Dutchess County Historical Society Yearbook 067 1982 by Bill Jeffway

DUTCHESS COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY YEAR BOOK

1982

Volume 67

Clinton House Mu§erm - Box 88 Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12602

William P. Mc Dermott Ph.D.

Editor

The Dutchess county IIistorical Society Year Book has been ptolished armually since 1915 ky the Dutchess Cbunty Historical Society, Clinton House mseum -Box 88, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. , 12602.

It is distributed without charge to mElrbers of the Society. Individual oc]pies rna:y be purchased for $4.50, postage and

shipping are included. Selected earlier Year Bocks are also available. Requests for Copies should be sent to the above address. The Society encourages accuraey but cannot assure respensjbility for statements of fact or opinion made by

a}ntributors .

Manuscripts , bocks for reviair and other Correspondence relevant

to this ptolication should be addressed to:

William P. Mc: DermDtt, Editor

Dutchess Gc)unty Historical Society Clinton House M]seurn - Box 88 Poughkeepsie, N. ¥. 12602

The cover and title page were designed by S. Ve]ma Pugsley. The view of the Clinton House Museum ca. 1765 on the title page is reproduced frcm a line drawing by A. S. Ithgargee, now in the pessession of the Daughters of the American Revolution,

Main7enawasigh Cfiapter.

Cb[nyright 1982 by the Dutchess County Historical Society

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Dutchess County Farmer F. Kermon Moody

The Poughkeepsie Navy George N. Wilson

Sale of Loyalist Estates in Dutchess County= The Ef fect on Landholding Patterns rohn T. Reilly

The New American Landscape: An Analysis of the Poughkeepsie Iron Works (Bech's Furnace)

Jeffrey A. Arons

Masked Burglars in Millerton Chester Eisenhuth

Archaeology As Historic Preservation: An Example from Dutchess County

Charles Fisher

The I]assen Family 1659 -1982: Dutchess Coun€y's

First Settlers a. Buchanan

The Washington Hollow Fair Louise Tompkins The Civil War Comes to Dutchess County David Lund The Bardavon 1869 Opera IIouse 1869 - 1979

Jesse Ef from

121

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683 -1733:

Settlement or Speculation? William P. Mc Dermott

141

anual Reports

173

List of Historians and Historical Societies

189

Index

199

FDR inapects tjfroer on his estate with Prof . Nelson Brcrm, New Y{ck State College of Forestry, February 26, 1944. The t:infer Tras used in building ships during [Jforld Tfar 11. Photo courtesy of the Franklin D. Ftoosevelt Library, Hyde Park, N.Y.

FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVEI]T : DUTCHESS COUNTY FARMER

F. Kennon Moody

FDB often bdend,feed leis occxpation as "farmer". Thas aecoun;± details his dad:kccttion ±o fonwi;mg. He eapan.bed his c[ncestrpal fami rnor.e thcari too-

foLd3 bn spdee of his inDotvenent bn pthLi,a Offchr's. F. Kermon Moody bs Dean cid Du:bchess Corn;by Cormunii;ity Couege.

On July 9,1943, Sir Harold R. L. G. Alexander led

the combined English and American military forces into

Sicily to pave the way for the later invasion of Italy. Before that campaign ended six weeks later more than 75,000 Americans had lost their lives. In that same month of July 1943 the mail room at the White House received a letter from a gentleman in Ohio. Even as the Allied forces were seeking to regain a military foothold on the European land-mass, the writer notes that he had seen a story which mentioned the fact that F.D.R. had eggs for sale at Hyde Park. I ti)ould appreefctee I.eeedvLng a coapLe of dozen eggs3

fim°aruushe&#dhmregh#heendckzf°fseLr%gncaemL#ewyor°rs#g;fs°.±$2.Z5.you

These two events in July 1943 symbolize, in a sense, the dilemma provided by the person of F.D.R. for those

attempting to characterize the myth of the man Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The perception others held of him were wide and varied. Was he the wartime farmer attempting to sell eggs at $1.25 per two dozen from his Hydepark estate? Or was he the Commander-in-Chief of the American forces

currently losing their lives in places such as Sicily? In his excellent study of the American Political Tradition Richard Hofstadter entitled his chapter on Roosevelt "The Patrician as Opportunist."2

Had the chap-

ter been written while Roosevelt still lived, and had

F. Kennon Moody

Hofstadter asked him for suggestions concerning a title, F.D.R. might have suggested "The Neighbor as Farmer."

.In

spite of the many political and social honors that society bestowed upon the man, this perception of himself as "farmer" was a perception that. would guide and colour his

relationships with people throughout his career. In time the "farmer" identification became sufficiently strong to be accepted by the media, a fact that surely re-enforced F.D.R. 's self perception.

In the

November 7, 1937, edition of the Pouglikeepsie (New York

Sunday Courier there appears a picture of Roosevelt speaking with H. Lawson of Hyde Park.` The caption reads: "Farmer Roosevelt Chats With a Neighbor "3

The perception of himself he most often shared witb the public, and particularly with his neighbors in Dutchess County, was that of being a "farmer." This selfassumed public stance was evident soon after he began his f irst term as the State Senator from the Twenty-Sixth Senatorial District of the State of New York. Barely two months had passed before a constituent from Amenia (a

small village in the extremely rural northeastern part of Dutchess County) was writing to Senator Roosevelt concern-

ing a Senate bill designed to regulate the price of milk in New York State: Wfbh the p3tyLce of Tndz;k cid 9 cen±s per quonb ..,-. the fcrmers can only l<eep chout evexp .... Do alL bn your pcmex. to defiea± -sueh -a measure. 4

0n February 27, 1911, F.D.R. replied: I apprecbcrde, as a former. rriyseLf, thaS bt bs b:rr[possi,bLe f„O^T++gs"T„kmpmr.:duee5rs bo accept a Zoo)eT pr'bce tha'i they ctpe

getting nco .... By the time F.D.R. began his second term as a State Senator, he had begun to even more fully assume his selfidentification as a farmer. William Church Osborn had

proposed a bill to regulate the Commission Merchants by providing means to "enforce the merchants' accountability to the farmer through a system of licenses, bonds, and state inspections."6 A major problem seemed to be the lack of documentation of abuses by the Commission Mer-

FDR: Dutchess County Farmer

chants. To identify such abuses, F.D.R had requested that farmers correspond with him about the matter. After one correspondent complained that the bill was not comprehensive enough, Senator Roosevelt replied: Of course I Teakkze 5ha± i:he fcaat does not Li,e opt_crne side. for. I hcroe heard rriaray bakes of methods used dy S"°^mf£®°f^p°l!::+^f fo%.% Qf a]?:+e^PS bn7Paching appte bar\r.ets bu Tnec[ns of sbovepi;pee, ebe ....

