History-Corner.com

Judah Philip Benjamin (1811-1884)

admin — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 07:43:22 +0000

JUDAH PHILIP BENJAMIN (1811-1884)
U.S. Senator, Confederate Statesman, Attorney

Although Judah Philip Benjamin was born in Christiansted, St. Croix, Danish West Indies (US Virgin Islands since the year 1917), it was in the continental United States that he distinguished himself as a lawyer, U.S. Secretary of State, and author. Born August 6, 1811, of Jewish parents, Philip Benjamin and Rebecca, née de Mendes, he was reportedly a child genius who entered Yale University at age fourteen and was admitted to the Louisiana Bar at twenty-one in 1832. His career as a lawyer was successful, encompassing constitutional, insurance, and admiralty law.

Although he left St. Croix with his parents when he was three years old, he never forgot his birthplace, and, as an adult, bought a sugar plantation on St. Croix.

In 1852, he was elected to the Louisiana Third Constitutional Convention and in the same year was senator from Louisiana. So impressive was his career that the President of the United States, Millard Fillmore, offered him an appointment to the United States Supreme Court. He refused this as well as a later offer from President James Buchanan to be minister to Spain.

During his term as senator from Louisiana, Benjamin was actively engaged in the pre Civil War debates on the side of the southern states and consequently joined the newly formed Confederacy in 1861. Recognized as a leading force in the Confederacy, he was appointed attorney general, secretary of war, and secretary of state between 1862-1865 by Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

Following the defeat of the Confederacy in 1865, Benjamin found himself in financial trouble as his properties were confiscated. He left the United States and returned to St. Thomas for a short while. He then went to England and in 1866 became a member of the bar and a Queen’s Counsel in 1872. In 1875, he was re-elected a bencher of Lincoln Inn, London, where he frequently appeared before the House of Lords, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the Court of Appeal. In February 1883, he retired from practice. He died in Paris on May 6, 1884.

He is best known for his Treatise on the Law of Sale of Personal Property, published in London, August, 1868. The book, a legal text, superseded all others of its kind and is reported to be still in use in law schools of England and the United States.

In 1937, the Louisiana State Museum published a booklet entitled The Life of Judah Philip Benjamin. The Museum thanked its donors for their assistance in the purchase of Benjamin’s mansion at Bellechasse as an appropriate memorial to the “distinguished life and service of Judah Philip Benjamin.”

Source: Profiles of Outstanding Virgin Islanders (1972)

The Virgin Islands, The West Indian Islands and The Americas

admin — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:43:30 +0000

BY DONALD E. DE CASTRO

The West Indian Islands comprises of the Bahamian Islands, the Turks & Caicos Islands, and the Greater Antilles, the Lesser Antilles, the Cayman Islands, the ABC Islands and all the other islands within the Caribbean Sea.

In this article I am concentrating on the present and former colonies of England / Great Britain. (It was many years later when Britain colonized Scotland and Northern Ireland the country became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island). These colonies were comprised of what was known as the British West Indies, British Honduras and British Guiana. While British Honduras was located in Central America and British Guiana was in South America the other colonies were the English speaking islands from Jamaica to Trinidad. These islands were Jamaica, Cayman Islands, the Bahamas, Turks & Caicos, the Virgin Islands, Antigua, Barbuda & Redunda, Montserrat, St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla, Dominica, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada, Barbados and Trinidad & Tobago.

Of all these colonies only two had the word British in their name and they were Honduras and Guiana. And while we were all colonies of Great Britain we were never British Citizens, we were known as British Subjects (whatever that was). Each and everyone of the people of these colonies required a visa or some kind of permission to enter England / Great Britain.

When the West Indian Federation broke up and some of the colonies started to obtain some form of self government and then finally independence, the word British was dropped from British West Indies, Guiana and Honduras. British Guiana became Guyana and British Honduras became Belize and the British West Indies became Commonwealth of the West Indies or the Caribbean. Please note very carefully the word “British” never preceded Virgin Islands. As these colonies became independent they started issuing their own passports.

When the British Passport Act came into effect a new type of citizenship was created for those colonies that did not chose the part of independence, and that was British Overseas Territory Citizens. Here again note carefully not a British Citizens but a British Overseas Territory. Here I want once again to bring attention to our U.S. Virgin Islands neighbours that you are also an Overseas Territory of the United States of America, however, you are not Americans as you were not born in the America but United States Citizens and should be U.S. Virgin Islanders just as we over here in The Virgin Islands are proud to be Virgin Islanders.

