Looking Outside The Box

[bigscoop]

During the effected period in question, 1817 through 1821, and beyond, all of the major powers were focused on rebuilding their infrastructures. “Nobody Wanted War In Doing So.” The only way around this was by seeking trade agreements and systems of commerce within these different nations. Naturally, this required hard money, and lots of it. Bonds and securities, lines of credit, etc., all of them completely worthless with the hard money to back and support them. Problem was, the Second Bank of the United States was “deeply” in debt, its imports vastly overshadowing its exports. (Sound familiar?)


Anyway, the United States banking system was in such deep trouble there was serious question as to weather it could even survive. And yet the United States still sought those critical treaties to strengthen its infrastructure. Per example, at the conclusion of the Admas Onis Treaty the US was responsible for 5 million in spoliation fees, 5 million they clearly didn't have, the issuing of more bonds and securities out of the question because they couldn't back them up, their ratio of hard money to back their mounting debt being something like only 10% with only 2 million in hard money sitting in the bank, to back 25 million in debt looming large on the horizon. It was critical that the US gain Florida and it also badly needed those clear boundaries in the west. Given their upside down financial situation and mounting debt how could they even think to agreeing to another 5 million in spoliation debts? All of which, by the way, being satisfied per the agreement.


It's interesting to note that all five of these men, “Marshall, Jackson, Clay, Coles, Witcher” played pivotal roles in two hot topics of the time, that being the Second Bank of the United States and slavery, the later providing a huge source of revenue. Slavery didn't just become an issue in just those years leading up to the Civil War, fact is slavery had been at issue for many, many years in the US.


The emancipation of slavery is an interesting issue to explore in relation to our current mystery, the fact being that it mattered little when that emancipation came as it is certain to have driven the same wedge of war between the states had it occurred fifty-years earlier, which it very well could have. Even in the early 1800's there were free slave states in the north and their advocates were extremely busy to spread that same emancipation. Lincoln first explored the subject when he was just a young lawyer and butting political hope. “Coles” had been desiring to free his slaves while still under the tutelage of some of the country's most influential southern slave owning politicians, including Jefferson. In fact Coles even tried to get some of them to free their slaves, this all going on long before the outbreak of the Civil War. In truth, the only thing that kept slavery alive for so long was the financial weakness of the country during those earlier years and those early expansion debates and concerns in the new west. Otherwise it is very possible the Civil War could have taken place many years prior.


So there is a lot to consider in our current little mystery that could possibly come into play in the explaining of the story. It's up to us to look into them or not. Could be the true answer to our mystery rest somewhere we have yet to investigate?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[lastleg]

Yes indeed, one of the most interesting men of that era has not been mentioned, a congressman
with a French connection, a missing link if you will. His earliest known paternal ancestor was Gabriel
Gustave de Crocketagne, whose son Antoine de Saussure Peronette de Crocketagne, commissioned
by King Lois XIV to the famous "Household Troops." Antoine immigrated to Ireland with his wife,
Louise de Saix siring Joseph Louis who immigrated to New York and bore a son, William David in
1709. He married Elizabeth Hedge producing a son, David who became father of William, David Jr,
Robert, Alexander, James, Joseph and John, the father of one of America's most celebrated heroes.

The relationship of Messers Beale, the Adams-Onis Treaty and the strange but factual Tejas link
will be explored as time allows.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

During the effected period in question, 1817 through 1821, and beyond, all of the major powers were focused on rebuilding their infrastructures. “Nobody Wanted War In Doing So.” The only way around this was by seeking trade agreements and systems of commerce within these different nations. Naturally, this required hard money, and lots of it. Bonds and securities, lines of credit, etc., all of them completely worthless with the hard money to back and support them. Problem was, the Second Bank of the United States was “deeply” in debt, its imports vastly overshadowing its exports. (Sound familiar?)


Anyway, the United States banking system was in such deep trouble there was serious question as to weather it could even survive. And yet the United States still sought those critical treaties to strengthen its infrastructure. Per example, at the conclusion of the Admas Onis Treaty the US was responsible for 5 million in spoliation fees, 5 million they clearly didn't have, the issuing of more bonds and securities out of the question because they couldn't back them up, their ratio of hard money to back their mounting debt being something like only 10% with only 2 million in hard money sitting in the bank, to back 25 million in debt looming large on the horizon. It was critical that the US gain Florida and it also badly needed those clear boundaries in the west. Given their upside down financial situation and mounting debt how could they even think to agreeing to another 5 million in spoliation debts? All of which, by the way, being satisfied per the agreement.


It's interesting to note that all five of these men, “Marshall, Jackson, Clay, Coles, Witcher” played pivotal roles in two hot topics of the time, that being the Second Bank of the United States and slavery, the later providing a huge source of revenue. Slavery didn't just become an issue in just those years leading up to the Civil War, fact is slavery had been at issue for many, many years in the US.