So once again, a farmer by self-identification, F.D.R. based his relationships and his response on the perception

that he too was a farmer-nd thus, by definition, understood thoroughly the problems which the correspondent was

raising in the letter. F.D.R. `s self-proclaimed status as a farmer was

extremely important in his relationship to the "neighbors" of Dutchess County.

A "farmer," even while holding the

office of President of the United States, could view and greet the average citizen as a "neighbor." It would have been more difficult, if not impossible, for a member of one of the River Families of the Hudson Valley aristocracy to have done so. Periodically the local media even sought to provide proof tbat "farmer" was not just another politically motivated designaEion, but that there was actual land and that land was being cultivated. When spring planting time arrived in 1938, the local Sunday Courier carried visual proof that F.D.R. was indeed related to the whole process of farming. Over the caption, "Roosevelt Estate Under Plow," a photograph shows Charles Van Curen, one of the Roosevelt employees plowing As important as the fact that F.D.R. saw himself in

the role of farmer is ,the question of where and how it all began. What events and situations in his life sustained the adoption of this role by F.D.R.? This love of the land, the people who lived on and worked it, and its importance to Roosevelt as expressed in the terms "farmer" and "neighbor'' had its roots even in a time prior to his birth.

James Rooseve.1t and Sara Delano Roosevelt, at the

F. Kennon moody

time of F.D.R. 's birth, were the owners of a large piece of American land. It was into a family that accepted the value and the magic of the land that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was born on January 30,1882. In spite of his age, 54 years when Franklin was born, James provided a warm, productive relationship for his only son by Sara. Until his death in 1900 James continued to be a vigorous man involved both in his varied business enterprises and in the activities of his Hyde Park farm. Thus, in looking for the sources of F.D.R. 's perception of his role of ''Neighbor As Farmer," one need look no further than his

father James. It was his fck:her who Lnsb:rucked i;he boy Ln the wcays of c3oun;b:Try ti,fe. Ii; was tot,th his fa3her. thai he made the

rounds of i:he fami, bb was from his fc[ther that he I,?qrned^5he bor'e of toecrtheT c[nd seasons cend gronchg

thimgs.9

From his father came his appreciation and love of the lands at Springwood. Until he left to attend Groton at the age of fourteen the estate of Springwood was the school where he learned, and it also provided the soil within which his roots as a "farmer" found their stability. From all accounts tne childhood was one free of turmoil, anxiety, or fear. It was a pleasant life which included two loving parents, a multitude of relatives, parents' friends and employees, and a few playmates from the neighboring families. It was a childhood that was populated with pets and farm animals, and encompassed by acres of

fields, woodlands and streams. It was a sheltered life and if , indeed, James Roosevelt dealt with the financial problems of the l880's and l890's in his office in NewYork

City, he never allowed anxiety about business to enter the gates of Springwood.

Although the influence of his father and his childhood adolescence were major sources of the man that we see

later as the patrician farmer, there were perhaps other minor influences. For example, the "Crumwold Farms" estate, owned by Mr. and Mrs. Archibald Rogers and located a few hundred yards north of Springwood, provid.ed F.D.R. 's

FDR: Dutchess County Farmer

first glimpse of tree-farming-the systematic growing of trees on a commercial basis.

In the Hudson Valley Man-

uscript Collection of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library at Hyde Park there is a 114 page volume entitled "A Working Plan for the Woodland on Crumwold Farms," prepared by J. Girvin Peters,` and dated 1906.10 Surely a preadolescent boy whose best f riend and playmate was Edmund P. Rogers (the son of Colonel and Mrs. Rogers) would have been conscious of the importance which the Rogers placed on the forest lands of Crumwold. The Poughkeepsie Sunda Courier of October 1, 1905

carried an article which noted that Franklin D. Roosevelt had won a lst prize in the class for "combination harness and saddle horses, [and] also 2nd and 3rd prizes for a pony under 13 & 14.

WLL

Another Sunday Courier story notes

that this interest in competing with his neighbors still existed even after F.D.R. became President. The September 3,1933, editionof the Courier congratulates the President on the fact that he saw his horse, named somewhat facetiously `'New Deal," win first prize at the Rhine12 beck Fair, where he had first one a prize in 1905 Even after leaving the conf ines of Springwood for his

inevitable preparatory school education at Groton, and after that the years at Harvard, F.D.R. 's relationship to the land continued to develop. Upon the death of his father on Friday, December 7, 1900, it seems certain that he began to examine his own place in the scheme of life that was Springwood. The "big trees" of the estate that

he mentions decades later in his dedication of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library were first mentioned in his correspondence with his mother Sara in a letter written less than a year after his father's death. You zbttL be surprised bo heon thde I she:Il probchtp be home for Sundy; neat. Thor.e one se_veral_ reasap_s _tor. this:. .cidso I -v)ap(i± bo get home agcdrL be for.e all the ±rees cure Z7cure.13

In the years before the death of James and the election of F.D.R. to the State Senate, the perception of` himself as

F. Kennon Moody

"farmer" began to be explicitly developed.

Af ter graduation from Harvard and matriculation at the Columbia University School of I]aw, Franklin and his new bride, Anna Eleanor Roosevelt, departed to Europe on their honeymoon. Always one who communicated well through letters, F.D.R. throughout his life corresponded with thousands of persons.L4 Even on his honeymoon trip, the sights that were seen and the people that were met, even the grandeau of a European tour, did not remove the thoughts of the farm at Hyde Park from his mind. From

Scotland one letter reveals that even at this early date Franklin was beginning in his mind to develop future plans for the Hyde Park estate that he f elt would be in line with the way in which his father had felt about the land. On September 7, 1905, he wrote to Sara. I hcwe had monray Loing and buter.esbbng balks with Mr.. Fez.guson on forest:]ey cnd, uti;h Mr. FOL5corbe cl]iid Mr. Keye crn farmi;mg

card ccds±Ze Tchschg, enrid the pzans for Hgde Pack ncro Lnetiide.

nob oiiii,kg a rien hJds; e but a i;en fain, cck±tle, br.ees. ebe ....L5

None of the letters reveal how his new bride Eleanor felt about Franklin's "long and interesting talks...on forestry ...and farming." In fact, only after the deaths of both Eleanor and Franklin do we f ind anyone commenting on what-

ever feelings Eleanor had about Franklin and his farming. In an oral interview, dated October 16,1978, Honoria Livingston Mcvitty, a cousin of Eleanor's, related Eo Emily Williams : He, Fr.call,kli;n, toes a I.eat br.adi,ti,crnalLsb cniid Loved lrds

pzace c[nd his trees cand things tbke that .... I thi;ink CozAsi;n ELean,or, maybe she ti;ked kt and maybe she didm'b, but sfae_ a;kdlt't hcroe the sco'rie feetLng chout bb~&wie Lcnd.L6

By 1911, although F.D.R. was still earning his living

(or at least a portion of it) in the law firm of Carter, Ledyard, and Milburn, his vision of himself as a farmer

had reached at least some state of maturity.

