| 文章內容 |
- From CNLF@Comcast.net Fri Jun 08 15:19:41 2007
Return-Path: <JCSpilman1@comcast.net>
X-Sender: JCSpilman1@comcast.net
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 63408 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2007 22:19:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166)
by m50.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Jun 2007 22:19:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc14.comcast.net) (63.240.77.84)
by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Jun 2007 22:19:34 -0000
Received: from comcast.net (c-68-62-208-189.hsd1.al.comcast.net[68.62.208.189])
by comcast.net (sccrmhc14) with SMTP
id <2007060821271401400dckiae>; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 21:27:14 +0000
Message-ID: <4669C9AF.DD4949A@Comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:27:11 -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> <4669B616.ED0474E6@Comcast.net> <1EBE58C7-C8BF-441E-BAD7-8857FB87E431@sympatico.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------2A6629F321035B5FD7F9988A"
X-Originating-IP: 63.240.77.84
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=sv9qVZ4-dScCLsJaXGmPhG1xrHb5WEaSesJS0ft1K3PmCvsNWbA
X-Yahoo-Profile: shamus12017
--------------2A6629F321035B5FD7F9988A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Shades of Forrest Gump!
"Oliver D. Hoover" wrote:
> Jim, The Greek colonies (called "apoikiai" literally "away
> from home" [also "empiriai" for trading centres]) always
> retained an association with the mother city (metropolis) that
> founded them. Likewise Roman military colonies (called
> "coloniae" from whence "colony" in English) always looked to
> Rome and Italy as their Mother city/country. A Prehistoric
> "family unit" hardly compares to a state of the political
> complexity of a Greek polis, much less a modern nation-state.�
> On your faulty analogy, I must be considered a colonist of
> Hamilton, Ontario, because my family lives in that city, and
> yet I live in Burlington, a few km away. When I lived in NYC,
> was I a Canadian colonist in the USA?� I don't think
> so.� Oliver On 8-Jun-07, at 4:03 PM, JCSpilman/iMAC/HOME
> wrote:
>
>> 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"
>> >>
|
|---|