The emancipation of slavery is an interesting issue to explore in relation to our current mystery, the fact being that it mattered little when that emancipation came as it is certain to have driven the same wedge of war between the states had it occurred fifty-years earlier, which it very well could have. Even in the early 1800's there were free slave states in the north and their advocates were extremely busy to spread that same emancipation. Lincoln first explored the subject when he was just a young lawyer and butting political hope. “Coles” had been desiring to free his slaves while still under the tutelage of some of the country's most influential southern slave owning politicians, including Jefferson. In fact Coles even tried to get some of them to free their slaves, this all going on long before the outbreak of the Civil War. In truth, the only thing that kept slavery alive for so long was the financial weakness of the country during those earlier years and those early expansion debates and concerns in the new west. Otherwise it is very possible the Civil War could have taken place many years prior.


So there is a lot to consider in our current little mystery that could possibly come into play in the explaining of the story. It's up to us to look into them or not. Could be the true answer to our mystery rest somewhere we have yet to investigate?

Marshall...? Jackson...? Clay...? Coles...? Witcher...? Eh...?

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Yes indeed, one of the most interesting men of that era has not been mentioned, a congressman
with a French connection, a missing link if you will. His earliest known paternal ancestor was Gabriel
Gustave de Crocketagne, whose son Antoine de Saussure Peronette de Crocketagne, commissioned
by King Lois XIV to the famous "Household Troops." Antoine immigrated to Ireland with his wife,
Louise de Saix siring Joseph Louis who immigrated to New York and bore a son, William David in
1709. He married Elizabeth Hedge producing a son, David who became father of William, David Jr,
Robert, Alexander, James, Joseph and John, the father of one of America's most celebrated heroes.

The relationship of Messers Beale, the Adams-Onis Treaty and the strange but factual Tejas link
will be explored as time allows.

DO so...

 

[bigscoop]

Marshall...? Jackson...? Clay...? Coles...? Witcher...? Eh...?

They are all referenced in the pamphlet. Question is, "was there a hidden significance for these references?"

 

[Rebel - KGC]

They are all referenced in the pamphlet. Question is, "was there a hidden significance for these references?"

They ARE... BUT! WHO are they...? FULL NAMES, PLEASE!

 

[bigscoop]

Chief Justice Marshall, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, Edward Coles, and still looking into Witcher as there is so little on him to be found it leaves question as to which one?

 

[lastleg]

The second name is of interest. After the Treaty of Fort Jackson in August 1814 he sought the
removal of British forces from Florida and asked for assistance from the Tennessee Militia. He
had been appointed major general of the militia in 1802. Our "hero'' on March 27, 1818 was
elected lieutenant colonel of the 57th Regiment of that militia. By 1819 he was successful in
several businesses and resigned his commission.

Politics soon called him to the Tennessee General Assembly where he championed easing the
tax burden on the poor. He spent his entire legislative career fighting for the rights of the
impoverished settlers whom he felt dangled on the precipice of losing title to their land due to
the state's complicated system of grants. He supported 1821 gubernatorial candidate William
Carroll over Andrew Jackson's endorsed candidate Edward WARD.

During AJ's election to US Senate in 1823 he backed his opponent John Williams. He ran for a
seat in congress but lost to incumbent Adam Rankin Alexander and given support of Memphis
mayor Marcus Brutus Winchester he announced in the Jackson Gazette, 1826, his intention of
challenging Alexander, stating his opposition to the policies of President John Quincy ADAMS &
Secretary of State Henry Clay. Militia veteran William Arthur also entered the race but David
Crockett easily defeated both opponent for the two-year term in 1827 - 1829. Reelected for a
second term focusing on land rights for settlers he offered H.R.27, an amendment to a bill
sponsored by James C. Polk. He opposed President's Jackson's 1830 Indian Removal Act, the
only member of the Tennessee delegation to vote against it. In 1831 he was defeated for one
term but came back to Congress in 1833. During his last term he wrote his autobiography
"A Narrative of the Life of David Crockett. He went east promoting his book and on returning
to his home state newspapers in 1836 quoted Crockett "I told the people of my district that I
would serve them faithfully as I had done; but if not, they might go to hell and I would go to
Texas."

 

[bigscoop]

The story in itself is interesting when we start looking at the era in which it supposedly took place, the timeliness of the two deposits/installments with the two major events of the era, and then those names that are offered in the story. As for the referencing of the Civil War, it leaves me wondering if perhaps this was mentioned not because of the war but rather in relationship to the cause of that war, which was ultimately the financial backlash in the south relating to the slavery issue. Ironically, the story itself is settled in the heart of the slavery capital, Virginia, Marshall, Jackson, and Clay all playing HUGE roles in the history of the Second Bank. In the story the wealth came from west to east, here again, it's ironic that the Second Bank paid of it's import deficit with Peruvian and Mexican silver in the 1820's. And ironic again, during the era defined slavery was one of the country's most important imports, many even feeling as though slavery would be critical to the western expansion. But it's the timeliness of those two deposits in relationship to the signing and ratification of the Adams Onis Treaty that can't be ignored, just way too timely to be brushed off as coincidence. So "if" it was his intended purpose from the very beginning, what was the author of the Beale Pamphlet possibly trying to tell us? What "connexions" were we suppose to make? A simple dime novel? Maybe, maybe not?