In that year

he began his "Farm Journal," and continued the journal until 1914. Pages two and three show the lands owned by his mother on both the east and west sides of the I>ost

Road divided into various types of farm lots with letters

FDR: Dutchess County Farmer

and/or titles for identification purposes.17

To each

separate lot is devoted a page upon which F.D.R. has noted in longhand the various forest and f arm work done f ron 1911 to 1914. For. the fcam'i fzeLds' he noted the craps pzaptteed, I:h± o[Irlouri;± of SeptiLkzer. used3 dates , arriounks hori)e_sbed,

brreeseusItpsz?::;fbetdhiroshetoToerkTTt84edie3andt:hegenenal

One result of all this work was an abundance of produce for the family's use. In the summer where the family was in residence at Campobello Island, the farm superintendent Mr. Plog made sure that numerous "vegetable baskets" found their way to Campobello under the supervision of the customs inspector [Campobello being in Canada]. Also in the winter months, when the family was in New York City, farm products and milk were sent from Hyde Park on the 19 rails of the New York Central Railroad The main house of Springwood, after the 1915 renovations, was more than just a home. It was a statement by F.D.R. of his relationship to the land and to the area in which he lived.. The "new" Springwood provided a quiet but

imposing dignity that underscored its role as syhoolic of the roots which F.D.R. had in His family and his lands. Other homes tof the Hudson Valley aristocracy were more lavish and ornate, while Springwood exhibited an aura of

permanence and position that was characteristic of Franklin Roosevelt.

It was during this period of intensive interest in \

the f arm and the house at Springwood that two interests began expressing themselves in the life of F.D.R..-

interests that would lend whatever validity that existed to bis claim of being `'a farmer."

In 1911 F.D.R.'s life-

long interest in tree-farming began, with the employment of a forestry expert to go over the estate and make recommendations.20

It was also in 1911 that F.D.R. made

his first purchase of property in his own name; he purchased 194 acres of the Bennett farm adjoining his mother's property on .its eastern boundary. `.(See map on

F. Kennon Moody

page 23.)

Land purchases continued from 1911 until 1938. After the Bennett property came ,the Thompkins farm in 1925, the Dumphy farm in 1935, a portion of the old Newbold estate in 1935, a portion of the Rohan farm in 1936, the Hughson

property in 1937 as well as the Wright property in that same year, and finally the small plot from Jones in 1938. As each pi`ece was purchased, a tenant was installed in the farm house if one existed. In 1920, Roosevelt wrote to the family lawyer, John Hackett of Poughkeepsie, to tell him of a new tenant for the Bennett property. . . .the new benenids,,zDhose ncnme bs Moses Srndth. zbttL

Fealty be a fcaner..

If he Ls, he bs i;he fiTsb per.son

W%£ruesubcehena chdezset;=##f f20.Lr th? i can Who comes

This was the same Moses Smith whose home on the Bennett }

property was to achieve national recognition in .the 1930`s as the meeting .place for the annual gatherings of the Roosevelt Home Club. Pete Rohan, after selling his farm to Roosevelt, 140 acres for $25,000, immediately rented it back again. Mrs. Nellie dohanson was for many years a renter of the farm home on the Thompkins property. Even the president's famous "Top Cottage" had a caretaker-

tenantrfnris Bie, a cabinetmaker at the Val-Kill2 Indus-

tries . Only three times duririg all his land purchasing activities did Roosevelt encounter opposition to his attempts to buy. He was able to buy the Thompkins property only after promising the owner guarante'ed` lifetime occupancy, followed`by burial at her cbildhood home in the northern Dutchess Courity village 6f Tivoli.

F.D.R. encountered his =econd dif f iculty in purchasing Hyde Park land when he sought to buy 140 acres from Pete Rohan-the acres being Pete's share of a farm he operated with his father, Dick Rohan.

Pete'was amenable to selling but Dick was

adamant against selling. Dick later explained his position to a reporter in 1940: I Pete cnrid Frcarck D.

ERoosevez,b| tic;her.ed for I den.'t

FDR: Dutchess County Farmer

kmou how Lorng a:rid fincaty tfaey carrie bo berms bhaee yectts ago. The price was SZ.5,000. Fr.an,k wcnite.s bo bay rrry -2Z0 ac_r^..es but he's going bo hcroe to tocrib

ur;tit I di,e.2.2 Not only did he have problems with his Hyde Park

neighbors in his land purchasing ventures, he also had some difficulty with his next-door neighbors, the Newbold family.

F.D.R. had long desired a small piece of the New-

bold land immediately north of his father's Springwood tract.

Both Mr. and Mrs. Newbold had died in 1924 and in

the 1930`s the estate was administered by his children. However, the Newbold's daughter Mary and her husband Gerald Morgan were hesitant. In desperation F.D.R. wrote to Edmund Rogers, his childhood playmate and also a friend of Mary's: Ger.ald and Mcaey cure, as you cend I knou]. furl:ny peap7,e chout rrahing up I:heir rid;nhs. For. uectts I have_ pcpri:_i_ed

bo bay Mr.. -NenfooLd's back farm east of the Faltki:IL CTeck bo deveLap Ln ptenii;itngs. They dan'b wee the Zcnd3 one I,editng it go corrrp7,ebedy bo giveces c[n_a keep

b#;;mLdbsm.g 2m.3e the Sore day theg unit mcdee ap I:ha

Although he finally purchased the land in 1935, it was not without some difficulty. The purchase of land was inLegrally related to the other activity of F.D.R. that began about the same time. A newspaper reporter in 1940 sought to show the relationship of the land purchases to the other f arming-type

activity that was such a vital part of his lif e-the commercial growing of trees. A Cob of words hcroe been zbrytbben chout Frcn'l,ILL_in I). Roosevet± b:he stcitesman, RooseveLb the LegbsLcrdor, Roosevetb the sboo:rrp coTLecbor ennd shbp modal endh~ sbasb, but veqey fen cifeout Roosevezb the forrrier .... _.

The Pr.es±denb owins more than vice the acr.eage of has farilt]r+i cmous rd,val3 Wendeu Wt|hie._. . . _ _wbl;kee'.a_ acqu;i,I.ed -his 1.400 acr.es. of ndch bLack I_ndbana_a.chL cle-an croer.age pr.bee of $100 per aer.e._ B_ooseve_t± bonghi fui,s -2,€65 acres of_ Georgia..re.a _ctcay an.a. .:I?i:.s

85i aere8 of tooen-out Hgde Pack di,I.t fer'_ as !}t;tie as $4 an adz.e .... Roosevezb ccttes nothing choztb the fromanct,al -ested in uschg retwp'ns bt bo fr.on deveLap his I,and new_toads but i,s_of a_eep?y. mqkhogLn±eTrroney for. 7th: neighbor.s.

fn IIgd_a_ Papck he has pr.oved

to ;trier hotders -of deptebed sobz, thai they ec[n make

F. Kennon Moody

a_ _ ::f es+ari;±.4al tang-?errri proftb wh_i;h I,bttle outtay

anchdviesv#aszebsrseews°r#t#e°rri.e2S4bedon3bothwhth

Each election day F.D.R. returned to his home town to vote and each time he was asked to list his occupation.

