Talk:Gregor MacGregor

Article relies too much on a single, non-scholarly source

With all due respect to the accomplished editor, Template:U, the article in its present state, composed mostly by him, leans far too heavily on a single, non-scholarly source, The Land that Never Was: Sir Gregor MacGregor and the Most Audacious Fraud in History, by David Sinclair, which was written to appeal to a mass audience.

I refer editors to a review of this work, by Charles W. Arnade, that appeared in The Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 83, No. 2 (Fall, 2004), pp. 193-195:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30149559

"... there is a weakness in the Sinclair book. It is based on only a few nineteenth-century printed sources, all in the British Library and Museum and the National Library of Scotland, and for some genealogical data, the author used a few items in the Glin Castle Archive. There is nothing at all from American archives and libraries, especially those of Spain and Latin and Caribbean America. Most of MacGregor's activities took place in the Caribbean and northern South America. For example, the limited bibliography does not list a single article from the Florida Historical Quarterly or University of Florida Professor David Bushnell's excellent compilation of text and documents published by Pan American Institute of Geography and History in 1986.

For the Poyais episode, Sinclair relies heavily if not solely on three sources: the phony thick 1822 guidebook to Poyais by co-conspirator Thomas Strangeways; an article in the British magazine History Today (no date given); and a narrative of the voyage of the ship that took the settlers to Mosquito Bay, printed in 1823 by author James Hastie who, with his wife and three children, had been part of the expedition. The portrait of MacGregor's life before the Poyais adventure is heavily based on the London 1820 publication of Michael Rafter, Memoirs of Gregor M'Gregor. Sinclair's use of Rafter is vast and, to me, excessive, particularly since it is apparently intensely prejudicial against MacGregor. Rafter's brother had been an associate of MacGregor who, probably through MacGregor's fault, fell into the hands of Spanish forces in South America where he was executed.

,,, the bibliography is short, and many of the quotes lack correct identifications."

Cliftonian writes quite well, but I believe this very long biographical article needs to be revamped with material not so dependent on the point of view of one non-academic author (Sinclair), who himself leans heavily on a prejudiced primary source (Rafter). Carlstak (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Template:U, thanks for the note and for your kind words above. I appreciate your point about the sourcing, but unfortunately, as Arnade says in this very review, there isn't really a superior alternative so far as a MacGregor biography goes. Sinclair's book was the first attempt to cover all of MacGregor's life, scholarly or not—as Arnade points out. He ends on the point that "a scholarly biography of MacGregor, a quintessential rogue, is still needed". This was in 2004. So far as I am aware there has been no such book-length scholarly biography of MacGregor published in the past 11 years. I did come across Matthew Brown's chapter on MacGregor in Colonial Lives Across the British Empire: Imperial Careering in the Long Nineteenth Century (2006), which touches on MacGregor's attempts at "reconciliation" with Spain during the Poyais episode—entirely absent from Sinclair's book—but nothing else coming close to a biography. A few passing mentions, but that's it.

Have you been able to find Bushnell's compilation of text and documents anywhere online? I haven't been able to find it on JSTOR. It certainly sounds like it could be helpful. Thanks again for your help. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:U, I have a copy of La República de las Floridas : Texts and Documents. I would be happy to scan it and email the file to you (it's only 65 pages).

Also, I've just ordered Sir Gregor Mac Gregor: Un escoces tras la aventura de America (Tiempo de Venezuela) (in Spanish) by Tulio Arends, and 2 copies of La Republica de las Floridas, 1817-1818 by the same author (the seller's description says it's in Spanish and English) which should be an invaluable source for information about the Amelia Island affair. I will be receiving these in 2 or 3 weeks, and could send you one of the copies of La Republica, if you like. Carlstak (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ping that would be extremely kind of you, if it's not too much of a bother (you refer to "only 65 pages", but this seems to me a lot for you to have to scan—but then I only have a basic home scanner/printer). I don't know Spanish very well, so perhaps it might be more practical if you look through the Spanish-language stuff and post the highlights on this talk page or somewhere else (I'm sorry, I presume you understand Spanish? Please let me know if I am wrong here). Am I correct in thinking you are offering here to send me a physical copy of La Republica de las Floridas, 1817–1818? If so, that is really very generous, but not necessary. You paid for those, after all. It might be best if, again, you had a look and let us all know about anything you think pertinent on the talk page. If you'd like to scan a few particularly pertinent pages from La Republica, that would be great too, though I would hate to burden you, so don't feel obliged. Thank you again for all of your help and for your very kind offers above. I hope you are well. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ping no bother at all; I can scan 2 pages at once, and some of those pages are extraneous, so the total shouldn't be too unwieldy. I can get them to you tomorrow.

