| Contenido del artículo |
- From CNLF@Comcast.net Fri Jun 08 13:22:54 2007
Return-Path: <JCSpilman1@comcast.net>
X-Sender: JCSpilman1@comcast.net
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 74769 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2007 20:22:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.67.36)
by m36.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Jun 2007 20:22:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc13.comcast.net) (204.127.200.83)
by mta10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Jun 2007 20:22:54 -0000
Received: from comcast.net (c-68-62-208-189.hsd1.al.comcast.net[68.62.208.189])
by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP
id <2007060820033501300iv8u2e>; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 20:03:36 +0000
Message-ID: <4669B616.ED0474E6@Comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:03:34 -0500
Organization: HOME/iMac
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
References: <380-2200765824818380@M2W040.mail2web.com> <1BD99E93-87A8-4ADE-8F8B-240081710A7B@sympatico.ca> <001501c7a9e7$137eb900$6602a8c0@JWLouis> <46698E0F.CA82DE66@Comcast.net> <741D47E1-69D6-4683-82C5-D237C2AAAC88@sympatico.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------848C8A8B178B427669FA56B0"
X-Originating-IP: 204.127.200.83
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0
X-eGroups-From: JCSpilman/iMAC/HOME <JCSpilman1@Comcast.net>
From: JCSpilman/iMAC/HOME <CNLF@Comcast.net>
Reply-To: JCSpilman1@Comcast.net
Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is a Colonial Coin?
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=166193415; y=P_4zn3eh0aiRjjGLVzl7ZQ5Fz4Ml9VyjpJY9Yk1pVsher_V73_g
X-Yahoo-Profile: shamus12017
--------------848C8A8B178B427669FA56B0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
8 JUNE 2007
Oliver, et al --
Sorry for the delay. I lost both TV and Internet service for
several hours.
See:
The Oxford Universal Dictionary on Historical Principles ed.
C.T. Onions; Oxford Clarendon Press.
1580. Colony: Greek. Settlement of "people from home" , as an
independent self governed state. (i.e. Family Unit as it
pertains to "Prehistoric".)
1622. Colonize: To plant or establish a colony. (But see more
modern usage, Roman, 1816.
1701. Colonist: One who settles in a new country.
1796. Colonial: Of belonging to, or relating to, a colony.
1816. Colonize: To establish in a colony.
The roots emanate Greek to Roman, but the Greek is most specific
being of earliest taxonomic origin. Time does not enter into
the equation other that the beginning of usage in writing. In
later Roman usage the derivation continues into Plantation et al.
, British American Crown Colonies (one of three types) became
"Plantations".
JCSpilman/CNLF
======================
"Oliver D. Hoover" wrote:
> So enlighten me.� You still need to provide some evidence for
> the use of "colonial" to refer to the Prehistoric settlers of
> North America.� Migration and settlement are not synonymous
> with colonialism. OliverOn 8-Jun-07, at 1:12 PM,
> JCSpilman/iMAC/HOME wrote:
>
>> Oliver obviously does not understand the taxonomy of the word
>> colonial.� Jim/CNLF
>>
>> John Louis wrote:
>>
>> > I thought the Vikings settled in Minnesota!jwl�
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From:Oliver D. Hoover
>> > To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
>> > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 10:13 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is a
>> > Colonial Coin?
>> > �
>> > Dan and David,
>> >
>> > I had forgotten about the Vikings. I suppose some
>> > argument could be
>> > made for the Vineland settlement as a medieval
>> > colonial experiment,
>> > but I don't know what the status of Vineland was
>> > vis-a-vis the
>> > Scandinavian kings. There is nothing colonial
>> > about the Asian
>> > migrations into North America in the Prehistoric
>> > period.
>> >
>> > David, No mints, but I think that there was
>> > supposed to have been a
>> > Viking coin find from Vineland. I could be
>> > mistaken though.
>> >
>> > Oliver
>> >
>> > On 7-Jun-07, at 10:48 PM, palmers4@erols.com
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > It must be because we have no evidence of a mint
>> > being set up by
>> > > either the
>> > > Asian invasion, or the Vikings. David
>> > >
>> > > Original Message:
>> > > -----------------
>> > > From: Freidus, Daniel freidus@umich.edu
>> > > Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:35:59 -0400
>> > > To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
>> > > Subject: RE: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is
>> > a Colonial Coin?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Yes, Oliver, I don't recall ever having seen the
>> > term 'colonial'
>> > > used to
>> > > refer to any activity in North America earlier
>> > than 1492 (but I
>> > > haven't
>> > > read much about the Viking invasion). I was also
>> > under the
>> > > impression that
>> > > crossing the Bering strait was probably a long
>> > enough and difficult
>> > > enough
>> > > journey that those doing it were leaving behind
>> > their old land, not
>> > > staying
>> > > in touch.
