Mary KORNEGAYBorn 1738, Died 1787
Mary KORNEGAY, the only daughter of George KORNEGAY, married Daniel SIMMONS linking the two Graffenreidt expedition families that founded New Bern. The KORNEGAYs being German and the SIMMONS being Swiss. Daniel, however, died at a young age leaving her with two sons. She then married Edward Cornwallis DeBRUHL about 1765 with whom she had two more children. This is the first occurence of a marriage between the KORNEGAY and SIMMONS lines.
Return to Kornegay Biographies
Friday, November 27, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Count Heinrich deBruhl
Heinrich von Brühl
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Heinrich, count von Brühl)
Jump to: navigation, search
Heinrich von Brühl
Heinrich, count von Brühl (August 13, 1700 – October 28, 1763), German statesman at the court of Saxony, was the son of Johann Moritz von Brühl, a noble who held the office of Oberhofmarschall at the small court of Sachsen-Weissenfels.
His father was ruined and compelled to part with his family estate, which passed into the hands of the prince. The son was first placed as page with the dowager duchess of Weissenfels, and was then received at her recommendation into the court of the elector of Saxony as Silberpage on April 16, 1719. He rapidly acquired the favour of the elector Frederick Augustus, surnamed the Strong, who had been elected to the throne of Poland in 1697. Brühl, who began as page and Chamberlain, was largely employed in procuring money for his profuse master. He made himself useful in muzzling the Saxon states and was successively chief receiver of taxes and minister for the interior in 1711.
He was at Warsaw when his master died in 1733, and he secured a hold on the confidence of the electoral prince, Frederick Augustus, who was at Dresden, by laying hands on the papers and jewels of the late ruler and bringing them promptly to his successor. During the whole of the thirty years of the reign of August III the Saxon he was the real inspirer of his master and the practical chief of the Saxon court. He had for a time to put up with the presence of old servants of the electoral house, but after 1738 he was in effect sole minister. The title of prime minister was created for him in 1746, but he was not only a prime minister--he filled all the offices, as a classic court favourite. His titles spread over several lines of print, and he drew the combined pay of the places besides securing huge grants of land. He also worked closely with Kajetan Sołtyk.
Brühl must therefore be held wholly responsible for the ruinous policy which destroyed the position of Saxony in Germany between 1733 and 1763; for the mistaken ambition which led Frederick Augustus II to become a candidate for the throne of Poland; for the engagements into which he entered in order to secure the support of the Emperor Charles VI; for the shameless and ill-timed tergiversations of Saxony during the War of the Austrian Succession; for the intrigues which entangled the electorate in the alliance against Frederick the Great, which led to the Seven Years' War; and for the waste and want of foresight which left the country utterly unprepared to resist the attack of the king of Prussia.
Heinrich von Brühl by Marcello Bacciarelli
He was not only without political or military capacity, but was so garrulous that he could not keep a secret. His indiscretion was repeatedly responsible for the king of Prussia's discoveries of the plans laid against him. Nothing could shake the confidence of his master, which survived the ignominious flight into Bohemia, into which he was trapped by Brühl at the time of the Battle of Kesseldorf, and all the miseries of the Seven Years' War. The favourite abused the confidence of his master shamelessly. Not content with the 67,000 talers a month which he drew as salary for his innumerable offices, he was found when an inquiry was held in the next reign to have abstracted more than five million talers of public money for his private use. He left the work of the government offices to be done by his lackeys, whom he did not even supervise.
In 1736 the architect J. C. Knöffel began to build a palace and terrace for the count on the bank of the Elbe at the heart of the city. This was originally called "Brühl's Garden" and is today known as Brühl's Terrace.
He was a collector and protector of the arts - Francesco Algarotti called him a Maecenas. He owned a gallery of pictures, which was bought by Catherine II of Russia in 1768. His library of 70,000 volumes was one the biggest private libraries in the Holy Roman Empire. He died on 28 October 1763, having survived his master only for a few weeks. The new elector, Frederick Christian caused an inquiry to be held into his administration. His fortune was found to amount to a million and a half talers, and was sequestered but afterwards restored to his family. In 1736 he had been made a count of the Empire and had married the countess Franziska von Kolowrat-Krakowska, a favourite of the wife of Frederick Augustus. Four sons and a daughter survived him.
Alois Friedrich von Brühl (1739 – 1793) was also a Saxon politician and military commander.His youngest son, Hans Moritz von Brühl (d. 1811), was before the Revolution of 1789 a colonel in the French service, and afterwards general inspector of roads in Brandenburg and Pomerania. By his wife Margarethe Schleierweber, the daughter of a French corporal, but renowned for her beauty and intellectual gifts, he was the father of Karl Friedrich Moritz Paul von Brühl (1772-1837), the friend of Goethe, who as intendant-general of the Prussian royal theatres was of some importance in the history of the development of the drama in Germany. In 1830 he was appointed intendant-general of the royal museums.Another granddaughter was Marie von Brühl, who married Carl von Clausewitz.
[edit] See also
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Heinrich, count von Brühl)
Jump to: navigation, search
Heinrich von Brühl
Heinrich, count von Brühl (August 13, 1700 – October 28, 1763), German statesman at the court of Saxony, was the son of Johann Moritz von Brühl, a noble who held the office of Oberhofmarschall at the small court of Sachsen-Weissenfels.
His father was ruined and compelled to part with his family estate, which passed into the hands of the prince. The son was first placed as page with the dowager duchess of Weissenfels, and was then received at her recommendation into the court of the elector of Saxony as Silberpage on April 16, 1719. He rapidly acquired the favour of the elector Frederick Augustus, surnamed the Strong, who had been elected to the throne of Poland in 1697. Brühl, who began as page and Chamberlain, was largely employed in procuring money for his profuse master. He made himself useful in muzzling the Saxon states and was successively chief receiver of taxes and minister for the interior in 1711.
