Talk:Nathan Frink

Notes

JH Frink was an alderman a century later, presumably a relative given that it's a weird-as-heck name. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

A search [here] for Frink will turn up that there may have been some confusion about his debts upon death possibly because of confusion about whether he was dead when he was still alive. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle talk 08:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that after shifting allegiances, Nathan Frink fled the United States with child-slaves to settle in Canada where he was elected MLA and caught in a smuggling conspiracy with the chief customs officer?

• Source: various, in article

• • Reviewed:

Created by Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - A couple of thoughts regarding the hook: (1) I don't think there should be a hyphen between 'child' and 'slaves'. (2) MLA should be linked to Member of the Legislative Assembly I believe, and likewise in the body of the article.

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Fundy Isles Historian - J I think it's a neat, extremely well-researched article & thank you for your contributions! The hook is good (pending above modifications), and right at length.

I do think the article could use some copy editing, and while I ran reFill on the bare references, I think some of them could also be improved.

I also have a question regarding the article text: the sentence "...Moses Gerrish, a Harvard graduate who was granted a failed license to settle..." is confusing to me. Was he granted a license that then failed (?) or can the term "failed" be clarified? The article on Gerrish doesn't seem to use the same wording, at least... = paul2520 💬 00:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'd given up on this I guess. I went and re-worded the Moses Gerrish thing, at the time I wrote that line I hadn't realized Gerrish had his own article so I'd info-dumped in the sentence unnecessarily (the funny bit being that the Customs Officer and chief settlement officer of the island was in a smuggling ring, of course). I'm not sure how to "fix' the references so appreciate any help on that. Did the MLA link as you suggested. I'd still argue "child-slaves" is less confusing than "child slaves" but leave it to others - could be a regional linguistics issue. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Fundy Isles Historian - J: I know there's a big backlog of nominations to review. It's worth the wait :-)

I think your updates are good, and I see HazelAB helped with a bunch of the reference formatting.

from my perspective, this is good to go. Thanks again for all your work on the article! = paul2520 💬 13:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Both "child-slaves" and "child slaves" sound odd and awkward to me. How about replacing this term with "enslaved children"? HazelAB (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with any of the suggestions on wording it, personally I'd read "enslaved children" and tend to assume he also owned their parents...the "odd" part here being no, no, he just bought two kids as slaves basically. His story is actually pretty remarkable, I'm almost tempted to start a "Leading Personalities of Early Charlotte County NB" template similar to {{Template:CharlotteNBIslands}} because the sheer levels of drama that Owen, Frink, Pagan and others cause is bordering on hilarious...I mean Owen appears from multiple sources to have honestly believed the terms of his grant put him equal to the King of England and above any Canadian, British or American oversight for his island :) Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Who is "Owen"?

The name "Owen" appears 7 times in this article, but never associated with a first (or last) name; we do not get any sense of who "Owen" was in relation to Mr. Frink other than he was apparently a litigious Justice of the Peace in New Brunswick. There needs to be something introducing "Owen" and why there was such enmity between him and Mr. Frink. 24.181.251.182 (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

That's embarrassing, thank you. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Service as MLA?

Does anyone have more information about Frink's legislative service? Looking in the article Charlotte (provincial electoral district, 1785–1974) (about Charlotte County's Legislative Assembly district), Frink isn't listed among the members, nor is he listed among the members in the articles for the 1st through 6th provincial legislatures. Could he have served as a member of the Legislative Council of New Brunswick, rather than the Legislative Assembly? Rockhead126 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Good catch, I've asked a few people about the issue since I was also aware he wasn't listed as an MLA despite being listed as an MLA...a bit of a historical oddity, and Vroom is top-notch as a historian...you might have solved the mystery perhaps. A quick Google doesn't turn up a source to officially change it, but I suspect you're correct. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I searched the Journals of the Legislative Assembly (at Canadiana.ca) and he is never mentioned as a member. The only mention is in relation to his various requests for compensation. Unfortunately, Canadiana.ca only has the Assembly journals for that period, not the Legislative Council journals, so I wasn’t able to check about LC membership. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe confused for Ninian Lindsay? 1 Also check out the "His Family" section here B3251_(talk) 02:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the clipping, curious reference to being a ship-owner also - haven't seen a reference to that before. Not much Frink wasn't into, lol. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