Here I want to bring to your attention some changes that were made throughout the years, Reduna was dropped from Antigua, Barbuda & Redunda, Anguilla separated from St. Christopher (which is now better known as St. Kitts), Nevis and Anguilla, and the Virgin Islands was no longer a part of the Colony of the Leeward Islands under the rule of Antigua.

So the British Overseas Territory Citizenship applied to the Cayman Islands, Turks & Caicos Islands, Montserrat, Anguilla, Bermuda and The Virgin Islands and they began to issue a British Passport to their residents. All these passports are the same colour and inscribed British Passport at the top and the name of issuing Territory at the bottom. Here many of you are ready to shout “British Passport”; however a British Passport is not the same as a United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Island Passport that they issue to their citizens.

All this information is to help you to understand and accept the fact that there is no such place as the “British” Virgin Islands.

One of the most annoying and disgusting signs is at the Sea Port of Entry in Charlotte Amalie, on Veterans Drive, that refers to the BVI Citizens. The Officers at this Port see hundreds of passports everyday presented by Virgin Islanders and they have never seen British Virgin Islands on any passport or BVI Citizen.

For the benefit of the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands, while you are a U.S. Virgin Islander, you are also Citizens of the United States of America and carry the same passport as issued by the United States Government. While you note that we carry a British Passport, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island passed a law allowing Virgin Islanders the option to apply and obtain their passport also. There are a number of Virgin Islanders that have now obtained such passports which automatically makes them Citizens of the U.K. However, there are persons like myself who are “PROUD” to be a “VIRGIN ISLANDER” and are satisfied with the British Passport as explained earlier.

Let me remind you and a caller in St. Thomas to the Addie Ottley Morning Show made it clear to him and his listening audience, that the United States Virgin Islands were known as the Danish West Indies for three hundred years until 1917, when they were bought by the United States and then named the Virgin Islands of the United States of America. So what is their correct name? The United States Virgin Islands or the Virgin Islands of the United States are now them to clarify.

As for the Americans, when you listen to the news media, politicians and other Citizens of the United States of America you want to believe that only they are Americans. So what about the Canadians, Mexicans, Panamanians, Guyanese or Venezuelans just to name a few of the countries in the three Americans? In school I was thought that there were three Americas, i.e. North America, Central America and South America, therefore there are North Americans, Central Americans and South Americans. So if this has changed since I left school in 1956, will someone please let me know? I am always willing to learn because for as we live we learn something new everyday provided, we are willing to learn and accept what we are taught.

After I wrote the original article on The Virgin Islands & the U.S. Virgin Islands it was brought to my attention by more than one person, that this was a willful and intentional act by a member of the Tourist Board about forty years ago to place the word “British” preceding out even though that individual was advised not to do so, and now it has come around to haunt us. Why I say haunt us? Because so many people have been born and educated here, some came here to live and work and have since died and have left the country and never knew the correct name of the country in which they accomplished all these things. I attended the Virgin Islands Secondary School which I left in 1957, and went away for a number of years when I returned there was a BVI High School.

Today there is a battle going on within the Government employees and the House of Assembly. There are a number of Civil Servants who refuse to acknowledge British Virgin Islands and those that prefer to say Virgin Islands. It was understandable for them to say British Virgin Islands, if it was a matter of education but now that the facts are now known, it can only contribute to the ignorance on their part and their willful intention to keep others ignorant like themselves and not to educate others. Some members of the House of Assembly are satisfied with the fact that we are, “Virgin Islands”, and you can hear it in their speeches and see it reflected on their letterheads. On the other hand, others including the Premier, the Minister of Communication and Works and the Attorney General openly refuse to call out country by its correct name and constitutional name.

On the other hand, the Minister of Education & Culture is making every attempt to educate the people because he feels it is his responsibility to do so. However, the Department of Education still has British Virgin Islands on their letter heads. In some departments there are individuals that do the right thing and others do not, just another example of how out Government works with no directions from the senior people for the others to follow. Even the Speaker of the House has a problem with his own authority. He had the authority to prevent anyone from saying BVI or British Virgin Islands in the House but he refuses to do so even though the majority of the House supports it. There are only three elected members of the House that have no intention of assisting in correcting this situation and you can hear from their speeches in the House and at their press conferences. You can also hear the Attorney General continuously saying BVI, and she knowing the law and the Constitution should be advising the Speaker and the House that what they are doing is wrong and should be discontinued.