Yes, I am offering to send you a physical copy of La Republica de las Floridas, 1817–1818 (I got one copy at a substantial discount) if you wish. I read Spanish fairly well, and if the text is not also in English (there was conflicting info in the description), then I will translate pertinent passages and send them to you. Best, Carlstak (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ping thank you very much Carlstak; this is really very civil of you. I'll send you an email now through the "email user" feature, so you have my email address. Regarding La Republica de las Floridas, 1817–1818, I think it might be best if you have a look first as you suggest above, and translate highlights where pertinent. Thanks again, and I hope you're well. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ping, The London financier's full name was "Thomas" Newte, as can be seen here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=RTAYAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Thomas%20Newte%22 and here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Cxd7AAAAMAAJ&q=%22sent%20by%20Thomas%20Newte%22

I've added his full name, with citations. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this Carlstak! Great work. This is very helpful. Cheers! —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

B-Class Assessment

How come this article failed the B-class Assessment? Adamdaley (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

When? It just passed GA. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Have a look in the WikiProject Military History. It fails at B1. Adamdaley (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. That seems to be a holdover from long before the article took its present form. As you can see the article's sourcing was assessed as part of the GA review above and adjudged sound. In view of that do you think you could rectify the anomaly you point out? —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Adamdaley (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Return to Britain, return to Venezuela

Am I missing something? The lede says in the third paragraph "On his permanent return to Britain in 1821..." but we know that he returned to Venezuela in 1838, as the next paragraph says: "In 1838 he moved to Venezuela..." Carlstak (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see the issue. I added the word "permanent" because he had already returned temporarily to Britain to get troops in 1818, but I see exactly what you mean. I've removed the word. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"King" George Frederic Augustus

Shouldn't the Cazique of Poyaise section give some indication that the hereditary "king" of the Miskito Sambu people and his "court" were a ridiculous sham, a fact not mentioned in either Sinclair (who calls him "a king of sorts") or the linked-to article George Frederic Augustus I? Both of these treat the Miskito "dynasty" as a to-be-taken-seriously political power, when in reality the British from the beginnings of their relationship with the chiefs of the tribe had cynically used the reigning "king" as a mere puppet?

You get some idea of just how farcical the whole charade was from contemporaneous accounts; for example, The Gospel in Central America: Containing a Sketch of the Country pp. 209–211, by Frederick Crowe, has these delectable bits in its text and footnotes:

"The coronation of King Robert took place at Belize on the 23rd of April 1825... On this occasion it was deemed necessary to qualify the Waikna [Misquito] nobility for the part assigned them. Mr. Henry Dunn informs us, upon the testimony of an eye-witness of this iniquitous imposture, that 'they displayed a total ignorance of the meaning of the ceremony; and when asked to give their names, took the titles of Lord Rodney, Lord Nelson, or some other celebrated officer, and seemed grievously disappointed when told they could only be baptized by simple Christian names.' and he adds, that, 'after this solemn mockery had been concluded, the whole assembly adjourned to a large school-room, to eat the coronation dinner, where the usual healths were drunk, and these poor creatures all intoxicated with rum; a suitable conclusion to a farce as blasphemous and wicked as ever disgraced a Christian country.'

"...the King, dressed as a British Major, in the front, the ceremony of anointing was gone through. (Here Mr. Dunn informs us, that the King repeatedly thrust his hand through his thick bushy hair, and, applying his fingers to his nose, in this expressive manner indicated his delight at this part of the service.) After which the crown was placed on his head, and, on a preconcerted signal being given by Major Baldwin, a salute was fired from the fort. Afterwards, Lord Nelson, Lord Rodney, and I know not how many more lords, were received into the visible church by sprinkling—poor creatures!—the minister thanking God that they were by this ordinance regenerated and made part of the body of Christ. It is an awful concern!"

'Skipper Mudge, who arrived at this port from Honduras last week, in his smack Nancy, reports that he had an interview, before sailing, with his Majesty the King of the Mosquitoes. His Majesty wore a splendid cocked-hat and a red sash, and had very large gilt spurs buckled about his ankles; but I regret to say that the remainder was, as the painters say, without drapery. We must make allowance, however, for difference of customs and climate. His Majesty, who cannot be more than twenty years old, was slightly intoxicated. His suite consisted of a one-eyed drummer-boy, and two gentlemen with fifes, one of whom acted as an interpreter. The King of the Mosquitoes received Skipper Mudge seated on an empty whisky-cask. He motioned to the skipper to take a seat on the ground or wherever he chose.' The writer then goes on to describe the further proceedings of the interview, in the course of which his Majesty's laughter having been excited, the cask rolled from under him, and he fell to the ground." Carlstak (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this Carlstak. We do say in our article here that "the British authorities in the region had crowned their most powerful chieftains as 'kings' since the 17th century", and I think the fact that we say George Frederic Augustus handed over his massive swathe of land "in exchange for rum and jewellery" rather speaks volumes. I will add a sentence clarifying further that these "kings" were effectively British puppets. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Cliftonian. Your last edit on the article is helpful to the article itself and the reader, I believe. Carlstak (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think so too. Thanks Carlstak. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the summary of my last edit to the section should have said, "According to Sinclair p. 39, the letter of credence, not the person of Major Richardson, was presented to George IV." Carlstak (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted—I'd clearly misread that sentence (I just looked it up again and you're right). Thanks for this, and the other edit correcting my grammatical mistake. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure. Carlstak (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Some further points

Template:Ping I've taken another look and found these:

• British Army
  • Link 57th Foot to the "57th (West Middlesex) Regiment of Foot" article.
    • That article is already linked to at the first mention, at the top of the section. isn't it? —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I used Ctrl-F to find instances of "57th Foot". Carlstak (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If "forbade any enlisted man or non-commissioned officer from leaving" isn't acceptable, then "the MacGregors had been legally ostracised to the extent that they were forbidden from using their own surname" shouldn't be, either.
    • Yes, good catch. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Florida republic; Amelia Island affair
  • "Irwin's troops defeated two Spanish assaults and were then joined by 300 men under Louis-Michel Aury, who held Amelia for three months, then surrendered to American forces who held the island "in trust for Spain" until the Florida Purchase in 1819." Wouldn't "...held Amelia for three months. He subsequently surrendered to American forces..." be better than having the two "thens" in one sentence?
    • I've gone with "were then joined by 300 men under Louis-Michel Aury, who held Amelia for three months before surrendering to American forces" —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Porto Bello
  • Shouldn't "at rates cheaper than the British Army" be "at rates cheaper than those offered by the British army."
    • OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If the envoy in the British capital borrowed money in British pounds sterling for MacGregor to engage and transport British troops, why were they promised $80 in pay on arrival, and in what country's denomination?
    • To encourage them to join up. "Eighty silver dollars" each apparently, the source doesn't say which country's denomination but I would presume Spanish silver dollars. Have altered accordingly. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "MacGregor instead ordered his fleet about and made for the high seas.", might it be better to say, "...ordered his fleet to turn about.."?
    • OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Rio de la Hacha
  • Would "by the appearance of war materiel from London, sent by Thomas Newte" be better as "..."that Thomas Newt had sent" in this context?
    • I put a comma in there to split it up a little, as the sentence is a bit long. I hope this is OK. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "...Josefa and Gregorio had been evicted, and until Higson's intervention had sought sanctuary..." – perhaps given the context should be "...until Higson's intervention they had sought sanctuary..."?
    • I'm not sure the extra word is necessary grammatically, so I've left this one. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • In mentioning that Michael Rafter dedicated his book to Colonel William Rafter and the troops, it should be noted that William was his brother.
    • We've already mentioned it above, but you're right this should be mentioned directly there too. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Disappointment
  • "The weather in British Honduras was even worse than those at the Black River," – "worse than that"
    • Yes, good catch. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• 1826 acquittal of fraud
  • The caption for the image of La Force Prison in Paris is not a complete sentence and shouldn't take the full stop.
    • Yes —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Regards, Carlstak (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for this Carlstak, very helpful. I've made most of the changes suggested. Cheers and I hope you're well. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, it's a pleasure. My idea of fun on a dreary day. Carlstak (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:U, thought you might enjoy this BBC article by Maria Konnikova, author of a new book called The Confidence Game. (Wikipedia gets an image credit.) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Bank of Poyais-1 Hard Dollar (1820s) SCAM.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bank of Poyais-1 Hard Dollar (1820s) SCAM.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 7, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-11-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Template:POTD/2016-11-07

Allegiance

You guys left out his allegiance from 1821-37, which was to Poyais. It even had its own flag: https://fotw.info/flags/bz_poy.html 2606:A000:89C6:9300:F2B0:645D:8905:F3E8 (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Single source tag

The article is currently tagged with Template:One source. The tag was added in January 2022 by Template:U, who said "more than half the footnotes are to Sinclair 2004; some of the text seems unencyclopedic, too". Over-reliance on Sinclair was discussed previously by Template:U and a now-vanished user in the section #Article relies too much on a single, non-scholarly source back in 2015. Template:U has questioned featuring this article in the "On this day" section of the main page due to the banner, and Template:U has called the use of the template "erroneous" and has now removed the tag. Template:PbWhere do we go from here? I support removal of the tag, but perhaps there are underlying issues to discuss? Maybe Piledhigheranddeeper can tell us more about the issues with the current level reliance on Sinclair. Are there any verifiability or point of view issues? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC) partial striking 15:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

OK. I would add that the current sourcing was much discussed above in 2015 (see top section on this talk page), and also passed the Feature Article review in 2015 with that same sourcing. — Maile (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The article still seems rather over-reliant on the Sinclair work. I don't know enough about that work to be able to comment on the 2015 criticism, but even if it was tip-top academic research or any supposed slanting, it's still over-abundantly represented in the references. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree that the article is still over-reliant on the Sinclair work. Being the editor who first brought this up with Cliftonian in 2015 above, I must say that I was never really satisfied with the end result, well-written as it was, because of that very fact. I didn't want to be the lone contrarian impeding the advance of his version to FA status, and did my best to collaborate with him in adding some other references. He certainly improved the article in many respects, being that he is a good writer, and presented a much more coherent and better-flowing text. I confess that it's always bugged me a bit that it yet depends so heavily on Sinclair's non-academic work written to appeal to the mass market.

Cliftonian and I communicated a little by email at the time, and he told me a little about himself, but I have no idea why he's vanished. I hope all is well with him and his family. I would be interested to know which parts of the article Template:U considers unencyclopedic. Carlstak (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)