My thoughts on John Smith and company

Please post your theories for discussion here. Expect plenty of questions and devil's advocacy.

Moderators: Jo, admiralbenbow, Keeled_over

Re: My thoughts on John Smith and company

Postby D'Arcy on Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:19 pm

Jody:

Yeah. However, Harris's biggest screwup was in 1935 when he was acting as solicitor for Hedden who thought he'd purchased the entire island from the Sellers family. Harris's sloppy work eventually led to Nolan finding out that Lots 5 and 9 through 14 (about a quarter of the island) were never properly transferred, and he quickly snapped them up for a song. This in turn led to years of litigation between Chappell and Triton vs Nolan, with Nolan being the winner.
User avatar
D'Arcy
Future Tour Guide
 
Posts: 2682
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:55 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: My thoughts on John Smith and company

Postby JodyLane3 on Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:43 pm

I was actually thinking of Harris and Blairs ulterior motives rather than Harris' lack of legalistic abilities. The fact that with the legislation that got passed at that time that would allow Blair as treasure trove licensee to being able to hunt on Lewis land but keep Lewis from searching really seems shady. Hence my real questioning of Harris.
JodyLane3
Digging for Gold
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Terre Haute, IN

Re: My thoughts on John Smith and company

Postby n4n224ccw on Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:57 pm

Here is some new information on John Smith with a little more of the puzzle becoming exposed.

Story tellers from the 1860s need us to think John Smith was part of discovery, in fact this is a critical element of the story for the sole purpose of removing any reasonable question of how John Smith came to acquire lot 18 and for keeping the story innocent. Simply put, if John was not part of discovery then why didn't those who discovered the pit buy lot 18 for themselves? Fred Blair even when so far to state 1795 as the year of discovery because that is when John Smith bought the property, thus removing any focus before 1795 and keeping the legend as an innocent discovery.

This of course comes with the caveat of lot 18 being the property on which the original pit was discovered. Considering documents dispel much the entire legend, why should lot 18 remain a truthful element?

Without rehashing previously posted information about when discovery occurred and Mary Smith's version, the thoughts of Captain Kidd's buried treasure combined with human nature would reasonably suggest someone attempting to obtain the property close to the time of discovery. Again, Fred Blair attempted to this very thing by linking 1795 and for the same rational.

The legend's underlying premise is an innocent discovery at play which removes any complexities from the story; however, they do not remove documents on file which refute the legend.

As this post pertains to John Smith and his purchase of lot 18, we must remain mindful of the following:

-No previous ownership of lot 18 ever mentioned until the Wollenhaupt to Smith sale of 1795.
-Under what circumstances and exactly when Wollenhaupt acquired lot 18 is unknown
-Supposedly thought to be Captain Kidd's treasure, adult men much more wealthier than John Smith not buying or are unable to buy the property.
-John Smith's purchase of lot 18 totally circumventing the established deed registration process, even though Wollenhaupt was fluent in this process and should have upheld the established norms.

The overall impression created by the legend would have the reader naturally think what a lucky 20 year old John Smith must have been. Unfortunately documents tell of a different history which makes John Smith's luck as unbelievable and something which the early story tellers wanted to avoid.

Obviously other folks were unable to acquire the property and we must naturally wonder why? It is still premature to speculate if Wollenhaupt was implicated or had previous knowledge of activity on lot 18; however, the circumstantial evidence is pointing in a direction which speaks to a conspiracy to protect lot 18 from ownership and deeper excavation.

Jonathan Prescott certainly was negligent by not maintaining the Island Shares document, a responsibility for the Township's Justice of the Peace. If Prescott was doing his job, then we would have no questions detailing how Wollenhaupt came to own lot 18. Likewise with Wollenhaupt being totally fluent with the deed registration process through his extensive business of buying mortgages, he should have ensured his acquisition of lot 18 was registered in Chester, like he did with perhaps 100 other properties in Chester Township alone. The combination of these two men being negligent with the deed registration speaks to conspiracy.

Through Prescott and Wollenhaupt's neglect and combined with much historical evidence showing the folks of Chester supported the American cause, we can reasonably consider the possibility for any Loyalist being unable to acquire lot 18 and discovering an inconvenient truth about the island's history during the Revolution.

John Smith's family did arrive in the area with the Loyalist wave of 1784, so how could he acquire this property when he was from the very group being excluded? The following information will cast light on John Smith's advantage and which allowed him to purchase this property, most likely on behalf of the rest of our participants. I state this because George McGinnis says “the family gave up claim on the treasure long ago”. McGinnis may have discovered the pit, but Smith owned the property so the only reasonable indication of claim is for McGinnis partially funding the Smith purchase.