On the whole, Legislative Council of New Brunswick needs a LOT of work - names nobody right now, lol. Want to collaborate on it for a week with me? Or just pick something at User:Fundy Isles Historian - J/Template:CharlotteNBLoyalistFigures or {{CharlotteNBIslands}} and help out :) Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Info needed about Patriot military service

The article states that he resigned his commission in the American military so wasn’t deserting, but that is the only mention of American military service. What unit did he serve in? When the infobox states his rank as Captain, is that in the American or the British military? I’m afraid I don’t know where to find the answers to these questions. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I have been seeking out the sources cited for this article, and based on them I am starting to doubt that Frink actually saw military service on the side of the Patriots. See below for the account of Lorenzo Sabine in his Biographical Sketches. Also, the passage in the biography of Elizabeth Frink that is cited in support of the statement that "He joined the American Revolution first on the side of the Patriots where he gained a reputation as a "dashing officer"" actually says that "although he sympathized with the colonials ... patriotism overcame him and he joined the Loyal American Legion (a cavalry regiment) to fight on the British side ... when the war broke out".(https://archive.org/details/frinkofficialbio00gard/page/2/mode/2up?q=nathan+) I'll keep looking. HazelAB (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

That’s interesting. Although it says he was a “dashing officer”, it doesn’t say “with the Patriot forces” or anything like that. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Firstly the citation is just for the quoted "dashing officer" reference (just Trumbull's citation in the same sentence is only for the "notorious traitor" quote), since EF's biography is just giving a passing nod to a troublesome relative and not exactly a historian's view of military service - but obviously her timeline is muddy when she claims he joined the Britihs "when the war broke out", since it broke out in 1775 and over the next five years Frink was still testifying against British collaborators among the Patriots and signed to deliver muskets to the local Committee of Safety militia, etc. From piecing together dates, it seems he switched sides in 1780.

But I hear what you're saying,obviously actions like ratting on his neighbour for buying British goods aren't military service, nor even is promising to deliver muskets to the Patriots. But functionally all sources agree that he was actually not just a Loyalist, but like Benedict Arnold, one who had commit the unspeakable sin of having left behind his promising career as an officer in the Patriots' military. That he was made a commissioned officer in the British regiment supports the assumption he was commissioned on the Patriot side. Holly and all the others continue harping on the fact he was an officer for the United States, then became an officer for Britain.

This suggests Pomfret was ordinarily considered 11th Regiment, militia-wise. It should also be noted that a glance at Google "suggests" the Deputy Stamp-Master appointment was in 1765, long predating the rumblings of war...and it's not clear he even lived in Pomfret at the outbreak of hostilities...yet where was he, and how is he labeled as serving the Americans with no entry in regimental musters, and then no real description of how he deserted to the British cause either - basically just "appearing" in history books at the capture of the Fort and trusted aide to Arnold...only the NY letters offer a glimpse into the fact his "betrayal" was well-known and caused great animosity (again suggesting this isn't a 1765 Stamp Act issue)

It may be that similar to a certain Confederate with a difficult Wiki biography, Frink's may be complicated by the fact Quintard says he was working as a spy for the Patriots against the British before actually joining the British. You have top generals writing to top generals about their anger over Frink's act - not something likely for a simple Pomfret lawyer or even a Patriot regular or officer which saw many simple defections...Frink's caused particular injury and reprisal. Almost inexplicably. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable published source for the fact that Frink held a military commission on the side of the Patriots? Otherwise he would not have been able to be able to resign his commission. (see WP:RS)HazelAB (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

There are countless references to him having served with the Patriots, then the British - but the citation used right now is "Captain Frink resigned his commission when he went below, and consequently could not be made out a deserter.". Again the fact top generals were discussing his betrayal, and capturing former slaves of his as retaliation and writing about the personal opinions he held of them...all very odd.

For context, if a non-commissioned officer or an enlisted man "defects" then he is guilty of desertion as they cannot resign their commission at will. (Today COs can't either) But at the time a commission was exactly that, a voluntarily contract that could be nullified at will - and Frink apparently made the necessary gesture of informing the Americans he was resigning, covering his butt against future desertion charges.