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Chief Justice Marshall, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, Edward Coles, and still looking into Witcher as there is so little on him to be found it leaves question as to which one?

TY!

 

[Rebel - KGC]

The second name is of interest. After the Treaty of Fort Jackson in August 1814 he sought the
removal of British forces from Florida and asked for assistance from the Tennessee Militia. He
had been appointed major general of the militia in 1802. Our "hero'' on March 27, 1818 was
elected lieutenant colonel of the 57th Regiment of that militia. By 1819 he was successful in
several businesses and resigned his commission.

Politics soon called him to the Tennessee General Assembly where he championed easing the
tax burden on the poor. He spent his entire legislative career fighting for the rights of the
impoverished settlers whom he felt dangled on the precipice of losing title to their land due to
the state's complicated system of grants. He supported 1821 gubernatorial candidate William
Carroll over Andrew Jackson's endorsed candidate Edward WARD.

During AJ's election to US Senate in 1823 he backed his opponent John Williams. He ran for a
seat in congress but lost to incumbent Adam Rankin Alexander and given support of Memphis
mayor Marcus Brutus Winchester he announced in the Jackson Gazette, 1826, his intention of
challenging Alexander, stating his opposition to the policies of President John Quincy ADAMS &
Secretary of State Henry Clay. Militia veteran William Arthur also entered the race but David
Crockett easily defeated both opponent for the two-year term in 1827 - 1829. Reelected for a
second term focusing on land rights for settlers he offered H.R.27, an amendment to a bill
sponsored by James C. Polk. He opposed President's Jackson's 1830 Indian Removal Act, the
only member of the Tennessee delegation to vote against it. In 1831 he was defeated for one
term but came back to Congress in 1833. During his last term he wrote his autobiography
"A Narrative of the Life of David Crockett. He went east promoting his book and on returning
to his home state newspapers in 1836 quoted Crockett "I told the people of my district that I
would serve them faithfully as I had done; but if not, they might go to hell and I would go to
Texas."

LOL!

 

[lastleg]

scoop, Crockett died in the Alamo in 1836. I made no mention of the CW. Do you read these posts
or just skim through? Land titles have absolutely no connection to slavery.

 

[bigscoop]

scoop, Crockett died in the Alamo in 1836. I made no mention of the CW. Do you read these posts
or just skim through? Land titles have absolutely no connection to slavery.

A) You must be taking generalized post and then assuming they're directed as a response to something you've posted.
B) Where did I claim land titles were connected to slavery?
C) Do you read these post or just skim through?

 

[Rebel - KGC]

During the effected period in question, 1817 through 1821, and beyond, all of the major powers were focused on rebuilding their infrastructures. “Nobody Wanted War In Doing So.” The only way around this was by seeking trade agreements and systems of commerce within these different nations. Naturally, this required hard money, and lots of it. Bonds and securities, lines of credit, etc., all of them completely worthless with the hard money to back and support them. Problem was, the Second Bank of the United States was “deeply” in debt, its imports vastly overshadowing its exports. (Sound familiar?)


Anyway, the United States banking system was in such deep trouble there was serious question as to weather it could even survive. And yet the United States still sought those critical treaties to strengthen its infrastructure. Per example, at the conclusion of the Admas Onis Treaty the US was responsible for 5 million in spoliation fees, 5 million they clearly didn't have, the issuing of more bonds and securities out of the question because they couldn't back them up, their ratio of hard money to back their mounting debt being something like only 10% with only 2 million in hard money sitting in the bank, to back 25 million in debt looming large on the horizon. It was critical that the US gain Florida and it also badly needed those clear boundaries in the west. Given their upside down financial situation and mounting debt how could they even think to agreeing to another 5 million in spoliation debts? All of which, by the way, being satisfied per the agreement.


It's interesting to note that all five of these men, “Marshall, Jackson, Clay, Coles, Witcher” played pivotal roles in two hot topics of the time, that being the Second Bank of the United States and slavery, the later providing a huge source of revenue. Slavery didn't just become an issue in just those years leading up to the Civil War, fact is slavery had been at issue for many, many years in the US.


