Is any one out there searching the Maguire's? If so please contact gen searcher

In message <[email protected]> Charles Ellson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:44:08 -0400, katy <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >Don Aitken wrote: [snip] > >> > >> This was the high period of Britiah "informal empire" in South America > >> - the theoretically independent countries of the region did what the > >> Britiah told them. > >> > > > >Os this when the Brits acquired the Falkland Islands, then? > > > British settlers had been there since about 1765, following closely > after French settlers. There was also Spanish involvement and an > amount of mainly non-hostile passing of the islands between the three > countries. The Republic of Buenos Aires tried to claim the islands in > 1820 (with the US also sticking their oar in) as they had never been > formally colonised by the UK but withdrew their claim and the islands > were made a formal colony in 1833. Argentina never possessed the > islands until the unsuccessful war in 1982. Some of the > passing-the-parcel is described in:- > http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/scotia/gooant/gooant070703.htm The US 'sticking their oar in' actually refers to the fact that the Buenos Aires had used the islands as a prison camp which detoriorated into a pirate's nest that preyed on passing shipping. The Americans sent the USS Constitution down to clear them out, hanging the ring-leaders and transporting the remainder back to the main-land. -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy>

I'm looking for a little help. I have 2 sets of parents for a pair of supposed sisters. One of the fathers is from Ireland. Here's what I have so far: Lem McClintock Born before 1800 Ireland Married Elizabeth ? Daughter Margaret McCLintock Born 1816 in Tennessee US Died After 1880 in Missouri US The other possible daughter is Lucy A. McClintock Born 1816 in Tennessee Died 28 April 1884 in Hickman County, Tennessee Both daughters married men with the Caughron name. (2 Brothers married 2 sisters?) I realize this isn't much to go on, but it's the first hit I've gotten relating to Ireland. I figured it was worth a shot. Thanks! T

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:36:03 +0100, Don Aitken <[email protected]> wrote: >On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:56:54 +0100, Charles Ellson ><[email protected]> wrote: > >>On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:00:33 -0400, katy <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >>>Charles Ellson wrote: >>> >>>> British settlers had been there since about 1765, following closely >>>> after French settlers. There was also Spanish involvement and an >>>> amount of mainly non-hostile passing of the islands between the three >>>> countries. The Republic of Buenos Aires tried to claim the islands in >>>> 1820 (with the US also sticking their oar in) as they had never been >>>> formally colonised by the UK but withdrew their claim and the islands >>>> were made a formal colony in 1833. Argentina never possessed the >>>> islands until the unsuccessful war in 1982. Some of the >>>> passing-the-parcel is described in:- >>>> http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/scotia/gooant/gooant070703.htm >>> >>>Thank you for your reply...it's not a topic discussed in American >>>history classes... >>> >>I don't think it received much more attention in the UK until 1982. > >Although Dr Johnson had something to say about it - "Thoughts on the >Late Transactions respecting Falkland's Islands" is probably online >somewhere. > Available from W H Smug in paperback for 3.50, believe it or not ! :-

It is online at > http://www.samueljohnson.com/falklands.html < "believe it or not". On Jun 15, 2008, at 5:52 PM, Charles Ellson wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:36:03 +0100, Don Aitken <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:56:54 +0100, Charles Ellson >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:00:33 -0400, katy <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Charles Ellson wrote: >>>> >>>>> British settlers had been there since about 1765, following >>>>> closely >>>>> after French settlers. There was also Spanish involvement and an >>>>> amount of mainly non-hostile passing of the islands between the >>>>> three >>>>> countries. The Republic of Buenos Aires tried to claim the >>>>> islands in >>>>> 1820 (with the US also sticking their oar in) as they had never >>>>> been >>>>> formally colonised by the UK but withdrew their claim and the >>>>> islands >>>>> were made a formal colony in 1833. Argentina never possessed the >>>>> islands until the unsuccessful war in 1982. Some of the >>>>> passing-the-parcel is described in:- >>>>> http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/scotia/gooant/gooant070703.htm >>>> >>>> Thank you for your reply...it's not a topic discussed in American >>>> history classes... >>>> >>> I don't think it received much more attention in the UK until 1982. >> >> Although Dr Johnson had something to say about it - "Thoughts on the >> Late Transactions respecting Falkland's Islands" is probably online >> somewhere. >> > Available from W H Smug in paperback for 3.50, believe it or not ! :- > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:56:54 +0100, Charles Ellson <[email protected]> wrote: >On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:00:33 -0400, katy <[email protected]> >wrote: > >>Charles Ellson wrote: >> >>> British settlers had been there since about 1765, following closely >>> after French settlers. There was also Spanish involvement and an >>> amount of mainly non-hostile passing of the islands between the three >>> countries. The Republic of Buenos Aires tried to claim the islands in >>> 1820 (with the US also sticking their oar in) as they had never been >>> formally colonised by the UK but withdrew their claim and the islands >>> were made a formal colony in 1833. Argentina never possessed the >>> islands until the unsuccessful war in 1982. Some of the >>> passing-the-parcel is described in:- >>> http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/scotia/gooant/gooant070703.htm >> >>Thank you for your reply...it's not a topic discussed in American >>history classes... >> >I don't think it received much more attention in the UK until 1982. Although Dr Johnson had something to say about it - "Thoughts on the Late Transactions respecting Falkland's Islands" is probably online somewhere. -- Don Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:00:33 -0400, katy <[email protected]> wrote: >Charles Ellson wrote: > >> British settlers had been there since about 1765, following closely >> after French settlers. There was also Spanish involvement and an >> amount of mainly non-hostile passing of the islands between the three >> countries. The Republic of Buenos Aires tried to claim the islands in >> 1820 (with the US also sticking their oar in) as they had never been >> formally colonised by the UK but withdrew their claim and the islands >> were made a formal colony in 1833. Argentina never possessed the >> islands until the unsuccessful war in 1982. Some of the >> passing-the-parcel is described in:- >> http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/scotia/gooant/gooant070703.htm > >Thank you for your reply...it's not a topic discussed in American >history classes... > I don't think it received much more attention in the UK until 1982.

