| Article content |
- From brianinalbany@aol.com Thu Jul 25 11:52:40 2002
Return-Path: <Brianinalbany@aol.com>
X-Sender: Brianinalbany@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 25 Jul 2002 18:52:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 35589 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2002 18:52:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Jul 2002 18:52:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.161)
by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 2002 18:52:40 -0000
Received: from Brianinalbany@aol.com
by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.21.) id a.107.155011b7 (26119)
for <colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:52:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <107.155011b7.2a71a2ef@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:52:31 EDT
Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: NY copper mines
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_107.155011b7.2a71a2ef_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10572
From: brianinalbany@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=109483162
X-Yahoo-Profile: brianinalbany
--part1_107.155011b7.2a71a2ef_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
John L.
I have read Weis&Weis. While the authors may site Gov. Hunter's letter and
draw the conclusion that it pertained to New Jersey, I have read the original
Gov. Hunter document while conducting research at the NYS Archives. In the
original document, there is only a reference to New York. Thus, Weis & Weis
may interpret Gov. Hunter's letter as a reference to New Jersey, but Gov.
Hunter clearly states New York as the location of the copper mine.
Prior to 1702, New Jersey was divided into the East and West provinces. In
that year, these two provinces were consolidated in the colony of New Jersey.
Obviously, New York played a major role in the colonial affairs of New
Jersey. And the two colonies at times shared the same governor for executive
administrative functions. But, as Ray W. points out, NY and NJ in 1715 were
separate colonies and if Hunter said NY he probably meant NY. But, given New
York's economic control of that part of New Jersey closest to the Hudson
River, he could have as a "slip of the tongue" meant New Jersey. All of this
is pure speculation, which in part is what makes history so interesting.
None of what I say here is meant to distract from what you are doing.
Rather, I raise it mainly because in a notable way, it ties in with what you
are trying to prove -- the use of American colonial copper as a source of
copper coinage shipped to the colonies to address the acute shortage of small
denomination coins prior to 1776. If you are able to document this
connection, it would make for a most valuable addition to the field of
numismatics.
Finally, as to England's interest in Connecticut copper, I do not think that
the focus was on the output of copper at the Higley mine but rather at the
mines on "Copper Hill" controlled by others such as the future Governor of
Massachusetts.
Good luck in your research. I look forward to hearing more on your endeavors.
Brian D.
--part1_107.155011b7.2a71a2ef_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>John L.
<BR>
<BR>I have read Weis&Weis. While the authors may site Gov. Hunter's letter and draw the conclusion that it pertained to New Jersey, I have read the <B>original Gov. Hunter </B>document while conducting research at the NYS Archives. In the <B>original </B>document, there is <B>only a reference to New York</B>. Thus, Weis & Weis may interpret Gov. Hunter's letter as a reference to New Jersey, but Gov. Hunter <B>clearly states New York </B>as the location of the copper mine.
<BR>
<BR>Prior to 1702, New Jersey was divided into the East and West provinces. In that year, these two provinces were consolidated in the colony of New Jersey. Obviously, New York played a major role in the colonial affairs of New Jersey. And the two colonies at times shared the same governor for executive administrative functions. But, as Ray W. points out, NY and NJ in 1715 were separate colonies and if Hunter said NY he probably meant NY. <B>But</B>, given New York's economic control of that part of New Jersey closest to the Hudson River, he <B>could have </B>as a "slip of the tongue" meant New Jersey. All of this is pure <B>speculation, </B>which in part is what makes history so interesting.
<BR>
<BR>None of what I say here is meant to distract from what you are doing. Rather, I raise it mainly because in a notable way, it ties in with what you are trying to prove -- the use of American colonial copper as a source of copper coinage shipped to the colonies to address the acute shortage of small denomination coins prior to 1776. If you are able to document this connection, it would make for a most valuable addition to the field of numismatics.
<BR>
<BR>Finally, as to England's interest in Connecticut copper, I do not think that the focus was on the output of copper at the Higley mine but rather at the mines on "Copper Hill" controlled by others such as the future Governor of Massachusetts.
<BR>
<BR>Good luck in your research. I look forward to hearing more on your endeavors.
<BR>
<BR>Brian D. </FONT></HTML>
--part1_107.155011b7.2a71a2ef_boundary--
|
|---|
| Source URL |
|
|---|
| Date published |
|
|---|
| Volume |
|
|---|