Turning to the property deeds, land grants and Smith family papers, we read the following:

-John Smith's mother was Margaret Smith (nee McLean/MacLean).
-Margaret's brother was Hector McLean.
-John's father (Duncan) and uncle (Hector) are both granted land in Chester during 1784.
-Duncan acquires lot 24 but sells this on 24 February 1785.
-Hector acquires lot 23 on 8 October 1784 with building mentioned and sells this property to Donald McGinnis on 4 May 1790.

There can be little doubt for Hector knowing about the island, perhaps he even lived on the island but was removed prior to the Poll Tax of 1791? This would be most interesting to think Hector may have been present for discovery as his story is about to get very interesting.

Hector McLean was obviously a man of status and quality to be the main grantee. His position as a Lieutenant in the 84th Regiment during the Revolution was very significant due to his Regiment's history.

As fortune would have it, Hector received the nod to represented Hants County in the House of Assembly from 1793 to 1799.

It is now very easy to understand that a former Oak Island property owner, perhaps a resident, was able to use his political clout and influence towards assisting his nephew with acquiring lot 18 ahead of others, perhaps acting as the point man for these Loyalists to expose Chester's Revolutionary activity.

What a coincidence for lot 18 to have such political connections in the Assembly of NS.

Digging a little dipper into this story will show more political intrigue and connection to the island during this time and which goes directly to the families of Blair, Archibalds, and Lynds. Simeon's innocent visit to Chester can be nothing more than a convenient invention.

I will gladly share these political connections in a future post, but for now and for those wanting to read more, you might consider ordering a copy of letters from the National Archives of Scotland, call number GD174/2154.

Enjoy.
The post Revolutionary history of Oak Island is a complex web of lies and partial truths to sort through.

http://www.oakislandtheories.com
User avatar
n4n224ccw
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: Halifax Nova Scotia

Re: My thoughts on John Smith and company

Postby JodyLane3 on Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:29 pm

I am now open to there being earlier discovery of the Money Pit prior to 1795.

What i would like to ask is how far did they get down?

Also you have mentioned at length that the MP was fifteen feet from the Smith house. Where is this cited?

Also you have mentioned an 1880s MP activity. What was done and how was it overlooked by history, especially by Blair?
JodyLane3
Digging for Gold
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Terre Haute, IN

Re: My thoughts on John Smith and company

Postby n4n224ccw on Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:53 pm

Jody,

JodyLane3 wrote:What i would like to ask is how far did they get down?


I doubt they dug down so much as a single foot under the context of the 'discovery' story.

That story is just too neat and tidy for it to be real when taking into account the backdrop of activity and the complexities of relationships between those attached to the island. Notions of a quiet and previously uninhabited island are essential elements for making the innocent story believable; however, those elements are now known to be unfounded and without merit.

The introduction of Thomas Embree and new information on Neal McMullen (John Smith's step father) reasonably explains why the 1790s segment could not be told. There is much circumstantial evidence which hints at Embree's activities; however and as always, the supporting documents need to be found to confirm. Considering the man's significance only came to light a few weeks ago, there is some research to do. If what the circumstantial evidence indicates is correct, then this would also explain why the folks of Onslow made contact.

JodyLane3 wrote:Also you have mentioned at length that the MP was fifteen feet from the Smith house. Where is this cited?


I think this was in the George Cooke to Hunter-Duvar exchange of letters. I did post that ref somewhere in this forum, perhaps under a thread pertaining to the inscribed stone? I'll look through my documents and try to locate it. Regardless of the source, aerial photographs from the 1930s do show Smith's foundation and the locations of old pits and debris mounds. These items are very close to the foundation; but unfortunately the ground is too disturbed and the record too inaccurate to precisely located the original MP through these photographs alone.

JodyLane3 wrote:Also you have mentioned an 1880s MP activity. What was done and how was it overlooked by history, especially by Blair?

[/quote]

Who knows why this was overlooked by Blair, but here is a link to the 1887 article. I have a transcript of the article with the activity was never captured by Blair or RV Harris. With a little investigation, the names of the participants were easily discovered and in turn yielded additional information.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/acce ... atl=google

Beside the above mentioned, there are two other reports of treasure hunting which predate Blair and not mentioned by him, including one group from Dorchester County NS...aka Antigonish during 1891.

I draw your attention to read the following article very closely.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=b3 ... sure&hl=en

Seems to me they did not overhaul every shovel of earth on the island....which can only mean....