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:44:08 -0400, katy <[email protected]> wrote: >Don Aitken wrote: >> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:45:53 GMT, Alison Kilpatrick >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>Transcribed from the 19 August 1828 edition of The Newry Commercial >>>Telegraph newspaper, by permission of The British Library: >>> >>>The Irish Emigrants in Brazil. >>> By accounts from Rio Janeiro, of the 14th June, we learn that a >>>serious affray occurred at Rio a few days before the packet sailed. On >>>which occasion the Irish and German soldiers, who had been disaffected >>>for some time past, rose in their quarters, killed, wounded, and >>>expelled their Officers, and were proceeding to a general revolt against >>>Government, committing all kinds of excesses. An engagement actually >>>took place in Campo Santa Anna, where a regiment composed of Irish and >>>Germans were quartered. The Brazilian troops, joined by the town rabble, >>>surrounded the rioters, who surrendered the next day for want of order, >>>food, and ammunition; about 120 were killed and wounded on both sides. >>>The English and French marines were also landed, and assisted in >>>reducing another regiment at St. Christovao, which surrendered without >>>bloodshed; there was still a regiment of German riflemen, about 1,200 >>>Irish, the latter unarmed, holding out for terms, at Praya Vermelha, >>>under the Sugar Loaf. The Germans were going to be tried by a Court >>>Martial, and kept in the forts in the meanwhile. The Irish were shipped >>>on board the men-of-war, and going to be bundled off at the intercession >>>of the British Envoy, either back to Ireland, to the Cape, or to Canada. >>> >>>===================== >>> >> >> To give a bit of background to this, all of the senior officers of the >> Brazilian armed forces were British (Lord Cochrane being commander in >> chief of the navy). Brazil and Argentina were at war, and the British >> government had just imposed its own mediation on the two sides, >> neither of which was very willing, hence the presence of British >> troops. The peace treaty was signed a week later (August 27); its main >> provision was that the territory in dispute went to neither side, but >> became independent under the name of Uruguay. >> >> This was the high period of Britiah "informal empire" in South America >> - the theoretically independent countries of the region did what the >> Britiah told them. >> > >Os this when the Brits acquired the Falkland Islands, then? > British settlers had been there since about 1765, following closely after French settlers. There was also Spanish involvement and an amount of mainly non-hostile passing of the islands between the three countries. The Republic of Buenos Aires tried to claim the islands in 1820 (with the US also sticking their oar in) as they had never been formally colonised by the UK but withdrew their claim and the islands were made a formal colony in 1833. Argentina never possessed the islands until the unsuccessful war in 1982. Some of the passing-the-parcel is described in:- http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/scotia/gooant/gooant070703.htm

Charles Ellson wrote: > British settlers had been there since about 1765, following closely > after French settlers. There was also Spanish involvement and an > amount of mainly non-hostile passing of the islands between the three > countries. The Republic of Buenos Aires tried to claim the islands in > 1820 (with the US also sticking their oar in) as they had never been > formally colonised by the UK but withdrew their claim and the islands > were made a formal colony in 1833. Argentina never possessed the > islands until the unsuccessful war in 1982. Some of the > passing-the-parcel is described in:- > http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/scotia/gooant/gooant070703.htm Thank you for your reply...it's not a topic discussed in American history classes...