It is revealing of his self-perception to note that at various times he listed his occupation of "farmer" and later as "tree-grower."25 So his interest in the lands of Springwood led to some purchases of land, and those purchases led to the growing of trees, while both led to his listed occupation of "farmer" and '`tree-grower. " Whether his tree-growing ventures were merely an outgrowth of his interest in his family lands, or whether they were ventures to aid his neighbors as the Courier reporter Warren Hall claimed, it is evident that his experience in tree-growing in Hyde Park was the basis for many later public acts. Thus, to fully understand the actions of F.D.R. both as Governor and President, as

public servant or as a neighbor to the citizens of Dutchess County, it is important to understand his life-long involvement in the agricultural pursuit of commercial forestry. Even during the period in which he meticulously kept his Farm Journal, entries began to appear in his correspondence concerning his beloved trees. A letter to "Dearest Mama" early in his second term as State Senator is perhaps typical of his ability to keep his tree-growing operations in mind, even while busy with

all the details of his public life. I WeT:_± yes±erdey i;o i:he _spTcayer. peapz,e cmd son the

outfit._ _ piny frtu for. $200 send tire engi;ne, tcmk.. ?tc_3. alt corrrptpbe on a fr.cmenock which -Ls recidg to be.i.b _on crne of ow[. toagoins. Im addition t:hey a;tn

erg, .free .anoi;he.r' spr.eybpeg pole adapted for -thaoutng a hi,gh str.earr Lpeo shade tr.ees. fb vieil be shippi;a as _soon as the boc[±s si;cut rwii:ri;ng ....

When a±

Fg.de P_oak .tomorroig I zDtu go overi.the toecdions i or i;he ptanitng of the 8.000 -trees.26

But if he remembered in the midst of his political activities to order the trees, he did not always remelTfoer to return the baskets. Most of his seedlings were ordered from the New York State Conservation Commissioh, which

FDR: Dutchess County Farmer

shipped the seedlings in willow baskets. On January 27, 1914, the New York State Forestor was forced to write and remind the Assistant Secretary of the United States Navy of a small matter of oversight: Our. records shots thai four tottlon bcrskebs bn cohich your tree order. No. 1683 was packed3 hcroe nob .been I.eb:urned bo the Scidcmanca rL:urserry. We would prefer

that the baskets be reb:urned, but i,i b:hey hccoe been qf~S_3:_°LgeLd.3^..P~Ledffeo^rendb2$7 . 20 . t:he eosb .of each baskeb being $1.80 ....

His interest in forestry as an innovative means to help his farmer neighbors benef it from their land led to a cooperative arrangement between the State College of Agriculture at Cornell and the Dutchess County Farm Bureau. The College appointed Frank a. Moody and John Bentley to study forestry conditions in Dutchess County. The study was to be completed in the month of August 1914. The object of the study was described in the local newspaper : Briefly, the ob5ecb of the study wttl be bo d€berndme sore method by uJhich the famier. meg be herLped bo get i;he most benefob fTon i:he Zcrnd crn whi,ch his bbwher. gr.c7i;]s, cniLdofcidso bo pr.od:ucts eall leis atberatqn bo and ct_oser' -u±tti,zcatorn I or.esb , morkebs bette^r.n

+wee-tin;i=- ;I -wibiec;gement LLnctuddr;g forest pLanbing .28

This seems to substantiate tfie corments of Warren Hall quoted earlier that F.D.R.`'s main goal was "Eo develop new ways of making money for his neighbors." In November of 1922 he proposed that a group of wealthy men form a company to practice and promote "scientific forest management." . In a,letter to George D.

Pratt, November 25, 1922, he proceeded €o outline his scheme . I tocmb gou bo bhbnd overp the p_ossi;btti,i;g of the fobLouri;mg pZ,an: 1. The or'gap:I;kz_aFk_on of a ,a_a:xp.qii;g bo.

p.itcha;:e a tr.act of Lcmd vibhkn say 100 TndLes of _New rorp¢ .... 2. Th,e devetapmend of this braeb thaough _a -ncnj) gredue[,1 eLecmed caanuelorptcaii;±i:_ng on u)hkch useful of sre_h bbndeT p.oTticyn. i,a nob of i:ig.Tonas bs ing. . .mating a. botch €api,bc£1_ r_equi,I.e4 of _sap_ $5003000 ..-. rLo a;bvbdendtoould be paid for cle Least 25_ yeon_s_.... pr.ovid:ing -sofe and o[n ch uhich Lmestrpen:_i_-i;n_ a:i_v^+dentszJhich_ vJould.the undothted:ly .eapi,.ba.1. zDould, accruebe

t; t:hebr. ehitdren. 29

F. Kennon Moody

By the following year, 1923, F.D.R. had resulned his

interest in his Hyde Park farm and forestry program, and his missionary zeal was ready to carry his message to the average citizens of Dutchess County. In this postCampobello period F.D.R. seemed to be re-vitalizing his f arming interests that had been so dominant earlier in his life of 1911-14. Even in those earlier days he had thought of spreading the message to the farmers of Dutchess County, as witnessed by a letter to Vincent.Astor, introducing G. Howard Davison of Millbrook: He ks one of the gr.ecteesb exper.ts Ln our section of the corn;±]ey on i:he devetapmeat of agrioult:ure coed general form efTbcteney cend Lm addition bs the lcknd of mc[n who Fealty has the Lateresb of the eo:rmruniikbg de hecirb ....

Some day I zDcaite bo cha± with you Ln

rceogo#atk°4obnxpfovnbgngthaeg#£ebr#aoLfm#±he°thdesssthcro°unngbhg.30 If that idea in 1913 was only a passing dream, in 1923 he

was ready to put the idea into action. He offered to assist the local Grange chapters in securing seedlings when he ordered his own trees for the lands of his estate. At that time he wrote: "I am firmly convinced that it pays to plant these trees...even if only an acre is put into trees an increase in the value of the farm results."3L He continued to take his own advice and by 1928 had planted a

total of 65,000 trees on his property-ventually the total planted would reach more than 300,000 trees

planted

Upon becoming Governor, F.D. continued to spread the

gospel of reforestation, although he did not always get the exact figures in place. In a radio address delivered to the people of New York State on March 31,1930, he

correctly delivered the message but over-estimated the number of trees he had planted.` I arri a ftrrri betkever. bn I.efor.esbation as a pr.ofibchze mea]iis of utttLedng idle , nan-agriculb:ural Zcm,a cmd

hiagu2ezP#an#df#Ln8'H°g°£tp°or2k°:°3°3°treesayeorSbnee

If reforestation was good for one set of neighbors (the small farmers and land-owners of Hyde Park) , it was