It is very disheartening to hear members of the House, senior civil servants, business people and others that are suppose to be educated with college and university degrees, stating publicly and privately that they have no intention of correcting this wrong. It is only another demonstration that Education with out common sense is a waste.

It seem that HLSCC and the Minister of Education are trying to teach: that there is no such place known as the British Virgin Islands and our Governor, Premier, and others are only concern about money and material things. How then will our children, grandchildren, residents and the many thousands of visitors and investors that spend millions of dollars here, will ever learn the truth about this country, which so many of us are proud to call home?

Now that all this information is now additional knowledge for those that did not know and a reminder to those that knew, there is no reason why the people of The Virgin Islands should not understand the importance of their Country’s name. if we are trying to regain our culture as many are advocating everyday, the first and foremost for us to regain, is our name. In addition it is equally important that the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands, including the Governor, Legislatures, Attorney General and News Media start taking this matter serious, as a long court battle could be costly to all.

Let me insert here another piece of information that should be of interest with regards to the name of a few other countries. We have to the south east of us two countries that share similar name St. Martin and St. Maarten and they share the same island, on the Continent of Africa we have the Congo and the Republic of the Congo, two different countries and then we have the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, here again these two countries share the same island, however, while the Republic of Ireland is a separate country, Northern Island comprises part of the country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So why do we have a problem with The Virgin Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The distinction is clear to any fool so why do educated and intelligent people have a problem with it?

We here in the news everyday about stolen identity among individuals at the cost of millions of dollars, Therefore let us all work together and have all this problem rectified amicably.

Understanding Why Our Right to Vote is Restricted

admin — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:29:09 +0000

BY LISA MICHELLE KÖMIVES

An Outdated Interpretation of the Constitution Restricts the Franchise of American Citizens Residing in U.S. Territories

Would you like to be able to vote for President? Do you know why we territorial residents, although U.S. citizens, cannot vote in federal elections despite the fact that we are subject to federal law? As you are likely aware, the current state of the law makes it impossible for the approximately 4.5 million Americans who reside in the territories of the United States to vote for President despite the fact that territorial residents serve in the military and die for their country.

Moreover, this second-class form of citizenship is based solely on the arbitrary criterion of residence in a territory, since even American citizens residing abroad have the right to vote in federal elections under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

As today is Organic Act Day—and it is through the Organic Act that Congress established the rights of the American citizens residing in the U.S. Virgin Islands which, notably, do not include the right to vote for President—I invite you to learn why Congress gets to decide if we can vote for President.

Congress’s power with respect to U.S. territories is defined by the “Territorial Clause” of the Constitution which states that, “Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. . .” When the United States acquired its first territories—Puerto Rico and the Philippines—in the wake of the Spanish-American War, questions arose about the rights to which territorial residents were entitled. Thus, beginning in the late 1800s, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a series of cases—collectively referred to as the “Insular Cases”—where the Court decided which rights were “fundamental” and, therefore, applied by the force of the Constitution such as: freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

However, with respect to voting rights, these new colonial territories presented a dilemma. In Downes v. Bidwell (1901), a leading Insular Case, the Supreme Court stated its concerns:

It is obvious that in the annexation of outlying and distant possessions [territories] grave questions will arise from differences of race, habits, laws and customs of the people, and from differences of soil, climate and production, which may require action on the part of Congress that would be unnecessary in the annexation of contiguous territory inhabited only by people of the same race, or by scattered bodies of native Indians.

If the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Constitution followed the flag, the United States would be forced to grant the territorial peoples full constitutional rights. As stated in Downes, that interpretation would provide to “alien races, differing from [Americans] in religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation and modes of thought . . . [the] rights which peculiarly belong to the citizens of the United States.” Accordingly, granting full constitutional rights to the territorial inhabitants could overthrow “the whole structure of government.”

