VIA-L Archives

From: <>
Subject: Re: [VIA-L] Amer
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 14:59:02 -0600 (CST)

On 02/03/99 13:45:44 you wrote:
>
>
>Hello:
>
>I believe that it was in the last edition of the Viers Organization's
>newsletter that someone put forth a pretty good idea about Amer. This
>person suggested that Amer may have already been a British citizen when he
>came to America. That would, perhaps, account for no one being able to find
>record of his swearing allegiance to the Crown.
>
>I know from some of the
>books that I have read about the time-period that Britian went through a
>time when they accepted most any of the refugees from France/Germany into the
>country with the idea of sooner of later shipping them to the colonies. They
>had holding areas for many of them, to wait until the next ship was ready. The
>British needed people from anywhere they could get them to perform work in
>the colonies so as to generate wealth for the Crown. They preferred people
>with trades or young people, but would take most anybody. Often they would
>open up their prisons and send convicts. They indentured many, mostly the poor,
>but some that could make their own way in England could also pay they own way to
>America. (An example is the Huguenot, Fontaine, I forget his first name, who
>was so prominent in Manakintown and Williamsburg. His journal was entitled
>Memoirs of a Hugenot, and is published by one of the genealogical publishers.
>And, of course, the African slave trade, was viewed as another way to generate
>wealth from the colonies during this time period.
>
>But, anyway, after all the above rambling, I think it's very possible that
>Amer first went to England, as opposed to Amsterdam or other such place.
>
>Another thing that kind of bothers me: What's up with that William Vier who
>shows up on the Rappahannock in 1675? That's too strange a coincidence. There
>has to be some kind of relationship between this William and Amer Via. This
>William, I think, is the one that some reseachers evidently think is the
>same person as Amer.

I agree that there HAS to be some kind of tie-in. Although the name Voye/Voyer
which shows up in the Mannikin list also is odd.
There was a virtual flood of people coming over in those years.....

Sue

>
>
>I'd be willing to chip in if someone wants to go to Salt Lake City.
>
>By the way, Judy: The James Via, son of David and Elizabeth, is in my line
>under David. What I have is not much and perhaps wrong, but I show James
>Via being born about 1800. Died Jan. 1, 1876. Married to Sarah Hale--no
>date. I know some of the other kids are believed to have been born about
>1775 (Josias) and 1781 (Richard), so maybe about 1800 for James is a little
>hard (especially on poor Elizabeth). But it's what I show.
>
>The James, son of Robert and Fanny Ann, is shown in my info as married a Miss
>Hale. No date.
>
>My two cents,
>
>Vince
>
>
>

This thread:

• [VIA-L] Amer by Vince Brant< >

  • Re: [VIA-L] Amer by <>