Cheers
The post Revolutionary history of Oak Island is a complex web of lies and partial truths to sort through.

http://www.oakislandtheories.com
User avatar
n4n224ccw
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: Halifax Nova Scotia

Re: My thoughts on John Smith and company

Postby JodyLane3 on Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:32 am

Paul I think our ongoing discussion has reached a point that I see our differences are between discovery and exploration. As you admit the original discoverers of the Money Pit may not have done any actual exploration of what lies beneath. I am interested in the various searches that took place. So while I will agree with you that others prior to 1795 found the depression in the dirt on OI and that the three boys story isn't accurate I hold to the belief that McInnis (various spellings not withstanding), a Vaughn (or Sam Ball) and John Smith did indeed start the original exploration and excavation in the 1790s.

jody
JodyLane3
Digging for Gold
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Terre Haute, IN

Re: My thoughts on John Smith and company

Postby JodyLane3 on Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:32 pm

As I have mentioned before Paul, I am open to the fact that discovery of the Money Pit was prior to 1790 and realise that I was disagreeing with you on the difference between apples and oranges for whicq i apologize. So who among the usual suspect do you believe were involved in the first major excavation of the pit and about what year?
JodyLane3
Digging for Gold
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Terre Haute, IN

Re: My thoughts on John Smith and company

Postby n4n224ccw on Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:25 pm

JodyLane3 wrote:... So who among the usual suspect do you believe were involved in the first major excavation of the pit and about what year?


JodyLane3,

If we were to take discovery at face value and as detailed in the earliest forms of the legend, when the island was still uninhabited and when these folks (McGinnis, Ball, and Smith) first came to the island and immediately after they constructed their huts, then between March 1787 to August 1789. As you know, these dates are extracted from property deeds, the Poll Tax of 1791, and finally the John Smith family papers.

Ball, McGinnis, Monroe, McMullen (along with step-son John Smith, 14 years old), and Marshall (with wife Ann Vaughn) as residences. Then there would be the major non-resident land owners of Daniel and Anthony Vaughn Sr who were most likely the employers of the residence, and finally one or two sons of Robert Melvin whose family owned the largest number of island lots.

Anthony Jr would have been 5 to 7 years of age during the above dates, Mary Smith was yet to be born.
Regardless, a simple and straight forward story should not have a disconnect when considering both of these folks reasonably possessed intimate knowledge. They should have told the same story.

The early form of the legend suggests the neighbours were unwilling to help out, implying Monroe, McMullen, and Marshall. Anthony Vaughan Jr includes himself in discovery and eliminates Ball. Mary Smith includes Ball and eliminates Anthony Vaughan Jr and even her own father! There seems to be a disconnect between Mary Smith and Anthony Vaughan Jr's versions.

http://www.ourroots.ca/e/page.aspx?id=208165

Was a simple statement of neighbours unwilling to help out due to superstitious beliefs true, or were names not mentioned for the purpose of removing association?
The post Revolutionary history of Oak Island is a complex web of lies and partial truths to sort through.

http://www.oakislandtheories.com
User avatar
n4n224ccw
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: Halifax Nova Scotia

Re: My thoughts on John Smith and company

Postby JodyLane3 on Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:45 pm

Paul. Do you think research will ever uncover any treasure search activity on the island between 1805 and 1849?
JodyLane3
Digging for Gold
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Terre Haute, IN

Re: My thoughts on John Smith and company

Postby n4n224ccw on Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:57 am

JodyLane3 wrote:Paul. Do you think research will ever uncover any treasure search activity on the island between 1805 and 1849?


I don't think any documents will be found which connects a 'treasure' to the island before 1845; therefore, if no belief in treasure, then no treasure hunt. Only the Mephibosheth Stepsure letters from 1821 indicate something going on. "....and not do like the Chester folks; who once dug for money, and at last got so deep that they arrived in the other world; and falling in with the devil were glad to get away with only the loss of their tools."

The author clearly notes they dug for money rather than using other descriptive words like treasure, gold, silver etc....money does sound like period currency.

Readers may do well to google these letters, the author, and how the author connects to Col Archibald.
The post Revolutionary history of Oak Island is a complex web of lies and partial truths to sort through.

http://www.oakislandtheories.com
User avatar
n4n224ccw
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: Halifax Nova Scotia

PreviousNext

Return to Your Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


Fatal error: ./cache/ is NOT writable. in /home/oakislan/public_html/forum/includes/acm/acm_file.php on line 103