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:45:53 GMT, Alison Kilpatrick <[email protected]> wrote: >Transcribed from the 19 August 1828 edition of The Newry Commercial >Telegraph newspaper, by permission of The British Library: > >The Irish Emigrants in Brazil. > By accounts from Rio Janeiro, of the 14th June, we learn that a >serious affray occurred at Rio a few days before the packet sailed. On >which occasion the Irish and German soldiers, who had been disaffected >for some time past, rose in their quarters, killed, wounded, and >expelled their Officers, and were proceeding to a general revolt against >Government, committing all kinds of excesses. An engagement actually >took place in Campo Santa Anna, where a regiment composed of Irish and >Germans were quartered. The Brazilian troops, joined by the town rabble, >surrounded the rioters, who surrendered the next day for want of order, >food, and ammunition; about 120 were killed and wounded on both sides. >The English and French marines were also landed, and assisted in >reducing another regiment at St. Christovao, which surrendered without >bloodshed; there was still a regiment of German riflemen, about 1,200 >Irish, the latter unarmed, holding out for terms, at Praya Vermelha, >under the Sugar Loaf. The Germans were going to be tried by a Court >Martial, and kept in the forts in the meanwhile. The Irish were shipped >on board the men-of-war, and going to be bundled off at the intercession >of the British Envoy, either back to Ireland, to the Cape, or to Canada. > >===================== > To give a bit of background to this, all of the senior officers of the Brazilian armed forces were British (Lord Cochrane being commander in chief of the navy). Brazil and Argentina were at war, and the British government had just imposed its own mediation on the two sides, neither of which was very willing, hence the presence of British troops. The peace treaty was signed a week later (August 27); its main provision was that the territory in dispute went to neither side, but became independent under the name of Uruguay. This was the high period of Britiah "informal empire" in South America - the theoretically independent countries of the region did what the Britiah told them. -- Don Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

Don Aitken wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:45:53 GMT, Alison Kilpatrick > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>Transcribed from the 19 August 1828 edition of The Newry Commercial >>Telegraph newspaper, by permission of The British Library: >> >>The Irish Emigrants in Brazil. >> By accounts from Rio Janeiro, of the 14th June, we learn that a >>serious affray occurred at Rio a few days before the packet sailed. On >>which occasion the Irish and German soldiers, who had been disaffected >>for some time past, rose in their quarters, killed, wounded, and >>expelled their Officers, and were proceeding to a general revolt against >>Government, committing all kinds of excesses. An engagement actually >>took place in Campo Santa Anna, where a regiment composed of Irish and >>Germans were quartered. The Brazilian troops, joined by the town rabble, >>surrounded the rioters, who surrendered the next day for want of order, >>food, and ammunition; about 120 were killed and wounded on both sides. >>The English and French marines were also landed, and assisted in >>reducing another regiment at St. Christovao, which surrendered without >>bloodshed; there was still a regiment of German riflemen, about 1,200 >>Irish, the latter unarmed, holding out for terms, at Praya Vermelha, >>under the Sugar Loaf. The Germans were going to be tried by a Court >>Martial, and kept in the forts in the meanwhile. The Irish were shipped >>on board the men-of-war, and going to be bundled off at the intercession >>of the British Envoy, either back to Ireland, to the Cape, or to Canada. >> >>===================== >> > > To give a bit of background to this, all of the senior officers of the > Brazilian armed forces were British (Lord Cochrane being commander in > chief of the navy). Brazil and Argentina were at war, and the British > government had just imposed its own mediation on the two sides, > neither of which was very willing, hence the presence of British > troops. The peace treaty was signed a week later (August 27); its main > provision was that the territory in dispute went to neither side, but > became independent under the name of Uruguay. > > This was the high period of Britiah "informal empire" in South America > - the theoretically independent countries of the region did what the > Britiah told them. > Os this when the Brits acquired the Falkland Islands, then?

