importantly, Elizabeth's sister Catherine Dally married John Simmons in 1758, the year after the marriage of Sam Fraunces and Elizabeth Dally. Simmons was also an influential tavern owner, and I am working on a new Wiki article on him. Further, the brother of Elizabeth and Catherine, Gifford Dally, served as the door keeper of the Congress in New York City, and later in Philadelphia. In 1813, Washington Irving recounts in a letter to Henry Brevoort meeting Simmons' son in Washington, D.C., where he served in this role as door keeper.

In sum, this broader family of Fraunces' wife is crucial in understanding the social standing and influence Fraunces exercised. It is also important to underline that Fraunces acted in coordination with other family members in operating his tavern and catering business, and in acted in concert in their strategy for surviving the War years. An example of this is when he moved to Philadelphia a large part of the broader family followed him. Little is understood of how people (of all races) moved back and forth from New York to Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. in the 1790 to 1810 decades, and took with them recipes, news and attitudes toward equality and economic success. It is entirely possible the secrets of Mary Simpson, for example, lay in the broader retinue of servants associated with the Fraunces/Gifford/Dally tavern family, and in their South New Jersey connection. Bjhillis (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Trying to look at the info from that time where there are documents that support it. The time in NJ is often contradicted with documentation. Fraunces writes to Washington AFTER the war and says he is now in NJ. Catherine married a Smock fro NJ. The older children continue to go to church in NYC Some change to the Dutch Church from Trinity. Some of the children remain at Trinity Sara is buried in the churchyard. Phoebe (YES Phoebe) is buried at St. John's Now James J Walker playground, Phoebe Thomson is the record but it is Phebe Thompson. Samuel Jr. was thought drowned of the Constitution. Hannah stayed i Philly and she is in my line.GramereC 22:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

More fantasies

GramereC -
Please stop with the false statements. Dr. Kim S. Rice's work is based on years of research on Samuel Fraunces and Fraunces Tavern Museum, and is extensively documented. Your fantansies are not based on evidence. Changing the text while leaving the old footnotes (i.e. misleading the reader into thinking those footnotes support your fantasies) and deleting the footnotes/sources that contradict your fantasies, is about as dishonest as you can get. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

My research is based on about 30-40 years of research for this family which I am part of. How does one research without reaching out to the family? I am easy to find on the web and in person. I have been asked by several people to work on this one more time. PLEASE leave the primary document references in place and DO NOT replace them with your second hand secondary sources. Please do not embellish them with your opinion. We do not know beyond correspondence what Samuel's relationship with Washington was.

I have spoken to Kym S. Rice and she may have written differently with primary documents from the family but she was employed by the SR.

GramereC 16:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Revert

I've reverted to the last version by BoringHistoryGuy. The edits since seem to be mostly argumentative and badly out of place. "Lossing" appears without any introduction and a fight breaks out in the text without giving the reader a clue about what's going on. I'll suggest that any new material on poison peas or racial identity be placed in a new subsection so that an outsider can tell what is going on, and that everything be calmly explained and documented. That way it won't destroy the article as it stands and can be properly judged on its own merits. Disputes can be properly explained on Wikipedia, please just do it calmly and with references. Smallbones (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The family is once more working on placing the primary sources into this article and removing the opinions with incorrect documentation. The newspaper articles are secondary sources. Please allow about a week before you decide to arbitrarily remove the info and replace it with opinions.

The congressional record link to Hickey is the worst as that is not what the record says. I will try to get a jpeg of the pages for the article.

The opinions attached to Washington's correspondence are also disturbing. The correspndence should stand alone.

GramereC 16:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hysteria

Regarding the hysterical claims made above that the Portrait of Samuel Fraunces at Fraunces Tavern Museum had been altered: The company that carried out the restoration, Appelbaum & Himmelstein, posted before and after photos of the painting:[8] The portrait does not appear to have been "white-washed" or the racial identity of the sitter altered. -- BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

So we should place that with portraits but also note that the written description of the portrait in the early 20th century describes brown curly hair and a slight double chin. Where is that portrait now? The portrait bought at auction was "supposedly" with paintings belonging to Samuel Mifflin Francis another person entirely and also not to be confuse with Samuel Michein Francis (another Francis family in Philly). The paintings of Samuel Fraunces mother and sister were according to newpaper articles displayed as mother and sister of Samuel Fraunces Tavern keeper but after identified as the family of Samuel Mifflin Francis.

GramereC 16:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Edward Fraunces → Samuel Fraunces?