He was at Warsaw when his master died in 1733, and he secured a hold on the confidence of the electoral prince, Frederick Augustus, who was at Dresden, by laying hands on the papers and jewels of the late ruler and bringing them promptly to his successor. During the whole of the thirty years of the reign of August III the Saxon he was the real inspirer of his master and the practical chief of the Saxon court. He had for a time to put up with the presence of old servants of the electoral house, but after 1738 he was in effect sole minister. The title of prime minister was created for him in 1746, but he was not only a prime minister--he filled all the offices, as a classic court favourite. His titles spread over several lines of print, and he drew the combined pay of the places besides securing huge grants of land. He also worked closely with Kajetan Sołtyk.
Brühl must therefore be held wholly responsible for the ruinous policy which destroyed the position of Saxony in Germany between 1733 and 1763; for the mistaken ambition which led Frederick Augustus II to become a candidate for the throne of Poland; for the engagements into which he entered in order to secure the support of the Emperor Charles VI; for the shameless and ill-timed tergiversations of Saxony during the War of the Austrian Succession; for the intrigues which entangled the electorate in the alliance against Frederick the Great, which led to the Seven Years' War; and for the waste and want of foresight which left the country utterly unprepared to resist the attack of the king of Prussia.
Heinrich von Brühl by Marcello Bacciarelli
He was not only without political or military capacity, but was so garrulous that he could not keep a secret. His indiscretion was repeatedly responsible for the king of Prussia's discoveries of the plans laid against him. Nothing could shake the confidence of his master, which survived the ignominious flight into Bohemia, into which he was trapped by Brühl at the time of the Battle of Kesseldorf, and all the miseries of the Seven Years' War. The favourite abused the confidence of his master shamelessly. Not content with the 67,000 talers a month which he drew as salary for his innumerable offices, he was found when an inquiry was held in the next reign to have abstracted more than five million talers of public money for his private use. He left the work of the government offices to be done by his lackeys, whom he did not even supervise.
In 1736 the architect J. C. Knöffel began to build a palace and terrace for the count on the bank of the Elbe at the heart of the city. This was originally called "Brühl's Garden" and is today known as Brühl's Terrace.
He was a collector and protector of the arts - Francesco Algarotti called him a Maecenas. He owned a gallery of pictures, which was bought by Catherine II of Russia in 1768. His library of 70,000 volumes was one the biggest private libraries in the Holy Roman Empire. He died on 28 October 1763, having survived his master only for a few weeks. The new elector, Frederick Christian caused an inquiry to be held into his administration. His fortune was found to amount to a million and a half talers, and was sequestered but afterwards restored to his family. In 1736 he had been made a count of the Empire and had married the countess Franziska von Kolowrat-Krakowska, a favourite of the wife of Frederick Augustus. Four sons and a daughter survived him.
Alois Friedrich von Brühl (1739 – 1793) was also a Saxon politician and military commander.His youngest son, Hans Moritz von Brühl (d. 1811), was before the Revolution of 1789 a colonel in the French service, and afterwards general inspector of roads in Brandenburg and Pomerania. By his wife Margarethe Schleierweber, the daughter of a French corporal, but renowned for her beauty and intellectual gifts, he was the father of Karl Friedrich Moritz Paul von Brühl (1772-1837), the friend of Goethe, who as intendant-general of the Prussian royal theatres was of some importance in the history of the development of the drama in Germany. In 1830 he was appointed intendant-general of the royal museums.Another granddaughter was Marie von Brühl, who married Carl von Clausewitz.
[edit] See also
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
St. Johns Lodge AF&AM minutes of meeting 1772
Decision was reached April 1772 to procure a copper plate for granting certificates for the benefit of members who might wish to use their credentials while traveling. Mr DeBruhl was employed to engrave a plate similar to the one exhibited at the gathering. On August 27 it was voted that the treasurer pay for a Seal for the Grand Master. The next month it was voted to pay DeBruhl 25 pounds for engraving the copper plates for certificates and also for engraving a seal for the lodge. Parrot was asked to purchase "wax and wafers" for taking proper impression of the lodge's seal.
That the Masons did much good work for their fellow members is indicated from a notation April 5, when it is stated that a "Mason" Michael DeBruhl, had died in needy circumstances, so it was voted that he "should be decently interred at the expense of the Lodge." Although not a member of the local organization, John Wright Stanley , a visiting Mason at the meeting, voluntarily offered to help share the cost. The bill of two pounds, seven schilling, was subsequently reported paid.
The members attended in a body the funeral, which was conducted by Mr. Parrott at Christ Episcopal Church. From a collection taken among the Masons the treasurer paid 51 pence a week to the widow.
Ref: Years of Light a history of St. Johns Lodge New Bern N.C.
Transcribed by Norman DeBruhl July 1 2009
w
That the Masons did much good work for their fellow members is indicated from a notation April 5, when it is stated that a "Mason" Michael DeBruhl, had died in needy circumstances, so it was voted that he "should be decently interred at the expense of the Lodge." Although not a member of the local organization, John Wright Stanley , a visiting Mason at the meeting, voluntarily offered to help share the cost. The bill of two pounds, seven schilling, was subsequently reported paid.
The members attended in a body the funeral, which was conducted by Mr. Parrott at Christ Episcopal Church. From a collection taken among the Masons the treasurer paid 51 pence a week to the widow.
Ref: Years of Light a history of St. Johns Lodge New Bern N.C.
Transcribed by Norman DeBruhl July 1 2009
w
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
About the Cornwallis Ships
About the Cornwallis Ships
1) THE SHIPS
Ship
Type
Master
Tonnage
Alexander
.
Samuel Harris
320
Baltimore
.
Edward Cook
411
Beaufort
.
Elias Perriman
541
Brotherhood
.
.
.
Canning
Frigate
Andrew Dewar
342
Charlton
Frigate
Richard Ladd
395
Everley
.
John Dutchman
351
Fair Lady
.
Isaac Forster
.
London
.
John Barker
550
Merry Jacks
.
Giles Granger
378
Rochampton
.
Samuel Williamson
230
Sphinx
Sloop of War
.
.
Wilmington
.
Thomas Adams
631
Winchelsea
.