FDR: Dutchess County Farmer

also good for another set of neighbors (the members of the River Families along the Hudson) . By 1931 the Governor's zeal was still high as he worked witn Nelson C. Brown,

Dean of the School of Forestry at Cornell, to develop a cooperative forestry project among those wealthy land owners and neighbors. In a letter, probably composed by Brown, F.D.R. suggested:

. . .that those of us Ln this seeti,on I:cho| toould {j;k;_e bo mcmage t:hebT; woodlcmds ebb:her fop _pr.a_i_it_ a.T their

aest:heibc vakues, or per.haps bdeh. should ickn together. o[:nd erripzoy d trcdrLed foTes±_er. ch_o _could

handle our wood pr.oper.ties ±o our. fbncmchal or. pLeasurchLe adrcniteage. . . .Ib bs pTaposed bo hccoe Professor Netscrn_ _C. Broan cJf t:he Cotlege of For.estry a± Sypaouse a_aI| up_on you

to disou_s.s the pLcm i,i you feet you would be Lateres±ed. 34

In suggesting such to his wealthy neighbors, F.D.R. was only preaching what he practiced, for in 1929 he had with the help of Nelson Brown established an experimental plot for the study of commercial woodlot management on the

grounds of the estate at Hyde Park, with an initial planting of 14,950 trees.

The love of the land and the trees so often vocally and publically proposed by the "farmer" Roosevelt was still evident only a few days before his death. In a memorandum to Mr. Plog, the superintendent, on March 24, 1945,

F.D.R.

wrote:

The ehes±nut trees ccpe bo go as fttl-bns cn'riong 5:he

trees u]hkch di,a nob de so zbe7| tusk east of the gTcoez -house..barth I bn shall tf aebef±e_I_a_sou_bhea?b detbghied bo ha„eofa _fee itrial¢a' p?on s

braes ±f Dr.. Band has I:hem.

I utt| _be Back_

bk°mm#rpchch;;;.thewttLPLeeus°?u te355DP. B-ch'S peapte

Even visitors to the presidential estate felt free to of fer advice to the man who advertised his love for his lands so blatantly. Having heard of the reforestation programs and the Hyde Park estate so often through the media, some actual visitors were unpleasantly surprised at what they found.

Even as World War 11 loomed on the

horizon one Connecticut visitor felt it necessary to write

F. Kennon Moody

to the "farmer" about the way in which he cared for his lands . I. . .tock a motor. bri;p alcyng the Hndsoin Rhoer. utth

I:Pe obiec_ti,ve bn view of seeing the surner' house of I:he Pr.esbdend of the United Stcl;±es. . .tt ties a k;eon d±_sappobatmend that coe I.ode ap bo your home bhaou€fa

foedds of r'agu]eed cnd, along ditves bordered vii;h

weeds. . .we Could ha;ve uJepb chth disappoinhaeut .... Pbease under.stcni[d that we cribkebze rob .fr.on a deTogatoTy sbandpoLnd, but you l<non one seLdom sees lTL_a ouyp pLace thaough`_as cndti,eat eyes as those of

his ne±gltbor.s. `. .they tthe nedgftbors] rid,ghi suddendg decide thai your pLace should be devbcdsed bo "Crrurmrry EZ:bclljJ'' .... Of Course bf you were iwst art ordinary

fz"anerastl°bualctouaLsdtltoezthh£Tfaa#eeredwogupL#z#ttltl°o#.fl6°nd

In spite of unsolicited advice and the trials of governing a nation, F.D.R. 's interest in his land and his trees always remained active. When writing the "Foreword" for Carmichael's FDR: Columnist, Eleanor mentioned the

permanence of that interest. She mentions the fact F.D.R. 's interest in his forests remained, no matter many new things were added to his agenda: "He cared tre`es and woods and 'lumber in general' all through

that hovi about his

|ife® . , ."37

It is obvious that early in his career that F.D.R.'s interest in farming and the productive use of land was a personal concern. However, as the brilliant young politiclan was transformed into the premier political wizard of the day, the rest of the American people would begin to feel the effect of Roosevelt's love for his land and his trees. In the flurry of New Deal legislation all his "neighbors" in the expanded neighborhood of the United States would see the concerns of the "Farmer President" legislated into action. The values and assumptions implied in the agrarian myth which was a basis of his

political orientation would appear in the actions of the Resettlement Administration of 1935. His concern with land-use planning would appear in the work of the Rural

Electrif ication Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The life-long interest in conservation and forests would produce the Civilian Conservation Corps.

FDR: Dutchess County Farmer

The concluding chapter will show the paths that inevitably ran from the lands of Springwood to the nation at large. Many people would come to agree with an article f ron the Breeders ' Gazette: Im his fcuner2 hecade I ann ccrirroinced that Pr.esLdend Rh°:£;devb%Lbthper°Npe°vseDseabL°.gv{;{8eAgrioult:urethebbddi;ng

So the patrician became a farmer, and the farmer was ab.le to become the neighbor that the patrician could not. To the neighbors of Dutchess County who accepted Roose-

velt`s self-identification as a farmer, the word meant not that he made his living from the land. To his neighbors the word meant that F.D.R. had a special feeling and

relationship to the land~the land was the place from which he drew his identity and his values-ven though those values of ten seemed to be rooted in the agrarian myth so prevalent in the nineteenth century. This his neighbors could understand. His role as a "farmer" allowed him to see the larger world in terms of a ne`ighborhood and those who inhabited it as His neighbors for whori he could and should assume responsibility.

ENDNOTES

LFDR from David Bolingers, Tr. , Painesville, Ohio, July 23,

1943, President's Personal File

(hereafter PPF) ,

1-G, Box 4, Franklin Delano Roosevelt Library (hereafter

FDRL) .

2Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition, pp. 314-352.

3poughkeepsie Sunday Courier, 7 November 1937, p.1. 4Dudley Culver to FDR, February 24, 1911, NYSG, Box 20, FDRL.

5Ibid.

F. Kennon Moody

6A|fred a. Rollins, Jr., "Young Franklin D. Roosevelt As the Farmers' Friend," New York Stat.e History,

Vol. 43, No. 2 (April,

1962) , pp. 185-186 7|bid., quoting FDR to C. R. Van de Carr,.19 November 1912.

8Poughkeepsie Sunday Cour+er, 10 April 1938, p. 8.

9]ohnson, Roosevelt:

Dictator or Democrat?,

46.

L°The Rogers Crunwold Hall Papers 1818-1924, Group 7, Hudson Valley Manuscripts, FDRL.

[LPoughkeepsie Sunday Courier,i October 1905. L2poughkeepsie Sunday Courier, 3 September 1931. L3F.D.R., Transferring of Deed to U. S. Government, 23 July 1939, PPF #1820, FDRL: "In the background of this

picture you willTsee one of three very old oak trees. They are estimated to be three hundred years old. That was sixty years before white settlers came into Dutchess County . "

L4The president's Personal File illustrates the size and the diversity of his correspondence. For his presidential years the File contains 9,125 separate correspondence files, each file containing correspondence with only one organization or one person. L5FDR to Sara, 7 September 1905, Elliott Roosevelt, ed., FDR: His Personal Letters 1905-1928 , p. 85.

