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 JodyLane3 on Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:28 pm

Ok Paul i think my use nf certain terms is getting us off center again so let me rephrase my previous two questions. What is your timeline of activity on the lot on Oak Island on which situates what has become known as the Money Pit during the years 1780 to 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 7:39 pm

Almost uninterupted smuggling betwwen October 1777 to June 1810, After 1810, all appears quiet... very, very, quiet for lot 18, save the smith children running and playing around.
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 Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:23 pm

So Paul you are saying there was no Onslow Company activity around 1804-05?
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 Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:02 pm

The Onslow folks were there, just the year of activity and purpose is in question. RV Harris rationalizes two possibilities for the years of Onslow's activity, then he work from Blair's 1795 date of discovery to draw his conclusions. If the 1795 discovery date is incorrect, then so is RV Harris' suggested date. With that said, RV was also of the belief for no previous connection to exist between Onslow and Chester

Either way, we are lead to think Onslow's first association was after the Loyalists came to the island; however, Supreme Court records associated with the Seditious Trial of Timothy Houghton (Chester's first Justice of the Peace and Magistrate) prove a connection between the Lynds family and Chester which dates to 1777 (anyways). The marriage record of Anthony Vaughan Jr also proves a connection between these participants which is previous to the 1804/05 dates and while at the same time refuting the the legend of how Onslow became involved.

We also know the partnership of Timothy Houghton and William Keyes were granted the area of Chester and Onslow on the same day in 1759. This record weakly suggests a possible association dating back to when our Onslow residence first came to NS

George Cooke was the secretary to the association and he clearly states Simeon Lynds' father and Vaughn were related prior to Onslow's participation. If this relation was through blood, then he could have easily said Simeon was related to Vaughn. I think George was using a play on words to tell us Simeon's father and Vaughn were 'related' in common cause or activity.

Regardless of how one rationalizes Onslow's participation, the record clearly refutes the legend.

One bit of evidence which does show 'something' in common between Simeon Lynds, Thomas Harris, and Robert Archibald during 1805. This association is found within the Halifax Supreme court records. All three were defendants for failing to pay promissory notes issued during 1804. Following up these court records has been a worthy expense of time and effort.

The early story tellers mistake was mentioning Onslow. They should have left the initial and most innocent mention at that, rather than providing an unnecessary subsequent elaboration. It is through these damage control type subsequent texts where the intentional misdirects can be found and why it was important for their descendants to have folks (of the 1860s) to think their ancestor's involvement was during a much later year.

My research path is starting to point at at Lynds/Archibalds being on that island (again) during 1798/99. There are a few interesting papers in Ireland and the UK which need to be obtained and studied.
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 Apr 22, 2012 3:08 pm

Ok Paul I can hold to the evidence that the first and second pits--the Money Pit and as D'Arcy's book lists it number 2 --took place years before with a different cast of characters. My question is why, in your onion, the 50 year lag in exploration from 1799 to 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 Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:59 pm

JodyLane3 wrote:... My question is why, in your onion, the 50 year lag in exploration from 1799 to 1849?


I too had the same question and assigned it the heading “Truro/Onslow Trigger”.

I don't recall who the author was, but I do have a letter saying 1848. Regardless of when they actually returned, we must consider when they first considered a return. Surely plans had to be made, funding obtained, participants organized, etc...

Our NSARM does contain TWO letters in our Provincial Secretary's Letter book from David Lynds and dated to 1847. In both of these letters, David is asking for a hasty reply to his previous request. He says that he awaits the post everyday but no reply. Unfortunately I have not been able to located David's original request, but many more government letter books still need checking.

The real question must be when did those folks first intend a return to Oak Island and then what triggered that decision?

Do you not find it odd for the descendants of Onslow relying upon Anthony Vaughan and John Smith to provide historical details? Surely the Onslow descendants must have possessed some factual information, or did they? Our men from 1848/49 even had one of their own who was charged with interviewing the locals for historical information and we now know just how shy on details they were.

I've often wondered if we were lead to think a reliance on Vaughan and Smith was nothing more than a plausible method to show a lack of previous knowledge and deniability. On the other hand our 1848/49 men may have only had an oral tale of pirate treasure that was told to them as young lads to explain some family members' activities?

Regardless of how twisted this part of the story might really be, I am not one for coincidences which can be established through documents.

One possible event which may have been the impetus for Truro/Onslow to return was the 14 December 1845 death of Samuel Ball. The small lapse in time between Ball's death and our men returning would be a reasonable period to account for notification and planning. It would be nice to find David's original request to see if it pertains to Oak Island.

If Ball's death was indeed the impetus for the return, then why would those men not want to return while Ball was still alive?
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 Apr 23, 2012 1:36 pm

The Ball situation is curious indeed. Although it would be interesting to see how he could have checkmated exploration since Smith had the land and could deal with whom he pleased.
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 Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:24 pm

JodyLane3 wrote:The Ball situation is curious indeed. Although it would be interesting to see how he could have checkmated exploration since Smith had the land and could deal with whom he pleased.


Smith certainly owned the property which men dug in during 1848/49; however, who owned the lot in which men previously dug? This researcher is more than satisfied for there being another pit on the island, perhaps even the original pit.

The Ball situation is curious indeed. Perhaps mere superstitious belief prevented the Onslow/Truro folks?

Perhaps Ball really was involved as Mary Smith said (while excluding her father) and he still retained his 1/3 +- share which those 1848/49 did not was to split with him? McGinnis, the elder Vaughans, and the Melvins were all dead by then, only Ball remained until that late date.

Perhaps they could not trust Ball, thinking he would eventually extort money from them for his silence by not disclosing their illegal activity? The property deeds of Samuel Ball paint a very curious picture indeed, almost sinister when one studies those deeds closely, and his will dated 1841 casts additional light.
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 Wed May 16, 2012 6:45 pm

Another pit? Where exactly do you believe it would be and what is the basis for your thought on this?
JodyLane3
Digging for Gold
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Terre Haute, IN

Previous

Return to Your Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


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