Now Frink wasn't just aide de camp to Bendict Arnold but also crossed paths with him on the Canadian side of the border it seems (not in the Wiki article, but I've seen spotted references to Arnold secretly visiting Campobello, etc) and there's some talk about their closeness...Arnold defected/deserted/left in 1780, and it appears Frink was the same timeframe...it's possible their actions were related. But that's just speculation and can't go in the article. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC) Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

So is this the only source for his having having been a commissioned officer with the Patriots? It is a transcript of an interview from 1849 with Isaac Holly (1764-1851). Do any of the other references you mention have specific information about when and where and with what Patriot outfit he served? HazelAB (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Multiple sources say he was an officer with the Patriots, more still say he served with the Patriots' military without using the word "officer", but I think Holly is the only one I've seen who puts the adjective "Commissioned" in front - although as mentioned it makes sense, usually armies offer equal ranks to "defectors" so it's "likely" he was a Captain or lower for the Patriots...but rank could've been blurred if the statements of him acting as a spy for the Patriots were relevant. You can't really move from a NCO to a CO as a practical matter (NCO = leader, CO = educated leader from the start, commissioned as lieutenants and work their way up - from their first day in the military they outrank all the NCOs basically no matter how long the NCOs served). That's a "quick and dirty" rundown. Still not found information on with which unit he served other than as I said, the militia unit named above as a possibility given his hometown...but it may require the actual Connecticut State Archives of the Revolution (not digitized online) to track down.

FamilySearch has dozens of scans of the Revolutionary War musters that have list a Nathan Frink of Pomfret CT starting as a Private (odd) from 1775-1783 (when he married and moves to Canada) suggesting his name was never removed from Muster Rolls despite his obvious change of allegiance. Again I suspect the scattered references to him having actually served as a spy might be relevant.

Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I guess part of the issue with the “dashing officer” quote is the location in the article. The source does not say which side considered him to be a dashing officer, but the location in the article makes it sound as if that was the Patriot assessment. Can we support that implication? Was he a dashing officer when he held a US commission, or when he was in the King’s American Dragoons? I think we need to be precise. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The words "dashing officer" are in quotation marks in the cited source, page 2 of a biography of Nathan Frink's descendant Elizabeth Frink. The context is: "a certain Captain Nathan Frink developed a considerable reputation as a 'dashing officer' in the War of American Independence (1775-83)." It goes on to say that "although he sympathized with the colonials who were infuriated with the strictures of George III's autocratic regime, patriotism overcame him and he joined the Loyal American Legion (a cavalry regiment) to fight on the British side under the notorious General Arnold when the war broke out". Whether or not Frink took up arms on both sides, this source only mentions one and the implication seems clear that he was a dashing officer when he was in the cavalry fighting on the British side.

The book has source notes and source given for the "Family History" on page 2 is "Henry Walker Frink's research, Frink estate archives". Without access to this, it's not possible to say if the dashing officer reference was to his Patriot or Loyalist days.

So either the "dashing officer" quote either refers to his British service (the Frink biography) or it's impossible to tell for sure without access to HWF's research at the Frink estate archives.

The quotation is ambiguous at best and in its present context in the second paragraph of the lede gives a lot of prominence to a statement that is potentially incorrect, so in my opinion it should be removed. No useful information would be lost by this. HazelAB (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally offer this source as it's just one more that makes passing reference to Frink having been an officer for the Continental Army (I do wonder if we're using the term "Patriots" too much in this article, as a Canadian I rarely ever heard the term for American side of the Revolution) - but I just also wanted to share "We just recently put a court martial proceeding on our site about Peter BRADY, a Queen's Ranger. He was a Continental Soldier who left and joined the Queen's Rangers in 1776 and was then accused of trying to get British Soldiers to desert with him back to the Rebels! It was a confusing time, to say the least...", lol. I think we nailed down the July 31 'defection' though it can't be completely blunt in the article as it's not clear what letter former-Patriot Nathan Frink was urging former-enemy Loring to have former-enemy Simcoe deliver back to his own former-friend side...but I think it's sufficient to assume that's the defection given it fits the timeline we were looking for. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Lorenzo Sabine article about Frink

The cited article by Sabine https://hdl.handle.net/2027/aeu.ark:/13960/t48p6w10r?urlappend=%3Bseq=478 does not say that Frink ever served in the Patriot army. In fact it says that "he entered the British military service and was a captain of Cavalry in the American Legion". Sabine suggests that Frink would have supported the Patriots had his neighbours treated him differently, not that he was "in their army" and then left it. That wording is misleading, especially given that the source only mentions military service on the side of the British. HazelAB (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

We named the DOG Indiana

Part of the problem may be that "the" Nathan Frink is actually Nathan Frink Jr, suggesting his father had the same name. One source references that the father of the traitor-Frink wailed and wept and his hair turned gray upon learning of his son's treachery...but not sure if that's Dad or Granddad. What threw me was not only the presence of Nathan Frink as a Private on the muster roll through the war (presumably that'd be the Jr not the Sr?) but the statements of Frink having been appointed Deputy Stampmaster possibly date back to 1765...at which point Jr was not yet a teenager...it seems like history books have themselves been confused about the two Frinks.