L6Typed manuscript of interview with Honoria Livingston Mcvitty by Emily Williams, 16 October 1978, Eleanor Roosevelt Oral History Project, FDRL. L7char|es W. Snell, `'Franklin D. Roosevelt and Forestry at Hyde Park, New York," an unpublished manuscript

in the files of the United States Department of Interior,

National Park Service, "Bellefield," Hyde Park, New York:

Mr. Snell was an historian on the staff of the Park Service and compiled the manuscript from records in the FDRI]

in 1955. The manuscript contains two pen and ink drawings of James Roosevelt's farm lands with the plots and numbers

provided by F.D.R. 18Ibid.' p. 5.

L9E||iott Roosevelt., ed., FDR: His Personal Letters 1905-1928, p. 96. p.94

Steeholm, The House at Hyde Park, .

FDR: Dutchess County Farmer

2°Charles W. Snell, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and Forestry at Hyde Park, New York", p. 6: "In the front of the

Farm Journal was discovered a two-page letter undated and unsigned, but probably written in pencil by Mr. Roosevelt's estate superintendent, William A. Plog in 1911. From this letter it would appear that Mr. Roosevelt had a

forestry expert, name unknown, come to Hyde Park and go over the estate with Mr. Plog. Mr. Plog proceeded to take down the forestor's recommendations and these appear to have served as Mr. Roosevelt's guide for the next four ye.ars. Mr. Plog's notes follow: `...South east of boat house, east of swamp, suggest willow. East of road black walnut, ash, or European larch. Advise to road and ditch

a certain distance back of railroad and keep leaves raked or burned. Suggest tulip, red oak, bass wood to fill in vacant places in woods. Scotch pine, European larch in open lot north of big swamp.

For big swamp bass wood or

tulip. Found chestnut blight in lot north of swamp. Advises Scotch or red pine, European larch for gravel bank lot planted 6' x 6'. All of the lots suggested are in the area between the main house at Springwood and the Hudson River-. ' 2LFDR to John Hackettt 12 January 1920, FBPP, Box 73.

22FDR to John Hacketti 12 January 1920, FBPP, Box 73. 23FDw to Edmund Morgant 30 January 1934, PPF #1281, FDRE .

24poughkeepsie Sunday Courier,13 October 1940, p. 72., 25poughkeepsie Eagle News, 7 November 1944, P. `4.

26E||iott Roosevelt, ed. , FDR: His Personal I.ette.rs 1905-1928,

p.179.

27George I.atta Barrus to FDR, 27 January 1914, ASN, Box 85, FDRL.

28poughkeepsie Sunday Courier, 2 August 1914, p. 2. 29FDR to George Pratt, 25 November 1922, Group 14, Hyde Park: Forestry 1912-1933, Box 7, FDRI.. 3°FDR to Vincent Astor, 18 February 1913, PPF #92, FDRL .

3Lsne||, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and Forestry at Hyde Park, New York," p. 78.

32A|exander MacDonald, NYS Conservation Department, to FDR, 27 June 1928, quoted by Smell, p. 36.

F. Kennon Moody

33Frank|in D. Roosevelt, Public Papers a.nd Addresses of FDR,

Vol.-I,

522.

34The following persons received the letter concerning the forestry cooperative venture mentioned by F..D.R. : Reverend Brother Leo, Provincial,

Lasalle Provincialate

Tracy Dows

Mrs. Richard Aldrich Brig. General John Rooss Delafield Reverend William Delvin, S.J., St. Andrew's Novitiate Dr. George N. Miller Tohnston L. Redmond Ogden L. Mills

Mrs. Archibald Rogers Frederick W. Vanderbilt Lyman Delano Mrs. Helen Morton Mrs. John H. Livingston

Vincent Astor

Lydig Hoyt Mrs. Cornelius N. Bliss Mrs. Helen E. Crosby Mrs. Theodore D. Robinson

35sne||, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and Forestry at Hyde Park, New York," p. 79.

36|.ucie w. Ferris, Shelton, Connecticut, to FDR, 6 September 1938, PPF, #l-G, FDRL.

37carmichael, FDR: Columnist, Foreword

by Eleanor Roosevelt In writing to John Ben€1ey, College of Agriculture, Ithaca, 28 December 1923, FDR re-affirmed that commitment: "My particular interest has been in the extension of useful work in farmers wood lot forestry." =±± #65, FDRL .

38Editor, Breeders' number, EELFt #l-Gt FDRE .

Gazette , (April 1935) , no page

€-.-.

i---.I-I-i--.-a--ir-------_____--..Irfi=.-.=.:E •-`-

au,i...€

I,ti.

'--,,,/ pungrsEL¥=o-ifii:>, E|

THE POUGHKEEPSIE NAVY

George N. Wilson

Did the fore ships sent fr.on PoughkeepsLe drri;ng I:he Americari Revckwito:n force General Hc7ijJe bo bake the .Lcrng IsLcmd Sou]nd route i;msteed of his

pr.eferr.ed route?

The decay caused by the ffr.e

ships aLLoribed the Amer.beari onrrig bo escape the

Bndtish foflowi;mg a fen engagenenbs. George N. Wbz,son Ls a meTrber. of the Board of Tr¥astees of i:he Dutc:hess cowii;bg Hksborical socfetry.

The importance of naval events in American history has often been overlooked by historians. Seldom is mentioned the decisive naval event which made other impressive victories possible. One such event took place on a rainy night, August 16,1776, in the Hudson River Valley. The night was indigo, visibility was nil, a heavy overcast

of clouds with light intermittent rain made sailing even with a favorable tide very hazardous. Before I get ahead of my story, permit me to explain what brought this famous melee to the Hudson Valley. It all began July 31, 1775 while the British were still fighting the minutemen at Boston.. A letter from the British Ministry conveyed the following plan of operations , Their design fs bo get Possessbcyn of New rock and AZ:bcoay, bo fiLL both of these cities totth ve.py strong Gandsons3 bo cormcnd, the IIudscyn's caiid Ecrsb River.s toi,th a Nwrber. of smalL Men of

Won arid Cutters sbatiorned Lm differen± Parts of it. so as bo cut off all Corrmimi,caticyns by zDa±er. betrj)een Nero York eniid the Provbnees bo the Nor.thacnd3 the Ffroovi;nees bo t:he Eastwcmd Massachaseb±s , Carl:neetiout cniid New Harr[pshir.e and i;he Pr.ovinces of Nee Jersey 3 Pennsytvcn!i;ka crnd

those Soukhaccr.a of i;hem, and so disbracb card

dfroi,de the Provi;nekal Forces.