>> > >
>> > > Dan
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com on behalf
>> > of Oliver D. Hoover
>> > > Sent: Thu 6/7/2007 9:05 PM
>> > > To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
>> > > Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is
>> > a Colonial Coin?
>> > >
>> > > Jim,
>> > >
>> > > I would be interested to know who uses the term
>> > "Colonial" to refer
>> > > to the migrants from the Asian continent to
>> > North America in the
>> > > Prehistoric period who later became the Native
>> > peoples of the
>> > > Americas. This seems like quite a stretch as the
>> > prehistoric peoples
>> > > who crossed the Bering Strait are not likely to
>> > have maintained
>> > > political and economic ties with their Asian
>> > homeland. Is not
>> > > dependence on the Mother Country a colonial
>> > requirement by definition?
>> > >
>> > > Oliver
>> > >
>> > > On 7-Jun-07, at 2:17 PM, JCSpilman/iMAC/HOME
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Dan --
>> > >> The categorization of time spans and
>> > terminology is neatly spelled
>> > >> out in Dr. Jordan's Notre Dame "Colonial"
>> > (Early American)
>> > >> website. I find nothing in his systemization to
>> > object to. Draw
>> > >> this categorization as an organization chart
>> > and you will find that
>> > >> it is, generally, all inclusive,
>> > >>
>> > >> The misnomer "colonial" has long been
>> > recognized as an "era" prior
>> > >> to the Paris Treaty of 1783 and even extends
>> > back in time to man's
>> > >> first entry into the North American continent
>> > (from Asia).
>> > >> Colonial is a very broad categorization
>> > indicating only a Colony of
>> > >> some remote Mother Country, it may, or may not,
>> > extend to several
>> > >> intervals of time, as well as changes between
>> > one Mother Country
>> > >> and some other.
>> > >>
>> > >> Remember the political phrase "Keep it simple,
>> > stupid" <bg>
>> > >>
>> > >> Jim/CNLF
>> > >>
>> > >> ===========================
>> > >>
>> > >> "Freidus, Daniel" wrote:
>> > >>> I've seen many historians use dates other than
>> > 1776 to divide
>> > >>> eras. It's not uncommon to see 1764-1783 or
>> > 1789 listed as the
>> > >>> Revolutionary period. Do we put Continental
>> > currency from 1775 in
>> > >>> a different category than that from 1776
>> > (which still said "United
>> > >>> Colonies") or that from, say, 1778 (by which
>> > time it said "United
>> > >>> States")?For most purposes, historians use
>> > either 1783 or 1789 as
>> > >>> the beginning of the next phase for our nation
>> > <Well, most of
>> > >>> ours, Oliver ;) >. I generally prefer 1789
>> > because I see the
>> > >>> ratification as the end of the process of
>> > declaring independence
>> > >>> (the Bill of Rights was tweaking, even if they
>> > are quite
>> > >>> important). For coinage, I think pre-1764,
>> > 1764-1789, and
>> > >>> post-1789 work quite well. For paper money and
>> > many fiscal issues
>> > >>> you could argue that the Revolutionary period
>> > goes on a bit beyond
>> > >>> 1789 but I don't think that diminishes the
>> > usefulness of seeing
>> > >>> early American numismatics as 3 eras:
>> > Colonial, Revolutionary, and
>> > >>> Federal.
>> > >>> Just because Fugios were made for the federal
>> > government doesn't
>> > >>> put them in the Federal era. They were an
>> > experiment by a
>> > >>> government still being formed. Large cents are
>> > different (and
>> > >>> that's why I no longer collect them.).
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Dan
>> > >>>
>> > >>> From:colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
>> > [mailto:colonial-
>> > >>> coins@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John N.
>> > Lupia
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:16 PM
>> > >>> To:colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
>> > >>> Subject: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is a
>> > Colonial Coin?