With these “concerns” in mind, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the right to vote was not “fundamental,” so pursuant to the Territorial Clause, Congress could withhold the right to vote in federal elections. In Downes the Court explained its decision as follows:

We are also of the opinion that the power to acquire territories by treaty implies not only the power to govern such territory, but to prescribe upon what terms the United States will receive its inhabitants, and what their status shall be in what Chief Justice Marshall termed the ‘American Empire.’ There seems to be no middle ground between this position and the doctrine that if these inhabitants do not become, immediately upon annexation, citizens of the United States, their children thereafter born, whether savages or civilized, are such, and entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens. If such be their status, the consequences will be extremely serious.

Thus, through the decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court in the plainly racist and imperialist Insular Cases, Congress was given carte blanche to decide which territories would have federal voting rights. Importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court’s current adherence to the Insular Cases—regardless of the anachronistic and contemptible justifications for those decisions—enables Congress and the lower federal courts to continue to deny United States citizens residing in U.S. Virgin Islands and our sister territories the right to vote in presidential elections.

Further, continued adherence to this outdated interpretation of the Territorial Clause is completely at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court’s more recent decisions on federal voting rights which state that voting rights are a fundamental right of American citizenship. For example, in Reynolds v. Sims (1963), the U.S. Supreme Court stated:

Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.

The effect of the Insular Cases, viewed in conjunction with modern U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence concerning voting rights, creates a legal conflict. The continued adherence to the Insular Cases, when voting is deemed a fundamental right, creates a tortured and unjust legal formulation: voting in federal elections is a crucial, fundamental right of American citizenship except when the citizen happens to live in a United States territory.

Notably, since 1870, Congress itself has, by Constitutional Amendment, extended the franchise to virtually every citizen over 18 in the United States. The 15th Amendment enfranchised former slaves, the 19th Amendment enfranchised women, the 23rd, residents of the District of Columbia, and the 26th, citizens who were over eighteen. Further expanding the ability of Americans to directly participate in the political process, Congress passed the 17th Amendment, which provides for direct election of United States Senators, as well as the 24th Amendment which says the right to vote cannot be abridged by a failure to pay a poll tax or any other tax. These Congressional actions evidence a legislative trend recognizing the expansion of voting rights and a broadly inclusive political process.

In 1885, in the case of Murphy v. Ramsey, the Supreme Court stated:

The personal and civil rights of the inhabitants of the territories are secured to them, as to other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty which restrain all the agencies of government, state and national; [however] their political rights are franchises which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion of the Congress of the United States.

At the time this case was decided, the right to vote was limited to men over 21. Subsequent constitutional amendments, legislative acts, and judicial decisions vastly expanded voting rights. The reasoning of the Insular Cases, however, hearkens back to an era of limited franchise, embracing a concept that is discordant with contemporary ideology. The absurdity of applying the Insular Cases antiquated interpretations in a contemporary setting is underscored by subsequent Constitutional amendments and by the Supreme Court’s current articulation of the fundamental nature of federal voting rights.

Where does this leave us this Organic Act Day? Is there a way that we, as American citizens residing in U.S. territories, could get the right to vote for President? The most direct way for territorial residents to get voting rights would be for Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment granting territories the power to appoint electors as if they were states. The residents of the District of Columbia were given the right to vote for president in this way by the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution. However, territorial citizens face an overwhelming obstacle in this regard because we do not have a voting representative in Congress, or any other way to influence Congress to pass such an amendment. Therefore, due to our lack of political power in Congress, in order to have a Constitutional amendment proposed and passed, the territorial residents would likely need judicial intervention.

The requisite judicial intervention would have to come from the U.S. Supreme Court and could occur if the Court agreed to hear a case where American citizens residing in the territories were challenging the constitutionality of their disenfranchisement. In deciding such a case, the U.S. Supreme Court could and should move away from the narrow definition of fundamental rights espoused in the Insular Cases and expand the definition of the “fundamental” rights of citizens residing in the U.S. territories to be equal with the definition of the “fundamental” rights of other American citizens. As a result, Congress would no longer have the discretionary power—initially granted by the Supreme Court in the Insular Cases—to restrict the rights of territorial residents to vote in federal elections. Accordingly, if voting were deemed a fundamental right of American citizens living in the U.S. territories, Congress would be forced to enact legislation—likely including a constitutional amendment—which would allow us to cast votes in presidential elections and have our votes counted. In short, the powers granted by the U.S. Supreme Court under the Constitution can also be modified or removed by the Supreme Court under the Constitution. Therefore, if the Supreme Court expanded the definition of the term “fundamental” as set forth in the Insular Cases to be coextensive with the definition of “fundamental” rights of American citizens not residing in the territories, there would no longer be a legal mechanism for territorial disenfranchisement.