Also.in January of 1776 GenerSal Howe, still fighting at Boston, had the s.ame idea. He wrote to Lord Rochfort suggesting a large army of foreign troops such as might be

hired to begin their operations up the Hudson River etc. Finally after ten months` seige on Boston the British evacuated on March 17,1776. General Washington believed the British would imm-ediately sail for New York. However,

George N. Wilson

General Howe went to Halifax to wait the arrival of his brother, Admiral Lord .Richard Howe, who was expected to

bring reinforcements. Immediately at a council of war held at Roxbury, Massachusetts, General Washington suggested to the council to send the army to New York without delay. The following day the American army was on the move, first Lt. Col. Hand's rifle company, then came Capt. Stephenson with his

riflemen from Virginia and finally on March l8th five regiments under Brig. Gen. Heath (who later became commander of the Highlands) . On March 29th six more regiments followed under Brig. Gen. Sullivan. On the same day Major Gen. Putnam received orders to proceed to New York to

assume command and continue the work of fortifying the city. On April 1st Brig. Gen. Greene's brigade moved, followed by Gen. Spencer's brigade. Five regiments remained at Boston under Major Gen. Ward. Their route of march was Providence, Norwich, New London, then by boat through I.ong Island Sound to New York City. On April 4th Washington set out from Cambridge for New York. He was

greeted en route w.ith honors and admiration as the deliverer of Boston, the new hero of our country. Orders were immediately sent to Dutchess, Ulster, Orange, and Westchester Counties to send one quarter of their militia to protect New York City against a coming invasion. Dutchess County sent Colonels Swartwout and Van Ness with three hundred minutemen. The other counties followed, sending their quota along with Connecticut and New Jersey. As predicted, on June 25,1776, four large ships arrived off Sandy Hook. On board one of the ships was Gen. Sir William IIowe. On June 29th forty-five more greyhounds arrived. Four days later the number had increased

to one hundred and thirty sails. This was the fleet from Halifax. By the beginning of July the fleet had now increased to some 300 transports of war. Preparations were taken by the British to land them on Long Island near the Narrows.

Informed that the Americans were posted on a

The Poughkeepsie Navy

ridge of hills not far distant, Howe decided to disembark his troops on Staten Island-6,155 well-equipped veterans from Boston. The inhabitants (tories) welcomed them with open arms as their deliverers. On the 12th of July two British frigates along with three tenders left the fleet and sailed up the Hudson. The Phoenix carried 44 guns and was colrmanded by Captain Parker, and the Rose had 36 guns with Captain Wallace at

the helm.

Taking advantage of a brisk breeze and running

tide the ships with their tenders sailed rapidly up the Hudson avoiding the f ire f ron the batteries at Fort George by keeping close to the Jersey shore. The ships fired back into the city causing considerable havoc among the inhabitants. Six American soldiers were killed at Fort . George when in their haste one of their cannons exploded. Washington requested the N. Y. Convention to remove the women, children and infirm persons as the city was soon to be the scene of a bloody conflict. That same afternoon

the Phoenix and the Rose along with their three tenders anchored safely in the broad Tappan Zee Bay opposite Tarrytown. Their objective as planned was to reconnoiter both sides of the river, encou'rage the tories, harass the countryside by forays from landing parties, and cut off supplies and communication coming to New York City. Meanwhile at headquarters in New York City while the British Armada (over 400 ships of war) was getting ready for the great invasion, General Washington and the N. Y.

Convention were planning to prevent the passage of the armed ships of the eneny by obstructing the Hudson between Fort Washington (northern end of Manhattan) and Fort Lee on the opposite shore in New Jersey. This they called the "Chevaux de Prize".

The object of the Chevaux de Prize

was to sink every available ship between these two points and to block all navigation on the Hudson. This work and the defense of the Highlands was turned over to a Secret Committee whose members were John Jay, Robert R. Livingston, William Paulding, Maj. Christopher Tappan and Chair-

George N. Wilson

man Robert Yates.

John IIazelwood, a member of the Commit-

tee of Safety from Philadelphia, communicated a plan for the construction of "Fire Ships" and rafts, which both General Washington and Gen. George Clinton approved. Early in July Washington issued orders to the Cormittee in

charge of construction of the Continental frigates at Poughkeepsie to equip a nulfroer of fire rafts and vessels. The handling and equipping of the f ire boats also came under the Secret Cormittee headquartered at Poughkeepsie. A letter from Gen. George Clinton reads, Fort Canst_deuti,on Jutg 14.1776.

I appr.ove rrueh

of your pzans for mahi;ng Fbre Rafts did dotht nob you utLL ccuny`the scoTie bn±o Eoceeutbon chth

t:he wbrosb Eapeditfon.

I thbmk bt adviscfofe to

purchase i7po ot:her oLd SLoaps or. rnor.e bf necessac.y for. t:he Pu]apose but Zeb it be done i;n t:he c3Peapest Man:ner, the oLdesb c[nd wor.sb stoaps den de-

A letter from the Secret Committee dated July 16,1776 reads , As you tieTe pleased bo formend us Goner.al Wcrsh-

LWFfhoanue%_S.sptte;asczfztfot%nffoNrmwhgeoruotfhaF±tpfeo#fFttsr,e Rcrfes zbttl be bapA!ie:had thi,s evendmg. TJmorr.co coe pr.opose to ftca them bn the best Mcuner. tie eon tobth drtl wood, Tor ccnd sueh other. combuebbbLes as toe ccan pr.oeure at thbs Ptace. Two or. thr.ee

ozd vessezs uJe shall face as fast as possi,bee for. tpe scme Purpose_. We shall serid th; Fi,I.e Rafts down bo Gen. Cti;n±on as soon as cclrr[pLebed.

In the minutes of the Secret Committee July 25, 1776 is found the following, BuL1§jmg a]rid Fbttbng out of the Fir.e R`afts cnd sending them do;im/I to Gen. Ctkn±on cl:± Fort Constibulk.on. _ Fb.re Er.apptt:ng_ Irons , Fbr.e A:I.g[.cos, L±ghi Wogd cold pin_e knobs, pfbch, tclr. b:uiapenitne, i;or t_the, bcunezs3 oal<:imi, junks of I.ape.-

Mp. G. Lfro-

bpeg_a_i;_yli}_ .bo get al3out _22 Gr.appLbnJ Ir.cms.

To get

1_:000 Fir.e Amoz!e made_ send down bo Poughkee]isi,e. Send ip _bo PougfukeepsLe by Co[pt. Hazel;roood. 2 Br.i

ef. spfedt? of_ b:uiapenitne, 6 gal of Spbrytt=s of

W_ine_3 _6.0 hcan,a gr._€nede_ shetls eciiapLefe, 12 sir.ong

Pout fines, 10 I;bs stow mdeches, 10 I;bs cotton.