>> > >>> Hi Ray:
>> > >>> I think you misread me. I agree the name C4 is
>> > here to stay. The
>> > >>> distinction I am making is a more precise
>> > definition of the scope of
>> > >>> the subject matter of colonial numismatics
>> > under the banner of C4.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> To continue keeping Early Federal Coinage
>> > minted 1776-1792 under the
>> > >>> C4 banner will continue the confusion, lack of
>> > clarity, and the
>> > >>> perception of the whole as a jumbled mess.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I realize your affections for Early Federal
>> > coinages, especially New
>> > >>> Jersey cents, wants you to keep them as C4
>> > subject matter. But for
>> > >>> the
>> > >>> sake of the subject matter as well as for the
>> > good of the larger
>> > >>> collecting community, the American community
>> > at large, newcomers to
>> > >>> the field, students, and so on, to put them
>> > under the proper
>> > >>> banner is
>> > >>> for a greater good than could ever be
>> > accomplished by keeping the
>> > >>> status quo.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Most of us already are members of more than
>> > one numismatic
>> > >>> society or
>> > >>> association, so here is one more for us to
>> > join.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> EAC wont take the subject matter back as we
>> > all suspect since they
>> > >>> have specialized so intensely on Early US
>> > cents and half cents
>> > >>> 1793-1857 showing signs of no other interest.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> But, I think my purpose goes way beyond the
>> > things mentioned here.
>> > >>> These Early Federal coinages we all love and
>> > have such a fascination
>> > >>> and interest in are not properly focused as
>> > Federal coinages and
>> > >>> obviously they cannot be Pre-Mint.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> We need to shatter the myth that the US Mint
>> > at Philadelphia
>> > >>> completed
>> > >>> by September 7, 1792 is the only real
>> > authentic mint of record as
>> > >>> defined by Frank Stewart in 1924. It appears
>> > not even to have been
>> > >>> the
>> > >>> first built with US government funds and
>> > operated by US government
>> > >>> staff. Robert Morris seems to have been the
>> > one under the
>> > >>> direction of
>> > >>> Congress to have done that.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> The early government wasted no time making
>> > plates to print paper
>> > >>> money
>> > >>> and strike coinages even in 1776, also having
>> > set up a US
>> > >>> treasury, US
>> > >>> Federal Reserve Depositories (Boston being one
>> > of the first), The
>> > >>> Nnational Bank system, and state charters for
>> > banks.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> A decade before the Philadelphia Mint, Robert
>> > Morris set up the
>> > >>> first
>> > >>> bureau of engraving and mint in 1782, that has
>> > now since disappeared
>> > >>> without a trace, also probably located in NJ
>> > or in or near PA.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> But, after Morris' Mint dissolved (for reasons
>> > yet unclear to me)
>> > >>> the
>> > >>> US Mint became itinerant just as the US
>> > Congress was itinerant until
>> > >>> it settled down in a physical building in the
>> > District of
>> > >>> Columbia . .
>> > >>> . and the Mint also after July 18, 1792 when
>> > the government
>> > >>> purchased
>> > >>> lot 37 and 39 North Seventh Street and 631
>> > Filbert Street,
>> > >>> Philadelphia.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> It seems as though the early nascent
>> > government saw a more practical
>> > >>> application in being itinerant at that time,
>> > not only with Congress
>> > >>> but with the branch of the US Treasury
>> > outsourcing US Mints and
>> > >>> coiners, probably explaining why they
>> > dissolved what Morris had
>> > >>> started for Congress in 1782.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> As you well know the US Mint formed by private
>> > contractors was very
>> > >>> functional in Rahway and Morristown, NJ, 15
>> > years before David
>> > >>> Rittenhouse ran the new one at Philadelphia.