But keeping things ever-spicy as Frink seems to be a professional at, note that in January 1779 (the timeframe when we no longer hear about him as a Patriot but not yet as a Loyalist) he sends a letter "partly in cypher", lol here is collection of letters, again sometimes says Junior, sometimes doesn't say, Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Seven letters here, fascinating - one of them (not titled Junior) states "Dear Col Samuel Blachley Webb.:

I have sent some papers to New York for Mrs. Van Horn, which are lodged in the hands of Capt. Murray, Aid de Camp to Gen. Robertson, who desired Mrs. Boulton (who delivered them) to inform me they would be delivered Mrs. Van Horn in a few days. As they are matters of the greatest consequence to my father, and am told you are acquainted with Capt. Murray, must beg you to call on him for them, and present them to Mrs. Van Horn as soon as possible," Webb is literally George Washington's aide de camp, and even more bizarrely is on parole by the British as a prisoner of war having been captured...the letter is addressed to him as a prisoner, by Nathan Frink. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Every time I open this article, I’m wondering if Frink was trying to get a death ray working, for military purposes. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2MuKi_QOk4 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

lol, I have very similar thoughts as I research him simply because he's such a bizarre character - I cannot believe there was never an article about this guy before. The Loring letter seems to confirm he defected to the British July 31 1779 and asked them to take a letter under flag of truce back to the American side (presumably explaining it, though I can't speculate in the article, just back here on the talk page), though again it's not clear from any of Webb's letters whether Frink had a rank or not. The Webb letters make it clear that "the" Nathan Frink was the Jr, but also that most of his letters he didn't sign with "Jr" though it was still clearly him. I would GUESS the only possible "NF Senior"s hidden in the current article are the Deputy Stamp-Master (but it's in the source material!) and possibly the Justice of the Peace although Frink was of-age by then and was attending the Assembly in-person himself for the gun procurement stuff...but we never see him referenced as a JP after that (until he becomes one in NB I suppose). What a wild trip this article has been. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

(Also in case I was too subtle in the article, since I can't officially speculate in the article, but it's pretty obvious from his letters to General Webb that whoever "Mrs Van Horn" is, she's definitely not Mrs Van Horn lol - Frink claims she's a friend of Webbs, Webb says he has no idea what Frink is talking about, Frink says Webb can help her, then says actually she's the angry jilted relative holding an inheritence that isn't hers, then he says she can get 6% interest on government bonds for them...., but not then it's that Mrs. Van Horn has written to General Robertson's Aide de Camp Captain Murray wanting Webb and Murray to do this urgently for the sake Nathan Frink's father as a request from Mrs Van Horn, lol.....at this point I wouldn't be surprised if Mrs Van Horn was just the codename for King George or perhaps George Washington lol. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

a dashing officer

I removed a claim (that Frink "gained a reputation as a 'dashing officer' while serving in the patriot army) that was not supported by the cited source.

The words "dashing officer" are in quotation marks in the cited source, page 2 of a biography of Nathan Frink's descendant Elizabeth Frink. The context is: "a certain Captain Nathan Frink developed a considerable reputation as a 'dashing officer' in the War of American Independence (1775-83)." It goes on to say that "although he sympathized with the colonials who were infuriated with the strictures of George III's autocratic regime, patriotism overcame him and he joined the Loyal American Legion (a cavalry regiment) to fight on the British side under the notorious General Arnold when the war broke out". Whether or not Frink took up arms on both sides, this source only mentions one and the implication seems clear that he was a dashing officer when he was in the cavalry fighting on the British side.

The book has source notes and the source given for the "Family History" on page 2 is "Henry Walker Frink's research, Frink estate archives". Without access to this, it's not possible to say if the dashing officer reference was to his Patriot or Loyalist days. So either the "dashing officer" quote refers to his British service (the Frink biography) or it's impossible to tell for sure without access to HWF's research at the Frink estate archives. The quotation is ambiguous at best and in its context in the second sentence of the lede gave a lot of prominence to a statement that is potentially incorrect, so I removed it. No useful information was lost. HazelAB (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)