Background

The story of Oak Island as told today commences with the tale of three young or teenage boys rowing out to an uninhabited island during the summer of 1795; or one boy making discovery then returning to the mainland to fetch two other boys. 

One must naturally wonder how ‘three boys’ became the descriptive language of choice for the 20^th Century when all early written accounts have always indicated men.  Dissecting the stories of discovery and wading through the various accounts must be made for the purpose of understanding the following:

1. The year 1795 was introduced by Frederick Blair in his Prospectus of 1894, and
2. At no time were boys ever mentioned in any account prior to the 20^th Century.

Essentially there are two varying accounts which narrate a discovery of the pit. These two versions are the following:

    1.   One version of discovery has Donald McGinnis as a participant, with varying co participants depending on the narrator.  All of these accounts are known as the ‘three friend version’ which can be further examined to contain two sub variations.

          a.    Judge DesBrisay in his History of Lunenburg County, First Edition, says McGinnis, Ball and (a) Vaughn of unknown first name were involved,

          b.   Anthony Vaughan Junior’s version as relayed to Robert Creelman during 1849 has McGinnis, John Smith and Anthony Vaughan Jr.  Anthony Vaughan’s story is the version which authors have adopted and which eventually was transformed into “in 1795, three boys rowed out to an uninhabited island”. 

    2.  The second main version comes from James DeMille through his Treasure of the Sea. Essentially, DeMille tells of a father who discovered the pit forty years before the ‘three friends version’ and who engaged with his son to work the pit. DeMille’s version then continues on with the ‘three friends’. His addition was for the pit to be previously worked before the three friends; thereby implying the Loyalist discovery is actually a rediscovery!

Below are snippets of published articles which narrate the accounts of discovery. The information below was extracted for the purpose of indicating when the pit was discovered. The three friend’s version comes in five articles of which all others are based, with the eighth article from the Blair Prospectus of 1894. Blair’s Prospectus is the first document which attempts to conjure the history for the purpose of selling shares; thus it has legal implications. 

Article 1.         16 Oct 1862 Liverpool Transcript

 by J.B McCully – Truro, June 2, 1862

“ Sometime after the arrival of these persons a Mr. McGinnis went to Oak Island to make a farm, when he discovered the spot in question from its being sunken, and from the position of three oak trees, which stood in a triangular form round the pit."

Comments:      There is no mention of 1795 or his age.  McGinnis arrived in the area between 1785 and 1787 and purchased his first Oak Island property 3 March 1788. The article implies discovery when McGinnis first went to the island, thus 1788.

Article 2.         The Colonist of 1864

(author now known to be Mr Cooke of the Association)

Thus Captain Kidd and his treasure remained for several years following the death of the old sailor, when three men named Smith, McGinnis, and Vaund, emigrated from New England to Chester, Nova Scotia. Smith and McGinnis took up land on Oak Island, and Vaund settled on the adjacent main-land.

Comment:        A mention of men but no 1795. Smith arrived in the area during 1784 at the age of 14. His father Duncan Smith was granted lot 24 in 1784 and his biological uncle Hector McLean being granted lot 23. Smith moved to Oak Island in Oct 1789 with his mother and new step father Neal McMullen.   

The Vaughn family was already established in the area dating to the 1760s and the family owned several Oak Island lots prior to the arrival of McGinnis and Smith; therefore, it cannot be implied for the Vaughn family to have arrived at the same time as Smith and McGinnis. The article indicates the Vaud (Vaughan) involved had emigrated from New England; thus this Vaud (Vaughan) could not have been Anthony Jr. because he was born in Chester during 1782.

McGinnis did not come from New England; the closest he ever got to New England was New York. The time period implied by this article would be 1789.

Article 3.         Toilers of the Isle 22 Aug 1866 New York Times and reproduced in the British Colonist

“Among the spots I have visited is a small island in Mahone Bay, on the south coast of Nova Scotia, known as Oak Island, where for over a century has been centred quite an interest. I give you the story as ‘twas told to me:-“

Comment:       The author indicates interest for over 100 years and therefore would be consistent with the DeMille version of '40 years prior to the three friends'.

Article 4.         The Scotsman - 22 Sept 1866

Nearly a quarter century later, three men, named Smith, Vaud (Vaughan), and McGinnis, emigrated from New England and settled in Chester NS. Smith and McGinnis taking up land upon Oak Island. As soon as these men had erected their huts, they commenced their work of felling the forest that covered the island.

Comments:      This article is based upon article 2. It mentions men, no 1795.
  

Article 5.         History of Lunenburg County – FIRST EDITION 1870 by Judge DesBrisay

“a man named McGinnis, living on the mainland when visiting the island…” and “rowed back to the mainland and got two men Ball and Vaughan”.

Comment:        A ‘man’, and the judge actually provides the date of 1799. The year 1789 is a more reasonable date and I suggest 1799 may have been either a typing error, or the Judge’s personal recollection from recalling the story he learned as a boy via the daughter of John Smith.  This version indicates a period prior to McGinnis owning property (1788) as he was visiting, perhaps even working. In stating Ball was on the mainland, one must wonder if Ball yet owned his first lot? A date of 1787/1788 means Anthony Jr. is 6 years of age and is not a likely person for McGinnis to have fetched, especially since the Judge mentions men. The Judge learned of discovery from Mary Smith, the daughter of John Smith, and who was a family servant. It was she who never included her father in discovery. Why the Judge's 1870 first edition is so different from the previous articles can only mean his source was different.