Thomas Cornish
559
2) ABOUT THE SHIPSCornwallis arrived in his ship, the Sphinx, before the passenger ships. He notes in a report to the Lords of Trade that the passenger ships from England appeared off the harbour in Halifax on 27 June 1749. By the first of July they were all docked in Halifax harbour, and by 24 July 1749 he is able to report on how they are settling in and getting lots assigned.Another passenger ship arrived on 30 August 1749 to join the ones covered in these lists. I haven't yet discovered the name of this ship. Cornwallis writes about it, saying, "the ship from Liverpool arrived .... with 116 settlers, they have already cleared a spot for their Houses, two streets being added for them". He mentions the ship had a passage of 9 weeks and arrived without one person sick on board. (Akins, Nova Scotia Documents, p 585, p587) In addition, at least one store ship - the Duke of Bedford - and likely others accompanied the ships carrying the settlers.As soon as their passengers had disembarked, the Brotherhood, London, Winchelsea, Wilmington, and Merry Jacks were sent up to Louisbourg to pick up settlers there who wished to move to Halifax, as well as the Louisbourg garrison under Peregrine Thomas Hopson (Louisbourg was about to be handed back to the French according to the terms of Aix la Chappelle). By 20 August 1749, the Alexander had already left Halifax for its return journey to England. The Beaufort was held in Halifax until at least mid-October 1749, as Cornwallis held his Governing Council meetings on it. The other ships seem to have left sometime in between as the Lords of Trade, in a letter to Cornwallis from Whitehall, dated 16 October 1749, acknowledge the return of the transports and note that it was "sooner than expected" (Akins, Nova Scotia Documents, p 589.).The Wilmington was the largest of the ships3) ABOUT THE SETTLERSYou will note on the Cornwallis lists the special categories to track "male servants" and "female servants", and many indeed did bring servants over with them. As well, you see people whose trades were among the necessary ones in an established urban centre - wigmaker, goldsmith, tobaccanist, gardener - but who would be unprepared for carving out a clearing in the Canadian bush of our time, let alone theirs.It would appear from Cornwallis's letters back to England that measures had to be taken to prevent many of these from trying to scamper off, even in the relatively golden days of summer, and he was unable to secure general cooperation from the population in getting their help to put up a barricade against Indian attack. In the settler's defence, they may have had their minds set on constructing habitation for the coming winter, since they were prevented from leaving. Still, the Lords of Trade seem to have decided that perhaps a hardier breed of settler would be required. On 8 June 1750, they wrote to Cornwallis, "The Alderney, a Ship of 504 tons, and the Nancy**, a Brigantine of 150 tons, will sail from the River, the former in four or five, the latter in 10 days, with about 480 settlers., the exact number you will know by a list which will be taken when they are all on board, and sent you by Mr. Kilby. We have not accepted as we did last year, all who offered, but such only as we have reason to think from their character or employment will be useful settlers." (Akins, Nova Scotia Documents, p 612.).
1) THE SHIPS
Ship
Type
Master
Tonnage
Alexander
.
Samuel Harris
320
Baltimore
.
Edward Cook
411
Beaufort
.
Elias Perriman
541
Brotherhood
.
.
.
Canning
Frigate
Andrew Dewar
342
Charlton
Frigate
Richard Ladd
395
Everley
.
John Dutchman
351
Fair Lady
.
Isaac Forster
.
London
.
John Barker
550
Merry Jacks
.
Giles Granger
378
Rochampton
.
Samuel Williamson
230
Sphinx
Sloop of War
.
.
Wilmington
.
Thomas Adams
631
Winchelsea
.
Thomas Cornish
559
2) ABOUT THE SHIPSCornwallis arrived in his ship, the Sphinx, before the passenger ships. He notes in a report to the Lords of Trade that the passenger ships from England appeared off the harbour in Halifax on 27 June 1749. By the first of July they were all docked in Halifax harbour, and by 24 July 1749 he is able to report on how they are settling in and getting lots assigned.Another passenger ship arrived on 30 August 1749 to join the ones covered in these lists. I haven't yet discovered the name of this ship. Cornwallis writes about it, saying, "the ship from Liverpool arrived .... with 116 settlers, they have already cleared a spot for their Houses, two streets being added for them". He mentions the ship had a passage of 9 weeks and arrived without one person sick on board. (Akins, Nova Scotia Documents, p 585, p587) In addition, at least one store ship - the Duke of Bedford - and likely others accompanied the ships carrying the settlers.As soon as their passengers had disembarked, the Brotherhood, London, Winchelsea, Wilmington, and Merry Jacks were sent up to Louisbourg to pick up settlers there who wished to move to Halifax, as well as the Louisbourg garrison under Peregrine Thomas Hopson (Louisbourg was about to be handed back to the French according to the terms of Aix la Chappelle). By 20 August 1749, the Alexander had already left Halifax for its return journey to England. The Beaufort was held in Halifax until at least mid-October 1749, as Cornwallis held his Governing Council meetings on it. The other ships seem to have left sometime in between as the Lords of Trade, in a letter to Cornwallis from Whitehall, dated 16 October 1749, acknowledge the return of the transports and note that it was "sooner than expected" (Akins, Nova Scotia Documents, p 589.).The Wilmington was the largest of the ships3) ABOUT THE SETTLERSYou will note on the Cornwallis lists the special categories to track "male servants" and "female servants", and many indeed did bring servants over with them. As well, you see people whose trades were among the necessary ones in an established urban centre - wigmaker, goldsmith, tobaccanist, gardener - but who would be unprepared for carving out a clearing in the Canadian bush of our time, let alone theirs.It would appear from Cornwallis's letters back to England that measures had to be taken to prevent many of these from trying to scamper off, even in the relatively golden days of summer, and he was unable to secure general cooperation from the population in getting their help to put up a barricade against Indian attack. In the settler's defence, they may have had their minds set on constructing habitation for the coming winter, since they were prevented from leaving. Still, the Lords of Trade seem to have decided that perhaps a hardier breed of settler would be required. On 8 June 1750, they wrote to Cornwallis, "The Alderney, a Ship of 504 tons, and the Nancy**, a Brigantine of 150 tons, will sail from the River, the former in four or five, the latter in 10 days, with about 480 settlers., the exact number you will know by a list which will be taken when they are all on board, and sent you by Mr. Kilby. We have not accepted as we did last year, all who offered, but such only as we have reason to think from their character or employment will be useful settlers." (Akins, Nova Scotia Documents, p 612.).