The emancipation of slavery is an interesting issue to explore in relation to our current mystery, the fact being that it mattered little when that emancipation came as it is certain to have driven the same wedge of war between the states had it occurred fifty-years earlier, which it very well could have. Even in the early 1800's there were free slave states in the north and their advocates were extremely busy to spread that same emancipation. Lincoln first explored the subject when he was just a young lawyer and butting political hope. “Coles” had been desiring to free his slaves while still under the tutelage of some of the country's most influential southern slave owning politicians, including Jefferson. In fact Coles even tried to get some of them to free their slaves, this all going on long before the outbreak of the Civil War. In truth, the only thing that kept slavery alive for so long was the financial weakness of the country during those earlier years and those early expansion debates and concerns in the new west. Otherwise it is very possible the Civil War could have taken place many years prior.


So there is a lot to consider in our current little mystery that could possibly come into play in the explaining of the story. It's up to us to look into them or not. Could be the true answer to our mystery rest somewhere we have yet to investigate?

"BP" written in 1885 for ppl in Lynchburg, Va. ? DOUBT it!

 

[bigscoop]

"BP" written in 1885 for ppl in Lynchburg, Va. ? DOUBT it!

All through the effected period, even prior and afterwards, there were two active factions at work in Bedford County, Virginia, this being the same indifference that brought about the duel between Risque and Beale. This same indifference is what carried Beale to New Orleans and the mentioned party of adventurers to the west. It was not a simple hunting trip.

When this mystery was first being discussed in these forums several years ago most were of the opinion that very few Americans had been out west and that Spain ruled the region with an all-seeing eye and iron fist. Today we know that this earlier perception is entirely false and that there were many, many Americans and parties from the east who had ventured into the region after the Louisiana Purchase. "A lot" of folks from the Bedford County region had taken active part in all of this.

 

[lastleg]

I would like some proof to this outrageous statement sir. Please name some of these explorers who
pranced around the Spanish colonies unmolested. Whole cloth testimonies if you will.

 

[tat2guy]

I would like some proof to this outrageous statement sir. Please name some of these explorers who pranced around the Spanish colonies unmolested. Whole cloth testimonies if you will.

Lol outrageous!!! Try the interim prez of Texas Benjamin Rush Milam, his family was from the Bedford area. There's one maybe more to come. Research that guy and tell me why he was in Bedford cty recruiting people to go west in 1817. I would like to see if you can find it

HH Tat

 

[lastleg]

I expected a less feeble attempt at sowing seeds of anti-texian sentiments. Ben was thrown in more
jails than you can count. BTW he was from KY not VA.

 

[ECS]

All through the effected period, even prior and afterwards, there were two active factions at work in Bedford County, Virginia, this being the same indifference that brought about the duel between Risque and Beale. This same indifference is what carried Beale to New Orleans and the mentioned party of adventurers to the west. It was not a simple hunting trip.

When this mystery was first being discussed in these forums several years ago most were of the opinion that very few Americans had been out west and that Spain ruled the region with an all-seeing eye and iron fist. Today we know that this earlier perception is entirely false and that there were many, many Americans and parties from the east who had ventured into the region after the Louisiana Purchase. "A lot" of folks from the Bedford County region had taken active part in all of this.

Before we all get too far outside the box with Adams-Onis,small area in Colorado,etc:
Thomas Beale married Celeste Boucher de Grandpre in New Orleans,but after Beale died in New Orleans,Sept 1820,why Chlory Delancy/Chloe Dalancy/Delaney travel from Botetourt County,Virginia and appear at court as the righful heir of Beale's Virginia properties.
Who was this woman,and what relation did she have to Beale as heir,and what was the outcome of her claim.

 

[bigscoop]

I expected a less feeble attempt at sowing seeds of anti-texian sentiments. Ben was thrown in more
jails than you can count. BTW he was from KY not VA.

Well.....you're not paying attention because you simply don't want to. Milam was in Bedford country recruiting for the Long Expedition. During Long's first attempt at Texas he tried to barter a deal with Laffite but Laffite ended up turning him into the Spanish. When Long retreated the first time he ended up at Bolivar, on the other side of Galveston Bay. Now at this point a quality researcher would want to know who was with Long at this point and if any of those bodies were from Bedford County. This might also compel that researcher to ask why Laffite turned on Long in the first place? In fact, why did Wilkinson really turn on Burr in years prior?

You see, depending on which side of the debate you're on, there is a big difference between seizing a chunk of land and eventually having the option of then turning it into a sovereign state VS seizing that same chunk of land and turning it into a sovereign country, period. On one side of this line you have a desperate and capable faction that has had a long history with "Mexico" and on the other side you have simple insurgents on a land grabbing mission. Laffite had a strong navel presence, Long had a land force, the two simply unable to come together because they had entirely different goals. And make no mistake, both factions were present in Bedford County.

Things only appear to be "outrageous" when we lack the knowledge of their existence, but once we gain this knowledge then, perhaps, not so outrageous.