Article 6          Treasure of the Sea 1873 by James DeMille

“Well, after this nothing was done for a long time. These two, father and son, went home, and for a while they kept the whole business a secret; but after some years the old man died, and the son married, and so the whole the whole story leaked out, till everybody knew all about it”.

Comments:      While published in 1873, DeMille's knowledge was gained from living on the island during 1868, and from many years of having a summer home in Chester Basin. DeMille does not provide a date, but he says a father and son were the primary discoverers and implies with the Loyalists either re-discovered the pit, or discovered a pit hidden by the Planters. De Mille further states “these diggings to be about 40 years before the friends". Demille further states that after the father dies, the son get married, then talks openly about the pit.

In dissecting the Demille's version against the folks of the area, the father can only be Robert Melvin, and the son can only be Nathaniel Melvin. From 1766 onwards, Robert showed great interest in the island. After his death in 1787 the Loyalists would coincidentally start arriving on the island. His son Nathaniel would take control of his father’s Oak Island lots and further acquire several others including lot 17 during 1790,  which he purchased from Anthony Vaughan Sr. With this purchase, the Melvin family would own the lots on either side of lot 18. Further to the DeMille’s version, Nathaniel married in 1795. While DeMille says for the son to have only talked about the pit, I don’t think this means Nathaniel widely publicized the pit; but rather disclosed to the Loyalists what the pit may have been used for during the Revolution. The silence of community or public record regarding this pit speaks for itself; surely the news of a virgin pit thought to contain Capt Kidd’s treasure would have made it to some record.

Article 7          1885/86 Life of James Pattillo – Recorded by Rev Rakey

James Pattillo’s testimony says “the pit was discovered when his father still owned property on Oak Island”.

Comments:    Alexander Pattillo possessed lot number one from 19 Feb 1785 to 9 Sep 1794 and lot number 27 from 17 Nov 1786 to May 1791. In both cases he sold both lots to Donald McGinnis. The actual book is linked below

Article 8         Blair Prospectus 1894

“In 1795, three men –Smith, McGinnis and Vaughn, - visiting the island, and while rambling over the eastern part of it, came to a spot…”

Comment:          This is the first mention of 1795, but the participants are still referred to as men. By 1795 Smith was already a resident of the island and living with his mother and step father on lots 9, 10, and 11. McGinnis possesses lots 1, 23, 27, and 28, he resides on

Article 9                      The Oak Island Treasure by Charles B Driscoll 1929

John McGinnis’ is the great grandson of Daniel McGinnis. John was born on Oak Island and maintained an unbroken chain of McGinnis’ on the island. John and his father were present during the time of Blair’s activities and historical investigation of the 1890’s, yet John’s testimony is not recorded by Blair.

His testimony – “He was one of the original discoverers of the treasure. After he got interested in the work here, he settled down and built a house right on this spot”.

Comment:  McGinnis was already a resident by 1791 as shown on the Poll Tax and owned his first lot in 1788. The testimony indicates he was already aware of the pit and was interested prior to coming to Oak Island. The testimony also suggests work may have already been going on.

Analysis of the nine articles

The various accounts of the 19^th Century never mention three boys, with only Blair’s Prospectus mentioning 1795 as a date to discovery.

Other than 1795 being the year in which Smith bought the property, there is nothing else to suggest 1795 as the year to discovery.  DeMille indicates ‘the son’ got married and then communicated information about the pit. If this son was Nathaniel Melvin, he married in 1795.

All of the texts, except for Blair’s, suggests the pit was discovered, or at minimum became known to the Loyalist group before 1789.

All of the three friend versions, except for Judge DesBrisay’s, are all based upon the Anthony Vaughan Jr. to Creelman exchange of information. 

Conclusions

Implications of an earlier than 1795 discovery date are far reaching; but most significant is for Anthony Vaughan Jr’.s age becoming a factor. Born in 1782, a discovery date of 1787 would see Anthony Jr. only five years old; therefore he would not have reasonably been the Vaughan who McGinnis fetched on the mainland. Additionally Jr. would not have been of sufficient age to have participated and not as a reasonable eyewitness to discovery. One must wonder why Junior’s version of events, as told to Creelman in 1849, is so disjoined from the documented history of the island.

By 1849, McGinnis, Ball, and the various Vaughan men who could have been the one McGinnis fetched were all dead. A discovery date before October 1789 would now exclude even Smith as a participant and would be consistent for Judge DesBrisay’s version he learned as a boy.

Simply put, Anthony Vaughan Jr. must certainly have told Robert Creelman more than 30 seconds of worthy text to detail discovery. We do not hear from Smith or relatives, and we do not hear from any of the McGinnis relatives. We do not hear the version of discovery from any of the Loyalists; but rather from the son of a Planter who did not live on Oak Island and never owned property on Oak Island. 

Including the information provided by DeMille now means the Loyalist either 're-discovered' a pit, or merely became aware of the pit. This awareness idea is substantiated through the testimony of McGinnis' great gandson who said Donald first became interested in the work prior to buying on Oak Island. Could this mean the operation was already on the go before McGinnis (1788)?

One can only conclude the Anthony Vaughan Jr. version was conjured, with the only outstanding question being “Why?”

So when was 'discovery'? Regardless of any possible activity as told by DeMille, this researcher thinks the Loyalist became aware of the pit at some point between the death of Robert Melvin in Aug 1787 and before Smith moves to the island in Oct 1789. Based upon property deeds and specific language used in the above texts, I think this can be narrowed down to between Aug 1787 and Mar 1788.

Further reading can be had in this book