>> > In fact the old Rahway
>> > >>> coin press was sold to the new plant by the
>> > old coiner's widow.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> The other Early Federal Mints coined in New
>> > York, also, an outside
>> > >>> contractor at Vermont, etc. These were all
>> > necessarily US Federal
>> > >>> Mints, albeit though outsourced under contract
>> > coiners who used
>> > >>> their
>> > >>> own equipment and physical plants. Since the
>> > executive government
>> > >>> had
>> > >>> already empowered Congress with the exclusive
>> > right to coin, ipso
>> > >>> facto, all the post 1776 American minted coins
>> > are Early Federal
>> > >>> issues, just as the paper money was too.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> New Jersey coppers are US coinage struck at
>> > the Early Federal
>> > >>> outsourced Mints located in Rahway and
>> > Morristown, NJ. They were
>> > >>> private contractors, coiners hired by the
>> > state legislature acting
>> > >>> under the direction and guidance of the US
>> > Congress -- who alone had
>> > >>> exclusive executive authority to order coinage
>> > with supreme control
>> > >>> over it.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Keeping this under the banner of C4 is not
>> > only clouding the issues
>> > >>> but keeping it out of focus and not doing the
>> > subject matter the
>> > >>> justice it rightly deserves.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> American History textbooks do not even have it
>> > straight. The Red
>> > >>> Book
>> > >>> is so messed up it contributes to the chaos
>> > and status quo.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I would like to either be on the board of
>> > editors to revamp the Red
>> > >>> Book or else find a publisher willing to make
>> > a new US Coin Guide
>> > >>> Book, or else beyond that, find others willing
>> > to start-up a new
>> > >>> company and produce it ourselves.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> C4 is here to stay, Ray. Nobody wants to see
>> > C4 do anything but
>> > >>> flourish -- but focused on its proper subject
>> > matter, not that which
>> > >>> is not part of it at all.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> In order for our understanding and
>> > appreciation of Early Federal
>> > >>> history, financing, banking, and so on to
>> > advance in our minds and
>> > >>> hearts C4 is surely big enough to let it go
>> > off on its own; like a
>> > >>> mature parent who sees its child grown big
>> > enough to go out into the
>> > >>> world and make it independently.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> For the good of US Economic History I propose
>> > that a new Society of
>> > >>> Early American Numismatics (SEAN) focuses on
>> > research of coins,
>> > >>> medals
>> > >>> and paper money issued from 1776 until 1793,
>> > as a new and
>> > >>> independent
>> > >>> organization to advance the science of Early
>> > American Federal
>> > >>> Numismatics.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Keep smiling,
>> > >>> John
>> > >>>
>> > >>> --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, Ray
>> > Williams <njraywms@...>
>> > >>> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> That was well thought out John. I believe the
>> > C4 name is here to
>> > >>> stay, even if it may be technically inaccurate
>> > in many instances. I
>> > >>> think that "Pre-Federal" or "Pre-Mint" more
>> > accurately describes
>> > >>> what
>> > >>> we collect and the areas in which we
>> > specialize. There are some
>> > >>> coins
>> > >>> that we include out of tradition, that don't
>> > fit the parameters of
>> > >>> "Pre-Federal" or "Pre-Mint", but that's okay.
>> > Some even call thos
>> > >>> Canadian things made by Blacksmiths as
>> > "Colonial"! <BG> But they
>> > >>> were colonial for Canada... just not 18th
>> > Century products. This is
>> > >>> always an interesting topic, especially when I
>> > can get David Palmer
>> > >>> involved somehow... <s>
>> > >>>> Ray
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > >>>> From: John Lupia
>> > >>>> To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
>> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 8:40 AM
>> > >>>> Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What
>> > is a Colonial Coin?
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> The 14 year experiment break from EAC with
>> > the
>> > >>>> emergence of the independent C-4 has done a
>> > fantastic
>> > >>>> job in perpetuating (unknowingly) Very
>> > Advanced EAC
>> > >>>> studies, and Very Advanced Colonial
>> > Numismatic
>> > >>>> Studies. C-4 deserves a round of applause for
>> > the
>> > >>>> enormous task of tackling the bulk of
>> > research the
>> > >>>> Large Cent people were not interested in
>> > pursuing.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> The grassroots EAC material of the earliest
>> > Federal
>> > >>>> Coinages has been the work of C4 members and
>> > the bulk
>> > >>>> of what has appeared in the CNL and C4
>> > Newsletter.
>> > >>>> Kudos to all who did that work.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Time has come to label the material properly
>> > >>>> classifying and categorizing them correctly
>> > as Early
>> > >>>> Federal Coinages, and separating them from
>> > what truly
>> > >>>> is Colonial Numismatics.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> The question is asked what is a colonial coin
>> > . .
>> > >>>> what I think is meant is what qualifies any
>> > coin to be
>> > >>>> properly classified as a colonial coin? Just
>> > about
>> > >>>> everyone on this list really knows this
>> > answer very
>> > >>>> well. All American minted coins minted prior
>> > to 1776
>> > >>>> and all coinages circulating in America as
>> > currency up
>> > >>>> to 1776. After 1776 all American minted coins
>> > are
>> > >>>> Early Federal Coinages and all other non
>> > American
>> > >>>> minted coinages circulating are now legally
>> > foreign
>> > >>>> currency with US Congress setting the value
>> > equal to
>> > >>>> USA value. Also, US colonial minted coins,
>> > i.e., coins
>> > >>>> minted in America prior to 1776 are the
>> > authentic US
>> > >>>> colonial coins that still circulated
>> > regularly up to
>> > >>>> about 1857. So we have Foreign Colonial Coins
>> >
>> > >>>> circulating in American, and American US
>> > Colonial
>> > >>>> coins. Now, thi
|
|---|
