I'm reconstructing this from memory, but I believe Stokes had it right. For
obscure reasons, the charter given to the Duke of York in 1664 combined New
Netherland with a chunk of real estate, now in Maine, between the Kennebec
and Ste. Croix rivers. Twenty years later, when New York colony was
"shired" -- i.e. organized into English-style counties -- the Maine
territory became Cornwall and Dukes. It's unlikely that the European
residents of those two counties (there couldn't have been many) considered
themselves New Yorkers, however, and probably only the Duke's lawyers would
insist on including them with the colony's ten contiguous counties. I've
never seen evidence that anyone objected when Cornwall and Dukes were
attached to Massachusetts after the collapse of the Dominion of New
England -- or indeed when Maine was subsequently detached from Massachusetts
and brought into the Union as part of the Missouri Compromise. Hope this
helps (assuming I got the story straight).

Edwin G. Burrows
Visiting Distinguished Professor of History
Hofstra University
  -----Original Message-----
  From: A LISTSERV list for discussions pertaining to New York State
history. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
  Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 12:02 PM
  To: [log in to unmask]
  Subject: Discrepancy between I. N. Phelps Stokes and Encyclopedia of
NY....


  Recently I wrote that Queens was "named in 1683 when the province of New
York was  divided into 10 counties."  This is also the version given in the
Encyclopedia of New York, referring to "the colony of New York" (in the
entry on Queens).

  But  I. N. Phelps Stokes' "Iconography of Manhattan Island", quoting from
the original 1683 colonial law, notes that "the province of New York"
originally consisted of (or was claimed to consist of) Cornwall and Dukes
counties.  Other apparently standard sources indicate Cornwall County was
surrendered to Massachusetts in 1692 (and became part of Maine in 1819) and
Dukes County was surrendered to Massachusetts in 1686.

  Is it correct to assume that the Stokes' version is accurate?  >>>Or is
there some obscure nomenclature issue concealed here, waiting to trip me
up?<<<  (My concern is heightened because I cannot find the entry in the
Encyclopedia of New York which relates to "New York State", if there is
one.)

  Christopher Gray
  Office for Metropolitan History
  246 West 80th Street, #8, NYC  10024
  212-799-0520  fax -0542
  e: [log in to unmask]

  Christopher Gray
  Office for Metropolitan History
  246 West 80th Street, #8, NYC  10024
  212-799-0520  fax -0542
  e: [log in to unmask]