On this, Organic Act Day, it is important that we both understand why and how Congress was given the power to restrict our right to vote for President particularly given the egregious and outdated rationale underpinning this power. I would ask you to reflect on the irony that our men and women are sent to war to bring democracy to other parts of the world when they cannot even vote for their own President and Commander in Chief. I would also ask you to take just a moment on this day and reflect on what steps you could take to help yourself and others better understand—and potentially change—the current situation.

Lisa Michelle Kömives is an attorney with the Litigation Practice Group of BoltNagi PC, a full service business law firm in St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands.

Facts about the St. Thomas Synagogue, US Virgin Islands

admin — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:43:26 +0000

The historic Beracha Veshalom Vegmiluth Hasidim (Blessing and Peace and Acts of Piety) Synagogue, located at Nos. 16A and 16B Crystal Gade (Krystal Gade) in Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands is:

The THIRD OLDEST synagogue in the Western Hemisphere.
The SECOND OLDEST SYNAGOGUE IN CONTINUOUS USE in the Western Hemisphere.
The LONGEST IN CONTINUOUS USE UNDER THE AMERICAN FLAG.

The congregation was founded in the year 1796 by Sephardic Jews. This is the fourth synagogue to occupy the site. The first and third synagogues along with the surrounding residential area of Denmark Hill, St. Thomas, were razed by fires that devastated the area in 1804 and 1831. The second synagogue (1812-1823) was torn down and expanded. The present day St. Thomas synagogue was built in the year 1833.

Here are some interesting facts about other synagogues:

The Kahal Zur Israel Synagogue in Recife, Brazil, constructed in the year 1636 by Sephardic Jews, was the FIRST SYNAGOGUE erected in the Western Hemisphere and it is the OLDEST SYNAGOGUE (not in continuous use). The original building was destroyed in a hurricane in 1831, and rebuilt two years later. Its foundations were discovered in recent years and the 20th century building on the site was altered to resemble a 17th century synagogue.

The Mikve Israel Congregation in Curaçao, Netherland Antilles, was founded in the year 1651 by Sephardic Jews, at one time was considered by some to have been the first congregation in the Western Hemisphere. It is the OLDEST SYNAGOGUE IN CONTINUOUS USE in the Western Hemisphere.

The Synagogue of Bridgetown, in Barbados is the SECOND OLDEST (not in continuous use), built in the year 1654 and was destroyed by hurricane in 1831, was rebuilt, fell into disrepair and was sold in 1929. In 1983, it was bought back by the Jewish community and was restored as an active synagogue.

The Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island is the OLDEST SYNAGOGUE IN CONTINUOUS USE UNDER THE AMERICAN FLAG. The congregation was founded in the year 1658 and it began services in the current building in the year 1763.

Congregation Shearith Israel, in New York, was founded in the year 1654. It is the oldest congregation in the United States, but its present building only dates from 1897.

Brief History of the Alvaro de Lugo Post Office Building, St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands

admin — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:44:34 +0000

The Emancipation Gardens, St. Thomas, VI 00804 present day post office building in Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands (Danish West Indies prior to 1917) was actually built through the efforts of its namesake, Alvaro de Lugo (1906-1958).

The land were the Alvaro de Lugo United States Post Office Building sits, Nos. 41-42 Norre Gade, in the 1930’s was owned by the Krueger family and at the time housed the old US Post Office, Louis Lindquist’s Eveready Taxi Service (in 1936 moved to a building near Maduro’s Lumber Yard in “Butchers’ Shop Street”), the American Restaurant & Apartment Hotel, and Public Health Service.

In 1933, when Alvaro de Lugo was appointed the St. Thomas Postmaster, he petitioned the federal government for funds to build a new post office building and acquire the land. An Act of Congress dated August 12, 1935 paved the way for the erection of the building, which at the time was called the Federal Building. In July 1936 the Federal Government purchased the site for $36,000 from Mr. & Mrs. Robert Krueger. Before the demolition of the old post office building, the Post Office relocated temporarily across the street to the Grand Hotel. The construction plans were drafted in 1936 and the “Federal Building” was constructed between 1937 and 1938. On June 9, 1938 the Post Office started moving from its temporary location to its new quarters. The building was referred to as: “…the first of its kind amidst the antiquated structures of the town.” The Post Office occupied the first floor of the new building, as it still remains to this day, and the second floor housed some of the federal government offices that were stationed in St. Thomas. It was not until August 4, 1939 that a plaque was affixed on the western side of the new post office building, naming Postmaster Alvaro de Lugo and others as being the ones responsible for its creation.