Monday, June 15, 2009
Margaret Pring DeBruhl
Re: Margaret PringPosted by: Trevor Pring (ID *****0751)Date: May 02, 2006 at 19:25:56In Reply to: Margaret Pring by Dorothy Coltharp of 107
Ealier message board show Margaret as born abt.1725 and married to Michael Samuel Debruhl(a silversmith).It also advised she emigrated to Nova Scotia in 1749 and died in South Carolina 17 Sept 1784, coincidence?In my researches on Pring ancestors from Devon,England in same period have noted only 1 Margaret Pring,baptised at Uffculme on 14th April 1728. Parents given as James and Ann.No note of any siblings in Uffculme or surrounding parishes' records.
Ealier message board show Margaret as born abt.1725 and married to Michael Samuel Debruhl(a silversmith).It also advised she emigrated to Nova Scotia in 1749 and died in South Carolina 17 Sept 1784, coincidence?In my researches on Pring ancestors from Devon,England in same period have noted only 1 Margaret Pring,baptised at Uffculme on 14th April 1728. Parents given as James and Ann.No note of any siblings in Uffculme or surrounding parishes' records.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Democratic Meeting in Madison County 1859
Weekly Standard Newspaper, Raleigh, NC November 30, 1859
Democratic Meeting in Madison.
A meeting of the Democracy of Madison County was held at the Court House in Marshall on Wednesday the 19th of October, for the purpose of appointing delegates to represent Madison in the District Convention to be held at Asheville on the 30th of December, to elect delegates to represent the 8th Congressional District in the approaching National Convention; and also to appoint delegates to attend the State Convention to be held in Raleigh.
Delegates to the District Convention-- W. Carter, Frank M. Lawson, Dr. J.A. McDowell, A. Baldwin, L.A.B. Duckett, G.D. Robeson, R. Teague, J.W. Reeves, D. Payne, J.M. Carver, Jordan Hughey, T.D. Carter, Lewis Palmer, William Goldsmith, Riley Allen, Joel Holcombe, John Washington(Johnny) Chambers, James Edwards, John Ramsey, J.G. Yancey, James Smith, George Gehagan, E.S. Carter, William Brown, Barnett Rhea, R.P. Merrell, Isaac Brigman, Dr. John Yancey, L.M. Allen.
The Democratic Convention held in Charleston ended in a split convention when the delegates walked out. A second convention was held in Baltimore that also ended in chaos. This split the Democratic party paving the way for the election of Abraham Lincoln. The trip was not a total loss because
Lewis Palmer and other delegates obtained the Charter at Raleigh for Mars Hill College. Slavery as always the divisive issue.
Democratic Meeting in Madison.
A meeting of the Democracy of Madison County was held at the Court House in Marshall on Wednesday the 19th of October, for the purpose of appointing delegates to represent Madison in the District Convention to be held at Asheville on the 30th of December, to elect delegates to represent the 8th Congressional District in the approaching National Convention; and also to appoint delegates to attend the State Convention to be held in Raleigh.
Delegates to the District Convention-- W. Carter, Frank M. Lawson, Dr. J.A. McDowell, A. Baldwin, L.A.B. Duckett, G.D. Robeson, R. Teague, J.W. Reeves, D. Payne, J.M. Carver, Jordan Hughey, T.D. Carter, Lewis Palmer, William Goldsmith, Riley Allen, Joel Holcombe, John Washington(Johnny) Chambers, James Edwards, John Ramsey, J.G. Yancey, James Smith, George Gehagan, E.S. Carter, William Brown, Barnett Rhea, R.P. Merrell, Isaac Brigman, Dr. John Yancey, L.M. Allen.
The Democratic Convention held in Charleston ended in a split convention when the delegates walked out. A second convention was held in Baltimore that also ended in chaos. This split the Democratic party paving the way for the election of Abraham Lincoln. The trip was not a total loss because
Lewis Palmer and other delegates obtained the Charter at Raleigh for Mars Hill College. Slavery as always the divisive issue.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Royal Governor Tryon Carriages circa 1770
Notes of Tryon Palace New Bern, North Carolina account books.
Paid to Michael Samuel DeBruhl 10 pounds for painting, decorating and rubbing carriages
Governor Tryon last Royal Governor of North Carolina,
Paid to Michael Samuel DeBruhl 10 pounds for painting, decorating and rubbing carriages
Governor Tryon last Royal Governor of North Carolina,
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Hector DeBruhl Sheriff Kershaw County SC
Last History Type: Received from House
Scope of Legislation: StatewideAll Sponsors: HollandType of Legislation: Concurrent Resolution
History
Bill Body Date Action Description CMN
---- ------ ------------ ------------------------------ ---
1566 Senate May 21, 1992 Received from House
1566 House May 21, 1992 Introduced, adopted, returned
with concurrence
1566 Senate May 20, 1992 Introduced, adopted, sent to
House
View additional legislative information at the LPITS web site.
(Text matches printed bills. Document has been reformatted to meet World Wide Web specifications.)
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
TO REQUEST THE KERSHAW COUNTY COUNCIL TO NAME THE BUILDING WHICH HOUSES THE KERSHAW COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AT 609 LAFAYETTE AVENUE IN CAMDEN AS THE "DEBRUHL BUILDING".