User:GramereC put this in the article, clunkily cited to a 1885 article in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register: "The name Fraunces is seen with one family from England dating back to Henry VIII, and that is the family of Edward Fraunces who died in 1741. The french extraction so often referred to is that of the Jaquelin family from Vendee France and the grandmother of Edward Fraunces." But the document in question (linked here: https://archive.org/stream/newenglandhistorv39wate#page/n681/mode/2up/search/fraunces) is a transcription of Edward Fraunces's 1740 will. No source is given to connect this Edward Fraunces to the subject of this article, Samuel Fraunces. This is the type of supposition, the original research in primary sources that does not belong in Wikipedia. What proof is there that this Edward Fraunces is an ancestor or relative of Samuel Fraunces? None. All such unsupportable, extraneous stuff should be removed from this article. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

They are all removed at this point both from me and others. I have one more picture to post.

GramereC 23:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Household Washington vs Presidents, origins and death

There are a few little things in other sections to change or add.

If we change the household to Washington's there could be the addition of the correspondence back and forth about glassware, dishes, madeira and the like. Showing there are more than a couple of letters between Washington and Fraunces. Include the Hector and Andromache from Tudor Place with reference to the letters about it and that it is one of the only personal items that survived. Debated still is was the bible Washington sworn in on the bible belonging to Sam?

Origins should just come out. If the vanity press source of the Baptism is unacceptable then we have no idea where he is from or who his parents are. There is DNA and it matches to English descendants but no authorization to share that info. We can include what others like WEB Dubois said but no actual primary source is available. I have photos of the baptism but they are UK records and I have no authority.

Death Fraunces stayed in Philadelphia through the Yellow Fever and one of the household members died from the fever. It is iffy about why he did not return to the household but certain he owned the "Golden Tuns" at the time of death.GramereC 00:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Supposition

Please stop placing supposition into the article. Address race with race.

The family has records at both Christ Church and Trinity just because Kym Rice did not use them does not make them invalid.

These citations of MASS ARREST ORDERED BY WASHINGTON????? false the citation does not say this. You have also posted erroneous citations for Will's. We had replaced them all with primary documents but you insist on placing erroneous citation to document your argument which is not what we are trying to do her.

Boring History Guy Says:

1. This poisoning attempt – if it occurred – would have taken place in late June 1776 at Richmond Hill, Washington's headquarters in Manhattan. WHO SAID THIS WHEN????

2. The housekeeper there was a widow named Mary Smith,[82] MRS SMITH WAS THE HOUSEKEEPER BEFORE ELIZABETH THOMPSON (NOT PHEBE) Mrs Smith was also the owner of the house used as headquarter before Richmond hill. That citationn identifes she was a housekeeper at Richmond Hill although there were other female servants.

3. Fraunces's tavern was about two miles away, and provided catered meals for the general and his staff. The map shows us where his tavern is.

All of this is just supposition. Stop putting it back.GramereC 20:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

4. Samuel Fraunces also was arrested, and held until he was released for lack of evidence. In his 1785 petition to Congress, Fraunces swore that he had thwarted an assassination plot against Washington, but the petition contained no mention of poisoning.[12] How do you get that from the congressional record????? It is not what it says at all again it is some kind of supposition for your argument. IT is coming out reword it and cite it with a correct citation if it is true.GramereC 21:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

5. At the time of Hickey's June 1776 hanging, Fraunces's eldest daughter, Elizabeth, was a 10-year-old child.[15] But thirteen years later she married Atcheson Thompson,[16] and – coincidentally – became another "Elizabeth Thompson."[note 2]HMMM how many Elizabeth Thompson's and Mrs Smith's are we up to now. Usually someone gets a nickname at that point to avoid confusion. So was it hei daughter or wasn't it???? you added it??? WHO SAID THIS??? Taking it out.GramereC 21:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

6. Scribner Times is there own reference we get it that the Fraunces Tavern Museum wants the history one way and no other but their history is BAD replaced with the primary source of Scribner's.