Alvaro de Lugo has the distinction of being the first Virgin Islander to become Postmaster for St. Thomas (1933), and also being the first Virgin Islander to become Postmaster General of the US Virgin Islands (1934). He served until his death on February 5, 1958. He was a dedicated civil servant, and a civic and community leader. Alvaro de Lugo was an older cousin of Ronald “Ron” de Lugo, the first Virgin Islands Delegate to Congress.

The Alvaro de Lugo Post Office has a couple of murals, which were painted by Ohio-born artist Stevan Dohanos (1907-1994).

Chinnery, Shennery, Shenery, Shinnery Families of the Virgin Islands

admin — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:20:31 +0000

This is a biographical sketch about Mr. David Chinnery from my genealogical research notes:

David E. Chinnery was born in Jost Van Dyke, British Virgin Islands (BVI), on May 20, 1899. At the age of 3 he moved to Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands and lived with his uncle, John Callwood, and later with his aunt, Mary Varlack. In 1923, he opened his first grocery store, Bargain Corner, on Main Street (near the Alvaro de Lugo Post Office), St. Thomas. He later moved to the Franklin Building location and his store was now called Chinnery’s Grocery and was later named Chinnery’s Grocery & Liquor Store. On December 16, 1954 he acquired Food-O-Mat and renamed it Chinnery’s Food-O-Mat, which he sold in the early 1960’s to Lucy’s Markets Corp (then operated by Walters Quick Freeze Corp). He was married to Anna Eulala. In the 1950’s he was a member of the board of directors of the West Indies Bank and Trust Company and the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority. He died on April 10, 1990, at 90 years of age. Mr. Chinnery was a well-respected St. Thomas merchant and many still remember him.

Below is some genealogical information about some St. Thomas members of the Chinnery, Shennery, Shenery, Shinnery families:

Armanda Shennery was born in St. Thomas, on June 13, 1881. She arrived in New York, aboard the ss. Mexico (from Havana, Cuba), on April 28, 1919. Her address in the US was: 103 West 130 St, New York.

Albert Shenery was born in St. Thomas, on May 24, 1882. He arrived in New York, aboard the ss. Brazos (from San Juan, Puerto Rico), on November 19, 1918. His address in the US was: 2065 Madison Ave, New York.

Emily Shinnery was born in St. Thomas, on April 10, 1888.

Jane Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, in the year 1890 and died there, on December 24, 1970. She was married to Amos.

Louisa Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on March 8, 1892.

Isaiah Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on November 27, 1892.

Maude Shennery was born in St. Thomas, on January 3, 1897.

Anna Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on February 2, 1902.

Rosalie Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on November 7, 1902.

Amos Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on September 8, 1904.

Florence Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on November 7, 1904.

Gladys Shinnery was born in St. Thomas, on September 1, 1918.

Alphonso Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on May 14, 1921.

Harold Shinnery was born in St. Thomas, on December 19, 1921.

Sydney Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on January 28, 1923.

Oswald Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on February 10, 1924.

Lawrence Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on May 16, 1924.

Luther Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on November 18, 1925.

Yelmo Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on February 12, 1926.

Severina Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on November 28, 1936.

Marion Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on December 21, 1929.

Bennecia Shinnery was born in St. Thomas, on January 25, 1930.

Ethelyn Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on March 7, 1930.

Marion Chinnery was born in the year 1931, in St. Thomas, and drowned on the Charlotte Amalie Waterfront on Sunday, April 6, 1980 when her car crashed on the water after an accident. She was the mother of 9 children.

David A. Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on October 13, 1932.

Henrietta Shinnery died in 1933, in St. Thomas.

Olive Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on February 22, 1934.

Mary Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on March 22, 1935.

Clarice Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on July 19, 1935.

Eileen Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on December 2, 1937 and died on May 31, 2008.

Domingo Chinnery was born in St. Thomas, on May 3, 1938.