Transcribed from the 19 August 1828 edition of The Newry Commercial Telegraph newspaper, by permission of The British Library: The Irish Emigrants in Brazil. By accounts from Rio Janeiro, of the 14th June, we learn that a serious affray occurred at Rio a few days before the packet sailed. On which occasion the Irish and German soldiers, who had been disaffected for some time past, rose in their quarters, killed, wounded, and expelled their Officers, and were proceeding to a general revolt against Government, committing all kinds of excesses. An engagement actually took place in Campo Santa Anna, where a regiment composed of Irish and Germans were quartered. The Brazilian troops, joined by the town rabble, surrounded the rioters, who surrendered the next day for want of order, food, and ammunition; about 120 were killed and wounded on both sides. The English and French marines were also landed, and assisted in reducing another regiment at St. Christovao, which surrendered without bloodshed; there was still a regiment of German riflemen, about 1,200 Irish, the latter unarmed, holding out for terms, at Praya Vermelha, under the Sugar Loaf. The Germans were going to be tried by a Court Martial, and kept in the forts in the meanwhile. The Irish were shipped on board the men-of-war, and going to be bundled off at the intercession of the British Envoy, either back to Ireland, to the Cape, or to Canada. =====================

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]m... > Within my grandparents families there was some tension. My Mother > could never pinnpoint what the problem was or where it came from. > My > Grandmother's family (Tighes and Branegan's from Counties Meath and > Louth respectively) had a strong dislike for my Grandfather Ray > Flanagan's mother and her family (Finnegans from Cork, the > Flanagan's > were from Roscommon). I thought it may be "White Lace" vs "Shanty > Irish" thing but neither of the families where "well to do" or "dirt > poor" for that matter. > > Both families were Irish Catholic but was there stong division in > families in the US during the Irish Revolution from 1916 to 1921? > What was the atmosphere here in the US? Were their conflicts > between > Irish Catholic groups here in the US at that time supporting or > against the revolution? If you are looking for some sort of logical structure in personal relationships reflecting some logical division in religion or politics, I'd recommend averting your eyes from the Irish. Illogic prevails and feuds go on longer than some Sicilian vendettas and with no known cause. Exception can be taken on name alone without even knowing the other party. I've illustrated it before with a story of my wife and I visiting County Cork. We both had ancestors there. Both lots were RC. Both of us speak with London accents because that is where we were brought up. When my wife mentioned the name she was looking for she was welcomed as honorary Irish and phrases were bandied about like 'one of them runs the local pub, why not go there and have a drink?' When I mentioned the name I was looking for, one B&B landlady was instantly ready to chuck me out and when she took the money made it clear that a future booking would not be accepted from 'one of the bloody English.' Since my wife's relative was a prison officer who imposed harsh discipline, and mine was a landowner who provided work, that seemed a mite unreasonable. Moreover my ancestors had been RC in Cork for at least 15 generations so anything less English is difficult to imagine. Nevertheless the name all by itself was sufficiently offensive to that landlady to make her irrationally combative and to her own loss. Going to the other end of the country, my Bain, McGlashan and McCauley lines were more or less evenly split between RC and Presbyterian. Some supported the IRA, some the UDF, but family fracas didn't necessarily follow those lines. Amongst the Presbyterians when one member of the family died the men foregathered to decide who would be in what position when carrying the coffin. Three days of solid drinking and fighting later they still hadn't agreed on positions round the coffin. They were so drunk and worn out that they had to get a local carter to shift it with his pony and trap. All later agreed that it was the best funeral in the family for a long time. None of them was ever able to explain the logical point of the whole argument. So your problem is probably insoluble. It is highly likely that your grandparents themselves couldn't give a logical answer if they were alive to be asked today. I'd suggest simply accepting with a grin that the ancestors did some damn silly things, and get on with more productive research than seeking the unknowable. It's not only in the Irish that this sort of thing can be found. One of my lines leads to Sussex. The eldest son in one generation, Thomas, was described as un vaurien, a blackguard. He was slung out of the family by his father Thomas and the second son Henry. The name Thomas was not to be used in the family ever again. For seven generations that held, but no one knew the nature of the ejectee's sins. Then my son's wife wanted their first child to be a Thomas. After a couple of centuries from the original ban, I didn't think there was any point in objecting. The mystery remains and will forever remain just that: a mystery there is no point in speculating about. Don

Rob and others, If the Irish family tensions were not due to social class consciousness, i.e., lace curtain vs shanty, then consider the role of alcohol. The other factor to consider is irish politics, for a vivid portrait of which be sure to read James Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a young Man. The names of Parnell and O'Connor could send people in to orbit. And who among us can fathom the depths of feelings about the IRA Michael DANAHY http://www.familytreemaker.com/users/d/a/n/Michael-C-Danahy/index.html RESEARCHING IN MA (Hopkinton), IRE, ENG ALDRICH http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~aldrichnaa/ (one m SMITH, earlier ones m CASAVANT, COMEE, http://www.familyorigins.com/users/e/v/a/Jeanne-C-Evans LOVELL, PRAY, PRENTICE, RAWSON, SEALD, THAYER); http://members.xoom.com/jaldrich/Lines/Michael.htm Aldrich Family biographies, go to http://cgi.rootsweb.com/~genbbs/genbbs.cgi/FamilyAssociation/AldrichBios or go to http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~aldrich/ CASAVANT (who m MORAN); CURRAN (who m DANAHY) DANAHY (b. in Hopkinton and who m LENAN, siblings m. TOLAN, JOHNSON, O'CONNOR) LENAN (who m O"BRIEN); SMITH (who m CASEY); PRENTICE (who m ALDRICH) http://www.prenticenet.com/roots/prentice/robert/#R4 RAWSON (one m ALLEN, later one TORREY) http://www.rawsonfamilyassoc.org/ THAYER (Thomas m WHEELER, son Ferdinando m HAYWARD); http://members.aol.com/Sadie476/Thayer.html