Whereas, South Carolina recently lost one of its most respected law enforcement officers when Louis L. "Hector" DeBruhl died in Camden at the age of fifty-seven; and
Whereas, Hector DeBruhl was first elected Sheriff of Kershaw County in November, 1966 and served continuously until his retirement last year. He was the youngest sheriff in the State when he was first elected, served longer than any sheriff in the history of Kershaw County, and was the senior sheriff in South Carolina at the time of his retirement; and
Whereas, during his thirty-four year career in law enforcement, he rightfully earned a reputation as an officer who worked on the front line, who was fearless, and who had complete integrity; and
Whereas, Sheriff DeBruhl was the son of a former sheriff of Kershaw County, Gilliam B. "Gib" DeBruhl, who was elected sheriff in 1946 and served until his death in July, 1951; and
Whereas, like his son, Gib DeBruhl's twenty-five year career as a law enforcement officer before his untimely death was a source of pride for Kershaw County and South Carolina, and certainly set high standards which his son later emulated during his tenure as sheriff; and
Whereas, the members of the General Assembly believe that it would be a fitting tribute to this outstanding Kershaw County family if the sheriff's office building in the county were named in their honor. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:
That the Kershaw County Council is requested to name the building which houses the Kershaw County Sheriff's Department at 609 Lafayette Avenue in Camden as the "DeBruhl Building".
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Kershaw County Council.
Scope of Legislation: StatewideAll Sponsors: HollandType of Legislation: Concurrent Resolution
History
Bill Body Date Action Description CMN
---- ------ ------------ ------------------------------ ---
1566 Senate May 21, 1992 Received from House
1566 House May 21, 1992 Introduced, adopted, returned
with concurrence
1566 Senate May 20, 1992 Introduced, adopted, sent to
House
View additional legislative information at the LPITS web site.
(Text matches printed bills. Document has been reformatted to meet World Wide Web specifications.)
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
TO REQUEST THE KERSHAW COUNTY COUNCIL TO NAME THE BUILDING WHICH HOUSES THE KERSHAW COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AT 609 LAFAYETTE AVENUE IN CAMDEN AS THE "DEBRUHL BUILDING".
Whereas, South Carolina recently lost one of its most respected law enforcement officers when Louis L. "Hector" DeBruhl died in Camden at the age of fifty-seven; and
Whereas, Hector DeBruhl was first elected Sheriff of Kershaw County in November, 1966 and served continuously until his retirement last year. He was the youngest sheriff in the State when he was first elected, served longer than any sheriff in the history of Kershaw County, and was the senior sheriff in South Carolina at the time of his retirement; and
Whereas, during his thirty-four year career in law enforcement, he rightfully earned a reputation as an officer who worked on the front line, who was fearless, and who had complete integrity; and
Whereas, Sheriff DeBruhl was the son of a former sheriff of Kershaw County, Gilliam B. "Gib" DeBruhl, who was elected sheriff in 1946 and served until his death in July, 1951; and
Whereas, like his son, Gib DeBruhl's twenty-five year career as a law enforcement officer before his untimely death was a source of pride for Kershaw County and South Carolina, and certainly set high standards which his son later emulated during his tenure as sheriff; and
Whereas, the members of the General Assembly believe that it would be a fitting tribute to this outstanding Kershaw County family if the sheriff's office building in the county were named in their honor. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:
That the Kershaw County Council is requested to name the building which houses the Kershaw County Sheriff's Department at 609 Lafayette Avenue in Camden as the "DeBruhl Building".
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Kershaw County Council.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
George Count deBruhl
Count deBruhl The other day I visited Chingford Old Church, Essex, and saw for the first time a plain headstone to the memory of "George, Count deBruhl, died 1855, aged 80 years." It would be very interesting to lovers of Carlyle's "Frederick the Great" if it could be shown what connection there was between the Saxon Prime Minister, Count deBruhl, who suffers from the lash of Carlyle, and the George, Count deBruhl, whose bones lie at Chingford; also what led to his burial overlooking the valley of Isaac Walton's gentle Lea. For the information of the curious among your readers, I may add that the stone is to be found on the left of the stile leading from the path across the Lea valley meadows.
F.H. Wiltshire.
Notes and Queries, Page 189 September 05, 1903
Transcribed by Norman DeBruhl
February 28, 2009
F.H. Wiltshire.
Notes and Queries, Page 189 September 05, 1903
Transcribed by Norman DeBruhl
February 28, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Harriot Manuscripts
Thomas Harriot's manuscripts
Alphabetical list of History Topics
History Topics IndexVersion for printing
Thomas Harriot died in 1621. He had published no mathematical or astronomical works during his lifetime, but he left his papers in reasonably good order and set out his wishes in his will that they should be properly edited and published. This article tells the story of how 380 years have passed since Harriot's death yet, despite many attempts, his dying wishes have not yet been properly carried out.
The story of how knowledge of Thomas Harriot's mathematical genius has come down to us is related in several of the references, see for example [1], [2], or [4]. We quote from the preface of [4]:-
It is now more than 350 years since Thomas Harriot on his deathbed considered his fame and reputation. Alas! Though recognised by his contemporaries as England's most profound mathematician, most imaginative and methodical experimental scientist, and first of all Englishmen to make a telescope and turn it on the heavens, Harriot had not prepared his works for the use of future generations. The thousands upon thousands of sheets of mathematics and of scientific observations which had occupied most of his waking hours were lost to sight, buried in private archives. Early discussions in the newly founded Royal Society of London centred around the search for Harriot's lost papers, but inquiries made from 1662 to 1669 proved fruitless, and it was finally assumed that they had been destroyed.
The rediscovery of Harriot's papers occurred in 1784. The story is somewhat complicated and future events were much influenced by the character of the person who made the discovery. Franz Xaver Zach was an Austrian, described in [2] as:-
an arrogant young man of boundless ambition.
Zach had been appointed as tutor to the son of Count de Bruhl so, when de Bruhl was sent to England in 1783 as Saxon Minister, Zach came to London with him. While in England, de Bruhl married again, this time to Lady Egremont who was a descendant of Harriot's patron Henry Percy, 9th Duke of Northumberland. The Egremont estates were at Petworth in Sussex and this had been Henry Percy's country estate. The Count de Bruhl visited Petworth in the summer of 1784 and there he found Harriot's manuscripts hidden among the stable accounts.
The manuscripts had been untouched since Henry Percy's death in 1632, eleven years after Harriot's own death. Count de Bruhl passed the manuscripts to his son's tutor, Franz Xaver Zach. Now Zach was certainly ambitious and saw at once that he had had the good fortune to make himself famous. He began making public statements regarding the discoveries he had made in studying Harriot's manuscripts.