Walter Shinnery was a chess player in St. Thomas and participated in the Virgin Islands First Open Chess Tournament, held on September 1947. He was also a member of the St. Thomas P-K4 Chess Club.

Brief account of the 1972 St. John Riot, US Virgin Islands

admin — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:56:52 +0000

The 1972 St. John riot occurred in Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands, at the close of the St. John Fourth of July celebrations, on Tuesday night, July 4, 1972, and Wednesday morning, July 5, 1972. It was led by a gang of around 50 youth. One person was stabbed and a couple was injured. Several of the booths were robbed of liquor.

The St. John police was unable to control the crowds and police officers were dispatched from St. Thomas to assist the St. John police. Due to the rioting, a crowd of about 300 people gathered at the Cruz Bay dock, trying to board the ferries back to St. Thomas. It was total pandemonium.

In connection with the rioting, nine persons were arrested. John Williams (born in 1952) was described by witnesses as the leader of the gang and was charged with inciting rioting. Lesmore Smith (born in 1953), Alonzo Hyman (born in 1953), Glenn Williams (born in 1952), Neil George (date of birth unknown), Adrian O’Neal (born in 1953) and Eric Myers (born in 1946). They were charged with disorderly conduct and destruction of property. Two minors were arrested and were released to their parents. All nine persons were residents of St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands.

Welcome to History-Corner.com

admin — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:41:54 +0000

History-Corner.com welcomes you to its blog! It was founded on August 1, 2010, by Louis Paiewonsky Jr, a Virgin Islander with a deep passion for the history of his ancestral US Virgin Islands (Danish West Indies prior to 1917) and the Caribbean. It consists mostly of his notes and writings from his years of Virgin Islands and Caribbean historical and genealogical research. He does not consider himself a historian or a writer, just a Researcher of genealogical and historical facts.

The name History-Corner.com is in remembrance of his late cousin, Isidore “Isidor” Paiewonsky (1909-2004), a Virgin Islands historian, author and businessman, who wrote a weekly historical column called “History Corner”, which was published in the Virgin Islands Daily News for almost twenty years, during the 1970′s and 1980′s.

Contributions to this blog that have a Virgin Islands or Caribbean historical perspective are welcomed and encouraged. You may make a submission by clicking here.

The goal of this blog is to make a daily posting of an interesting Virgin Islands or Caribbean historical article.

Thanks for your visit and we hope that you will come back often!

Brief History of the Grand Hotel in St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands

admin — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:09:41 +0000

Mr. Bonnelli was the original recorded owner of 44-45 Norre Gade (the present location of the Grand Hotel), St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands. He bought lot 44 on March 16, 1835 and lot 45 on April 15, 1835, both vacant at the time. The hotel was built 1839-1840 (three stories high) and opened its doors on Thursday, May 14, 1840, under the name of Commercial Hotel & Coffee House. It was not until after 1908 that it was called the Grand Hotel. In the 19^th century, for a time, the actual Hotel 1829 was called the Grand Hotel.

After Mr. Bonnelli died, on February 13, 1843 his heirs deeded the property, now with the hotel, to Jean Baptiste Anduze, the first Anduze to arrive on the Danish West Indies (from France). The Grand Hotel property remained under the ownership of the Anduze family for the next 71 years. On June 29, 1914, the property was deeded to Alfred Harris Lockhart and to this date, after almost a century, it has stayed in the ownership of some of his descendants through Lockhart Companies Incorporated.

In 1873, after a Christmas party that was held at the hotel for Prince Valdemar, the first member of the Danish Royal family to visit St. Thomas (he was the youngest son of King Christian IX), a fire caused severe damage to the property. Afterwards the property was rebuilt as a two story building.

The 170 year old Grand Hotel remains a Virgin Islands landmark, it became the international accommodation for distinguished personalities and well-to-do visitors during the second half of the 19^th century and the first half of the 20^th century, until the now defunct Virgin Isle Hotel (owned by Sydney Kessler and Benjamin “Ben” Bayne (1900-1990) and built by Miami playboy and hotel builder Joseph “Joe” Langer) had its first guests on December 14, 1950. The Grand Hotel operated as a hotel until around 1975.

One of Mr. Bonnelli’s descendants, Dr. Rafael F. Bonnelly (1904-1979), became President of the Dominican Republic (1962-1963).