Why do you keep on putting tertiary at best references in when there are primary and secondary sources available??? It is an article about Fraunces not the Tavern Museum. GramereC 21:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

7. SR, writes that "The use of ' black' as a prefix to a nickname was not uncommon in the 18th century and did not necessarily indicate African heritage of an individual. For instance, Admiral Richard Lord Howe (1762- 1799), one of Britain’s best known and respected seamen – and a white man – was commonly called 'Black Dick,' a nickname his brother Sir William Howe gave to him as descriptive of the Admiral’s swarthy complexion."[70] Patton concludes that, "The issue of Samuel Fraunces’ racial identity is still a passionate topic of discussion to this very day. As debate rallies on for conclusive evidence, the actual truth is that we may never know for sure."[70] two citations same source that little PDF for the kids if that is not a block quote what is???? GramereC 22:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

I really have no clue what "Address race with race" means. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Taverns

The first documentation of his presence in New York City was in February 1755, when he registered as a British subject and "Innholder."[16] The following year he was issued a tavern license,[17] but where he worked for the next two years is unidentified.[12]:25 From 1758 to 1762, he operated the Free Mason's Arms Tavern at Broadway and Queen Street.[18]

Reference 18 is Fraunces Tavern????? Reference 12 is Kym AGAIN!! I had sources for the Mason's Arm's??

In 1762 he mortgaged and rented out the Free Mason's Arms, and purchased the Oliver Delancey mansion at Pearl and Dock Streets.[19] He opened this as the Sign of Queen Charlotte Tavern, but within a year it was better known as the Queen's Head Tavern (possibly due to the queen's portrait on a painted sign).[20] In addition to the usual restaurant fare, Fraunces offered fixed-price dinners, catered meals delivered, and sold preserved items such as bottled soups, ketchup, nuts, pickled fruits and vegetables, oysters, jellies and marmalades.[21] Although the tavern featured five lodging-rooms, it was better known as a place for private meetings, parties and receptions, and card-playing.[12]:50–51

Reference 12 again is KYM!!!! The architecure report for the tavern is a reference which is pretty much taken from the Governors archives and I had replaced it with an online accessible source but again hey lets use a source no one can find, especially the high school kid using Wikipedia to do a paper. The New York Gazette started in 1768 so it may be a different Gazette you need to source here. There are also other sources for the 1974 The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record that can not be found on line with a search warrant and has no Volume #.

He rented out the former Delancey mansion in 1765, and opened the Vaux-Hall Pleasure Garden, a summer resort along the Hudson River. Built as a private villa, it featured large rooms and extensive grounds, and was the setting for concerts and public entertainments. Fraunces modeled ten life-sized wax statues of historical figures, debuting them in a garden setting in July 1768.[22] He later exhibited seventy miniature wax figures from the Bible, and life-size wax statues of King George III and Queen Charlotte.[23]

1. 22 the reference is July 25, 1768 The Gazette was published June 6 and July 29th 1768 Maybe someone has a special edition someplace???? #23 is again a newspaper with either wrong date or title. I had corrected all of this.

He also moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1765, opening a Queen's Head Tavern on Front Street in that city,[24] then moving to Water Street in 1766.[24] He returned to New York City in early 1768, and sold the Free Mason's Arms. He resumed operation of his tavern in the former Delancey mansion in 1770,[25] and sold Vaux-Hall in 1773.[26]

He continued to operate the Queen's Head Tavern through the early years of the Revolutionary War, but fled when the British captured New York City in September 1776.[18]

Again Newspapers they need to be checked for dates I had done all that correcting the citations in the copy that was in the sand box as requested. The Library of Congress lists names and publication dates that can be checked against. Other than that there almost has to be a copy of the mast head etc. I do have most of these at home with the correct dates. Then the last paragraph #18 is from Fraunces Tavern. Other sources, show he was not in New Jersey until after Washington's Farwell when he says he moved there in a letter to George Washington found in the papers of George Washington. GramereC 18:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

What can be done to improve this article?

I have archived all these old discussions, since these issues seem now to have been settled after six months or so. What can be done to improve this article going forward? TuckerResearch (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

To me it looks pretty good right now. Where does it need to go forward to? Carptrash (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ha. Going forward in time. I'm asking for any suggestions. I think it is looking pretty good too. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

""Time. Time. What is time? Swiss manufacture it. French hoard it. Italians squander it. Americans say it is money. Hindus say it does not exist. Do you know what I say? I say time is a crook." Peter Lorrie in Beat the Devil Carptrash (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Self-published source

Hey, User:JzG: You added a self-published source warning to this article today, but I'm not sure to which author it refers. I added the Marjorie Charlot footnote in May (here's the diff). I am not Marjorie Charlot; I added her because she was the fourth author to repeat the (not impossible) claim that Samuel Fraunces had been born in Haiti.

This article HAS had major problems with a self-published author citing her own work, presenting fantasies as fact, using multiple aliases, and being an incredibly disruptive editor. You can read about it in the archives of this Talk page. (Although, I don't recommend it.) That author has been blocked twice, and hasn't returned since early May.