It is a little hard today to understand the background of rivalry that existed at this time among English and Continental mathematicians. The rivalry had little to do with science, and everything to do with ignorant nationalism. Sadly newspapers toady still show signs that xenophobia is alive and well, but at least mathematicians and scientists have common goals which today mostly lift them above worrying about national boundaries. In the period when the Royal Society sought Harriot's papers in the 1660s one has the feeling it was more to do with showing that an Englishman was superior to Vite, Kepler and Galileo than it was to do with the importance in studying the development of mathematical thought!
Despite the fact that Harriot's work was of the very highest quality and importance, Zach made claims about it which were over the top [4]:-
...[Zach's] perusal showed Harriot to anticipate and be greater in his accomplishments than either Kepler or Galileo.
In 1786 Zach proposed to the Oxford University Press that he publish a major biography of Harriot together with an edited edition of the most important of Harriot's manuscripts. Thomas Hornsby, the Savilian Professor of Astronomy at Oxford, proposed Zach for an honorary degree which was awarded in 1786. It is somewhat ironical that Hornsby, best known for his role in setting up the Radcliffe Observatory at Oxford, himself made tens of thousands of observations which were not published until 1932, about 150 years after they were recorded.
Also in 1786 Zach was granted the title Baron von Zach which, like his honorary doctorate, Zach used to promote himself. Zach was now appointed as director of a new astronomical observatory to be built at Seeberg, Gotha. This post carried with it important other roles which made Zach a leading man in European science. Although he continued to give lectures on Harriot and wrote an article repeating his over the top claims, von Zach had little time to devote to editing Harriot's papers, a task which might have occupied him without other distractions for the rest of his life. At this stage von Zach held what he considered the most important of Harriot's papers in his own possession, something which Count de Bruhl had been happy to allow to aid von Zach in the editorial task he believed he was undertaking.
Without doing any editorial work whatsoever, and without writing any biographical material, von Zach sent some of Harriot's papers to the Principal of Brasenose College in 1794 and asked that he forward them to Oxford University Press for publication. It was clear to Oxford Press that they had not received manuscripts in a fit state for publication, but they divided the papers into two groups, mathematical papers and astronomical papers, and sent them to two referees for opinions about publication.
The mathematical papers were sent to Abraham Robertson. Now Robertson was a rather remarkable person. He had started out in life as a domestic servant. One day while serving at table he was reprimanded for not paying attention to his duties. He confessed that he had been listening to his master and a guest arguing about the solution to a mathematical problem. Both, he politely pointed out, were wrong in their opinions and he proceeded to explain the correct solution. A poor students place was found for Robertson by his master at Oxford. Three years after receiving Harriot's papers to referee for publication, Robertson was appointed Savilian Professor of Geometry and, in 1810, Savilian Professor of Astronomy.
Robertson reported promptly on the mathematical papers sent top him (see for example [4]):-
These papers, excepting the last, are in no point of view fit for publication. The greatest part of them consists of detached and unfinished explanations ... begun [by Harriot], according to all appearance, with the design of satisfying his own mind upon the subject before him, and dropped abruptly once that satisfaction had been obtained ...
The review ends with the comment that to publish the papers in their present state would injure Harriot's reputation. This assessment was entirely fair. However, expectations of imminent publication had been roused. Hutton wrote in his Mathematical Dictionary published in 1797 (see, for example [1]):-
As to the manuscripts lately discovered by Dr Zach ... it is with pleasure I can announce that they are in a fair train to be published: they have been presented to the University of Oxford, on condition of printing them; with a view to which, they have been lately put into the hands of an ingenious member of that learned body, to arrange and prepare them for the press.
However, when the referee of the astronomical papers failed to reply, these too were sent to Robertson as a referee in 1798. His report on these really does seem to completely miss the point. Robertson claimed that their publication would not:-
... contribute, in the smallest degree, to the advancement of astronomy.
Although Robertson was correct in claiming that no unknown scientific facts were contained in the papers, he seems to have totally missed the fact that Harriot's work is of fundamental importance in the development of the subject.
As the years went by more and more criticism was aimed at Oxford University Press for the lack of appearance of Harriot's papers. They had sent the manuscripts back to Petworth House in 1799 having made the decision that publication in their present form was impossible. In 1822 Robertson, angry that Playfair and others were attacking Oxford University Press, made his reports on the papers public.
The next step was that [4]:-
Rigaud, Savilian Professor at Oxford, and Henry Stevens of Vermont, an antiquarian bookseller, both turned their hands to revealing the true Harriot in the nineteenth century. Neither fully succeeded.
In fact Stephen Peter Rigaud, who succeeded Robertson to both Savilian chairs at Oxford, was much more interested in the history of mathematics than Robertson had been. It is written in [1] that he:-
... played a major part in the renaissance of the history of mathematics - of Newtonian studies in particular ... Besides more general themes, he took pains to explore Oxford's own contributions to historical scholarship.
Rigaud was one of the Delegates of the Oxford Press, and his initial reason in becoming involved in the controversy over Harriot's papers was to defend the position of the Press. In fact Rigaud strongly attacked the claims made by von Zach (less vigorously after von Zach died on 2 September 1832) and, as a consequence, rather talked down Harriot's contributions. He did, however, begin a serious study of Harriot's manuscripts but he died in 1839 leaving copious notes on the manuscripts but another opportunity for publishing a proper edition was lost.
Although Rigaud had tried to find Harriot's will, he failed mainly because he did not know that Harriot died in London. The will was located by Henry Stevens of Vermont (1819-1886), see [5] and [6] for full details of this interesting episode. Stevens was not a scientist but rather an antiquarian bookseller whose interest came through a study of A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia which he believed was one of the most outstanding rare books anyone could own.