valeraeliz <[email protected]> wrote: : Can anyone suggest websites or places to look for info on Mortons of County : Cavan? if you enter morton cavan in the search engine of the irelandoldnews.com website you will get hits on 61 pages. here are some cavan sites as well. http://scripts.ireland.com/ancestor/browse/counties/ulster/index_ca.htm Cavan sources for genealogy http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/tmoffatt/cavan/maps.html Maps and Resources for County Cavan http://ireland.iol.ie/~kevins/geneo/poor_law_union.html Cavan Poor Law Unions http://members.tripod.com/~Al_Beagan/tcavan.htm County Cavan Genealogy Notes http://www.iol.ie/~galwill/kilmore/index.htm Diocese of Kilmore, Co. Cavan http://www.ancestryireland.co.uk/index.php?filename=map_cavan Civil Parishes of County Cavan

Within my grandparents families there was some tension. My Mother could never pinnpoint what the problem was or where it came from. My Grandmother's family (Tighes and Branegan's from Counties Meath and Louth respectively) had a strong dislike for my Grandfather Ray Flanagan's mother and her family (Finnegans from Cork, the Flanagan's were from Roscommon). I thought it may be "White Lace" vs "Shanty Irish" thing but neither of the families where "well to do" or "dirt poor" for that matter. Both families were Irish Catholic but was there stong division in families in the US during the Irish Revolution from 1916 to 1921? What was the atmosphere here in the US? Were their conflicts between Irish Catholic groups here in the US at that time supporting or against the revolution? Rob

Pam, I had a quick look at brsgenealogy.com. This has your Martin 1831 (you can buy record for 5EUR) but only other Lamoon is Mary Jane 1840 Roscommon. As brs in online version of County Family History Centres its unlikely you will get any result by writing to the county centres. There are of course lots of Lamonds, Lamonts etc and any of these are possible Claremorris is Co. Mayo, but only c. 15miles from Tuam Co.Galway. I would suggest you get map & identify parishes in Claremorris/Tuam region. Check on brsgenealogy to see if these parishes online. Check nli.ie for which parishes records are in National Library Dublin. See http://www.ireland.com/ancestor/browse/records/church/ireland/chrcoi3.htm Contact Representative Church Body re Cof I records. >> I have army record of a George LaMOON and it says he was born Youghall, County Cork, in 1773. I also have the Army record of my GG grandfather who was Benjamin LaMOON who says he was born in Claremorris, the copy is not too good so I may have got this wrong, Galway, Ireland, in 1797. I have been told, family legend, that Benjamin married Bridget BANNISTER at Birr on 1st June 1814. G grandfather, Martin LaMOON, baptised Tuam, Galway in 1831, Church of Ireland.

Transcribed from the 13 June 1828 edition of The Newry Commercial Telegraph, by permission of The British Library: The Gipsey, steamer, Captain Corlett, started from Waterford quay on Friday last, at 2 o'clock, and arrived at Liverpool quay at 12 o'clock next day--thus accomplishing the voyage in twenty-four hours, being the quickest voyage ever made from that port to Liverpool. =========================

We are looking for a John Maguire c 1839 he married a Alice Whitehead in 1863 in Salford, He apparently came from Ireland. Any help or advice would be appreciated Bird watcher

"Charani" <[email protected] mail2genes.invalid> wrote in message > If you'd checked the Rootsweb archives, since this newsgroup is > gatewayed to the mailing list GenIRE, or Google Groups you would see > whether there had been any new posts since 3 June. I don't have any > in that period. > > Any failures would be down to your ISP or to a fault with your > computer. I seem to have about the usual number of posts for that time frame. Allowing for some variation in numbers because of the date in my part of the world, I have the following 10th, 3 posts 9th, 1 post 8th, 3 posts 7th, none 6th, 6 posts 5th, 7 posts 4th, 4 posts 3rd, 5 posts.