Was it she you were warning against?

Happy Holidays. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The Charlot book is published via iUniverse, a vanity press. Guy (Help!) 00:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Guy. Okay, I see. Since she's one of four authors who state the same claim -- no evidence presented by any of them -- leaving your warning probably is the best thing to do. Thanks. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Racial Identity

Descendants of Samuel Fraunces have had DNA testing done. No African ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.11.31.32 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Such a statement really does need a source to be taken seriously. Carptrash (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Samuel Fraunces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912223654/https://www.quinnipiac.edu/other/ABL/etext/stagetavern/index.html to http://www.quinnipiac.edu/other/ABL/etext/stagetavern/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131208044129/http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/samuel-fraunces to http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/samuel-fraunces

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Chronological order

A past editor inserted new sections between this Talk page's existing sections, creating confusion. In an effort to make the archived discussion easier to follow, I edited Archive 1 to restore chronological order. I did not change any content. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Racial Identity

Descendants of Samuel Fraunces have had DNA testing done. No African ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.11.31.32 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Such a statement really does need a source to be taken seriously. Carptrash (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

184.11.31.32. It sounds like you may be (or be married to) a descendant of Samuel Fraunces. I'd recommend that you read through the archives of this talk page to get a better understanding of what is going on.

Samuel Fraunces was a New York City tavernkeeper, husband of Elizabeth Dally, and father of 2 sons and 5 daughters. He served as steward of George Washington's presidential household in New York City for 10 months, (April 1789 - February 1790), and in Philadelphia for 3 years, (1791 - 1794). He was listed in the 1790 Federal Census for New York as a white man, with 4 white females in his household, and one slave (no gender given).

Dr. Kym S. Rice devoted a section of her book Early American Taverns (Regnery Gateway, 1983) to a biography of Fraunces. This documented his long history of slaveholding, and quoted a newspaper advertisement in which Fraunces offered for sale "a Negro Boy, about 14, used to household work." (The New-York Gazette, August 29, 1778, Rice, p. 148, n. 11.) Rice was commissioned by the Sons of the Revolution in the State of New York to thoroughly research Fraunces Tavern. Her A Documentary History of Fraunces Tavern (1985) was privately printed, but copies are available for research at Fraunces Tavern Museum and elsewhere.

About a decade ago, C.R. Cole proposed an alternate Fraunces genealogy in her self-published book Samuel Fraunces "Black Sam" (Xlibris, 2009).[9] Cole claimed that the slave listed in the 1790 Census was named "Samuel Fraunces Jr." (Cole, p. 104.) She also identified him as the free-black man "Samuel Francis" who married an Elizabeth Stevens (also free-black) in New York City in 1794 (Cole, p. 104), and had five children, born in 1805, 1807, 1810, 1811, and 1815 (Cole, p. 105).

The tavernkeeper's actual son, Samuel M. Fraunces, was living in Philadelphia in the 1790s. He married a woman named Susannah, and, according to Christ Church Philadelphia baptismal records, they had two daughters: Susan (b. 17 June 1796) and Hariot (b. 8 September 1797). Samuel M. Fraunces was co-executor of his father's estate (Will of Samuel Fraunces, Philadelphia Will Book J (10), page 348, No. 219 of 1795), and he himself died intestate in 1799. His widow, Susannah Fraunces, was named administratrix of his estate (Letters of Administration, Estate of Samuel M. Fraunces, Philadelphia Will Book K (11), page 12, No. 265 of 1799).

The documentary evidence demonstrates that the Samuel M. Fraunces of Philadelphia and the Samuel Francis of New York City could not have been the same man. Charles Blockson, in The Samuel Fraunces Story (Still Publications, 2013), states that there is DNA evidence tracing Fraunces's descendants back to "North and East Africa" (Blockson. p. v). But, if this African-American line is traced through the Samuel Francis proposed by Cole (rather than through Samuel M. Fraunces), it would have to be spurious, and the descendants unrelated to the tavernkeeper.

Sources for the above can be found in the article. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Little to No mention that he was a Black man? I wonder why? Shouldn’t have to dig to find.

Little to No mention that he was a Black man? I wonder why? Shouldn’t have to dig to find out who is was. 2600:1008:B04D:A6E6:EDBA:63:A7B2:80BD (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The debate over his racial identity is in the SECOND paragraph of the lede. And there is literally a whole section devoted to the theories of his racial identity—Samuel_Fraunces#Racial_identity—that you apparently missed. I wonder why? TuckerResearch (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)