To further his knowledge of Harriot, Stevens visited London, studied the Harriot manuscripts held in the British Museum, found Harriot's will in the records of the Archdeaconry Court of London, but did not visit Petworth to view the bulk of Harriot's papers nor did he visit Oxford to consult the notes left by Rigaud. Stevens wrote a biography of Harriot but died before he could correct the proofs. The book, Thomas Harriot and his associates was privately printed in London in 1900. Only a few copies were produced and the work did little to fill the gap in knowledge about Harriot. It would also be fair to say that Stevens did not have the necessary mathematical background to understand the proper place of Harriot's achievements.
Harriot's will is a fascinating document which itemises all Harriot's personal possessions, including all his scientific instruments. It also carefully lays out how Harriot's friend Nathaniel Thorperley should proceed to publish his papers. Thorperley was, in fact, a good choice. As well as being a friend of Harriot's he had been Viète's secretary in the 1580s. Thorperley was required to:-
order and separate the chief of them from my waste papers, to the end that after he doth understand them he may make use in penning such doctrine that belongs unto them for public uses ...
Harriot was well aware that some of his revolutionary ideas would be hard to understand and he listed four other friends who Thorperley might consult if he had difficulties. After the papers had been used for publication, Harriot requested that they be:-
... put into a convenient trunk with a lock and key and to be placed in my Lord of Northumberland's library and the key to be delivered into his Lordship's hands.
Although no proper edition of Harriot's papers have yet been published, there has been great interest in his work by historians of mathematics over the last few decades. As the preface of [4] put it:-
Only in the second half of the twentieth century, when the significance of science has become of crucial importance and the study of history and philosophy of science has matured, has Harriot's reputation started to come into its own. Now that the Harriot papers have seen the light of day, Harriot stands clear as a key figure at the time when the new science of logic, reason, mathematics, and experiment was coming into being. A man, who, like Bacon, took all knowledge for his province, Harriot, through both theory and practice, has proved himself to be a true Renaissance Scientist.
References (6 books/articles)
Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson
History Topics Index
Alphabetical list of History Topics
Main index
Biographies Index
Famous curves index
Birthplace Maps
Chronology
Time lines
Mathematicians of the day
Anniversaries for the year
Search Form
Societies, honours, etc
Alphabetical list of History Topics
History Topics IndexVersion for printing
Thomas Harriot died in 1621. He had published no mathematical or astronomical works during his lifetime, but he left his papers in reasonably good order and set out his wishes in his will that they should be properly edited and published. This article tells the story of how 380 years have passed since Harriot's death yet, despite many attempts, his dying wishes have not yet been properly carried out.
The story of how knowledge of Thomas Harriot's mathematical genius has come down to us is related in several of the references, see for example [1], [2], or [4]. We quote from the preface of [4]:-
It is now more than 350 years since Thomas Harriot on his deathbed considered his fame and reputation. Alas! Though recognised by his contemporaries as England's most profound mathematician, most imaginative and methodical experimental scientist, and first of all Englishmen to make a telescope and turn it on the heavens, Harriot had not prepared his works for the use of future generations. The thousands upon thousands of sheets of mathematics and of scientific observations which had occupied most of his waking hours were lost to sight, buried in private archives. Early discussions in the newly founded Royal Society of London centred around the search for Harriot's lost papers, but inquiries made from 1662 to 1669 proved fruitless, and it was finally assumed that they had been destroyed.
The rediscovery of Harriot's papers occurred in 1784. The story is somewhat complicated and future events were much influenced by the character of the person who made the discovery. Franz Xaver Zach was an Austrian, described in [2] as:-
an arrogant young man of boundless ambition.
Zach had been appointed as tutor to the son of Count de Bruhl so, when de Bruhl was sent to England in 1783 as Saxon Minister, Zach came to London with him. While in England, de Bruhl married again, this time to Lady Egremont who was a descendant of Harriot's patron Henry Percy, 9th Duke of Northumberland. The Egremont estates were at Petworth in Sussex and this had been Henry Percy's country estate. The Count de Bruhl visited Petworth in the summer of 1784 and there he found Harriot's manuscripts hidden among the stable accounts.
The manuscripts had been untouched since Henry Percy's death in 1632, eleven years after Harriot's own death. Count de Bruhl passed the manuscripts to his son's tutor, Franz Xaver Zach. Now Zach was certainly ambitious and saw at once that he had had the good fortune to make himself famous. He began making public statements regarding the discoveries he had made in studying Harriot's manuscripts.
It is a little hard today to understand the background of rivalry that existed at this time among English and Continental mathematicians. The rivalry had little to do with science, and everything to do with ignorant nationalism. Sadly newspapers toady still show signs that xenophobia is alive and well, but at least mathematicians and scientists have common goals which today mostly lift them above worrying about national boundaries. In the period when the Royal Society sought Harriot's papers in the 1660s one has the feeling it was more to do with showing that an Englishman was superior to Vite, Kepler and Galileo than it was to do with the importance in studying the development of mathematical thought!
Despite the fact that Harriot's work was of the very highest quality and importance, Zach made claims about it which were over the top [4]:-
...[Zach's] perusal showed Harriot to anticipate and be greater in his accomplishments than either Kepler or Galileo.
In 1786 Zach proposed to the Oxford University Press that he publish a major biography of Harriot together with an edited edition of the most important of Harriot's manuscripts. Thomas Hornsby, the Savilian Professor of Astronomy at Oxford, proposed Zach for an honorary degree which was awarded in 1786. It is somewhat ironical that Hornsby, best known for his role in setting up the Radcliffe Observatory at Oxford, himself made tens of thousands of observations which were not published until 1932, about 150 years after they were recorded.
Also in 1786 Zach was granted the title Baron von Zach which, like his honorary doctorate, Zach used to promote himself. Zach was now appointed as director of a new astronomical observatory to be built at Seeberg, Gotha. This post carried with it important other roles which made Zach a leading man in European science. Although he continued to give lectures on Harriot and wrote an article repeating his over the top claims, von Zach had little time to devote to editing Harriot's papers, a task which might have occupied him without other distractions for the rest of his life. At this stage von Zach held what he considered the most important of Harriot's papers in his own possession, something which Count de Bruhl had been happy to allow to aid von Zach in the editorial task he believed he was undertaking.
Without doing any editorial work whatsoever, and without writing any biographical material, von Zach sent some of Harriot's papers to the Principal of Brasenose College in 1794 and asked that he forward them to Oxford University Press for publication. It was clear to Oxford Press that they had not received manuscripts in a fit state for publication, but they divided the papers into two groups, mathematical papers and astronomical papers, and sent them to two referees for opinions about publication.
The mathematical papers were sent to Abraham Robertson. Now Robertson was a rather remarkable person. He had started out in life as a domestic servant. One day while serving at table he was reprimanded for not paying attention to his duties. He confessed that he had been listening to his master and a guest arguing about the solution to a mathematical problem. Both, he politely pointed out, were wrong in their opinions and he proceeded to explain the correct solution. A poor students place was found for Robertson by his master at Oxford. Three years after receiving Harriot's papers to referee for publication, Robertson was appointed Savilian Professor of Geometry and, in 1810, Savilian Professor of Astronomy.
Robertson reported promptly on the mathematical papers sent top him (see for example [4]):-
These papers, excepting the last, are in no point of view fit for publication. The greatest part of them consists of detached and unfinished explanations ... begun [by Harriot], according to all appearance, with the design of satisfying his own mind upon the subject before him, and dropped abruptly once that satisfaction had been obtained ...
The review ends with the comment that to publish the papers in their present state would injure Harriot's reputation. This assessment was entirely fair. However, expectations of imminent publication had been roused. Hutton wrote in his Mathematical Dictionary published in 1797 (see, for example [1]):-
As to the manuscripts lately discovered by Dr Zach ... it is with pleasure I can announce that they are in a fair train to be published: they have been presented to the University of Oxford, on condition of printing them; with a view to which, they have been lately put into the hands of an ingenious member of that learned body, to arrange and prepare them for the press.
However, when the referee of the astronomical papers failed to reply, these too were sent to Robertson as a referee in 1798. His report on these really does seem to completely miss the point. Robertson claimed that their publication would not:-
... contribute, in the smallest degree, to the advancement of astronomy.
Although Robertson was correct in claiming that no unknown scientific facts were contained in the papers, he seems to have totally missed the fact that Harriot's work is of fundamental importance in the development of the subject.
As the years went by more and more criticism was aimed at Oxford University Press for the lack of appearance of Harriot's papers. They had sent the manuscripts back to Petworth House in 1799 having made the decision that publication in their present form was impossible. In 1822 Robertson, angry that Playfair and others were attacking Oxford University Press, made his reports on the papers public.
The next step was that [4]:-
Rigaud, Savilian Professor at Oxford, and Henry Stevens of Vermont, an antiquarian bookseller, both turned their hands to revealing the true Harriot in the nineteenth century. Neither fully succeeded.
In fact Stephen Peter Rigaud, who succeeded Robertson to both Savilian chairs at Oxford, was much more interested in the history of mathematics than Robertson had been. It is written in [1] that he:-
... played a major part in the renaissance of the history of mathematics - of Newtonian studies in particular ... Besides more general themes, he took pains to explore Oxford's own contributions to historical scholarship.
Rigaud was one of the Delegates of the Oxford Press, and his initial reason in becoming involved in the controversy over Harriot's papers was to defend the position of the Press. In fact Rigaud strongly attacked the claims made by von Zach (less vigorously after von Zach died on 2 September 1832) and, as a consequence, rather talked down Harriot's contributions. He did, however, begin a serious study of Harriot's manuscripts but he died in 1839 leaving copious notes on the manuscripts but another opportunity for publishing a proper edition was lost.
Although Rigaud had tried to find Harriot's will, he failed mainly because he did not know that Harriot died in London. The will was located by Henry Stevens of Vermont (1819-1886), see [5] and [6] for full details of this interesting episode. Stevens was not a scientist but rather an antiquarian bookseller whose interest came through a study of A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia which he believed was one of the most outstanding rare books anyone could own.
To further his knowledge of Harriot, Stevens visited London, studied the Harriot manuscripts held in the British Museum, found Harriot's will in the records of the Archdeaconry Court of London, but did not visit Petworth to view the bulk of Harriot's papers nor did he visit Oxford to consult the notes left by Rigaud. Stevens wrote a biography of Harriot but died before he could correct the proofs. The book, Thomas Harriot and his associates was privately printed in London in 1900. Only a few copies were produced and the work did little to fill the gap in knowledge about Harriot. It would also be fair to say that Stevens did not have the necessary mathematical background to understand the proper place of Harriot's achievements.
Harriot's will is a fascinating document which itemises all Harriot's personal possessions, including all his scientific instruments. It also carefully lays out how Harriot's friend Nathaniel Thorperley should proceed to publish his papers. Thorperley was, in fact, a good choice. As well as being a friend of Harriot's he had been Viète's secretary in the 1580s. Thorperley was required to:-
order and separate the chief of them from my waste papers, to the end that after he doth understand them he may make use in penning such doctrine that belongs unto them for public uses ...
Harriot was well aware that some of his revolutionary ideas would be hard to understand and he listed four other friends who Thorperley might consult if he had difficulties. After the papers had been used for publication, Harriot requested that they be:-
... put into a convenient trunk with a lock and key and to be placed in my Lord of Northumberland's library and the key to be delivered into his Lordship's hands.
Although no proper edition of Harriot's papers have yet been published, there has been great interest in his work by historians of mathematics over the last few decades. As the preface of [4] put it:-
Only in the second half of the twentieth century, when the significance of science has become of crucial importance and the study of history and philosophy of science has matured, has Harriot's reputation started to come into its own. Now that the Harriot papers have seen the light of day, Harriot stands clear as a key figure at the time when the new science of logic, reason, mathematics, and experiment was coming into being. A man, who, like Bacon, took all knowledge for his province, Harriot, through both theory and practice, has proved himself to be a true Renaissance Scientist.
References (6 books/articles)
Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson
History Topics Index
Alphabetical list of History Topics
Main index
Biographies Index
Famous curves index
Birthplace Maps
Chronology
Time lines
Mathematicians of the day
Anniversaries for the year
Search Form
Societies, honours, etc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)