The plans evidently were to send these fire raf ts with a

The Poughkeepsie Navy

favorable tide against the enemy. The fire arrows were intended to be discharged in such a manner as to communi-

cate f ire to the sails while the fire rafts were propelled against the hulls of the enemy. The combustibles being simultaneously ignited, both vessels would almost instantly be wrapped in flames. The crew on the fire vessel would have time to escape through a hole cut into the side of

the f ire vessel into a whale boat that was lashed to the side , Let's go back to Tappan Zee Bay, just South of IIaver-

straw Bay, :nd see what the British frigates are up to since they arrived on July 12th. We find that on July 16th they sailed up the Hudson as far as Stony Point. Theywer.e observed taking careful soundings of the river. They also landed small parties here and there colrmitting minor depredations. On the 26Lh of July the ships were said to have dropped down to the mouth of the Croton River. Sunday night, the 28th of July, a small party went ashore. At Bailey's house near the mouth of the Croton they drove off a pair of oxen, two cows, one calf , one heifer and eleven sheep. In the meantime while the ships were alarming everyone, Gen. Washington promptly adopted measures for the removal of the unwelcomed visitors. He \wrote to the Governor of Connecticut for the use of some of his galleys. He only had one to defend the Hudson River., On July 28th Gen. Heath reported that two row galleys from Connecticut went up the Hudson. On August lst three or four more gal-

leys found the others.

The fighting strength protecting

the Hudson was seven row galleys. (Galleys were large over-sized whale boats propelled by oars. They carried an

auxiliary sail that could be used in a favorable wind. Also, tbey carried one long gun that was stationed in the bow.) To these were added a few fire vessels that were being fitted out in Poughkeepsie by Elias Van Benscho±en. On the afternoon of August 3rd these galleys bearing the names of Wasnington, Lady Washington , Crane, and one whaleboat boldly 'thiting,

George N. Wilson

attacked the British men of wars at their mooring near Tappan Bay.

However the row galleys were no match for.the

larger fighting ships. After one and a half hours of fighting Commodore Tupper withdrew his little fleet of row galleys. The following is our casualty list killed and wounded on tke row galleys: the Washington (Commodore Tupper) 4 wounded; the Lady Washington (Capt. Hill) 2 wounded; the Whiting (Capt. Mc Clave) i killed, 4 wounded;

the Spitfire (Capt. Crimes) i killed, 3 wounded; the Crane (Capt. Tinker) i wounded. On board the whaleboat two men were wounded. When our little mosquito squadron of row

galleys retreated, the Phoenix, Rose and their three tenders were still in charge of the waterfront throughout the Hudson River Valley.

General Washington, without further delay, issued orders to the Secret Committee to attack the Phoenix and the E9E£ With the fire vessels to annoy if not destroy these ships. Gen. Heath has this to say on August 14th, The person who had the dineetion,s of t:he far.evessezs I.equesbed me bo be a spectator. on the bcaiths of i:he river.; of cnii atberript bndended to be made cyn i:ha;± ndghi, bo burrn the ships. A.±tended by Gen. Ctbndon cend sever.al other offfcer.a, toe vcribed on the bcarck un;tit, deout nddgivghi but no case:rr[pb on the ships toes made an_a _we I.etwened disappoi;nded. Agchn otn the pkghi of the |6i;h we were agckm pequesbed, bo

be a spectcleor. zbtth the most positive assur-

anee tha±_ he should not be agcrim disappoLnded. I .accor.a_kngz;g_ went cdierided as o:n i;he preceding tine c[nd book. pr.oper position o;n the boaii,k.. Thee ndghe was pr.ebby dmck, they soon found the for.e-

vessels were sttendLy rnovi;mg ap utth the tide.

CapE. Tosepn Bass, corrmander of one of the fire vessels,

narrates , AV the bbme of the occunr.once I toas cdsbached to the Waber. ser.vi,ce3 under. Co:rmiarid of Corm'riodere J3. Tapper.3 Who zbas a;kr.ecbed bo mcan the Fbre ships desi,g.ned for. the Ser.vLee. The Conm'ioder.e

se?eebed me bo bake eha]pge of one cnd, put i;he o5:faer w'ider. Cormand of Capb. Thomas.

I cowricnd.-

?a a szoap narried Pg|]±L of cbout one hatLdred bone burthen. That co:rmrianded by Thomas uJas a Smaller.

size. [The frigates lay about 8 miles above

The Poughkeepsie Navy

Kingsbridge more to the center of the river.i

We started fr.om Spay±en Dayvez,

Cr.eek chout Dcack, with a sowbh demd cmd a fonor.chle tide. The ndghb v)as Cloudy cend Dc[ck, zbtth oeeasi,oneddy a tkbble

Rcrin. I had, nbne men on booed, thaee I stctekoned Ln the Whalebocds, four. had charge of the GTapptbng Ir.one_ c[nd_ one acted as p£Zob, zbhile I sba:ttcyned rriyseLf bn the CcfoLn bo far.e the mcdserdcids.

Besides t:he two Bri;tick Fndgcckes t:here teas a Bond Ketch an.a two be;nders3 tohkch teas Tnoored neon t:ham. Theg toeTe cenchor.ed bn a

itne chout Nor.th caiid Sowbh3 faTsb the phoendce of chout 44 aiprLs, n?at tf ae _RE95±.o_i

36 Gu]iis. then the Bond Ketch an,a cbove bb the tenders. As the ndghi vbas I)arfu c[Iiid

the Fbre. Ships kept neon i:he Middle of the RbveT, zbe uJere net cnbone i;hag ve Were neon

the Br.btish VesseLs un;tit, we heond i,:rmedicdsety on our. Iceft3 t:he sbri:kjmg of_ t:fop_

Bells a:Ied the Clay of I:he Senit:nets `all's zbetl. I

Ib zbas tweLDe o'eloek. arid Lkbf;1e

a:kd those cho wer.e sturberi;ng ther.e i;magb:iiue i:he Destructi,crn 5hde h:urig over. them.

The shor.e vJas boLd ci]iid rose above the Masts

c[nd bn bb dark Sh,adews zbe could nob disbbngulch Sbb:ua:tiont:heir. of i;heSbze3 _Vessels _n_e±bher -couldb:he we asceTtalm or. ,vJhi,ch of

them toere Fri,gates.

I was a ccrnsfder.ch?e

at,sbanee Ln cidDc[nce of Thomas an,a ixpcrn hear.L:ng the C]ey of t:he Senbbmebs, I i:rryne.a:4ctee_tg

bJ:I.e dontn apon the Ijbme of I:he BriE4sh Fzee±. I zDas ckr.eedg near. the Bond Ketch be for.e I toas di,scover.ed bg the ene:rrry cnd soon sb:rrue_k

her.

The Grappttng ITons coere made fast bn

c[n Iristc[n±3 the Who:1eboa± vac I.eady bo ecLsb

off-&:he ma±ch uas appLfed c[nd, Poth vesseLs. irJr.e ck:rriost b:rmedicdsezry i;in a Bkaze.

Me en!i;a

rrry Cpen made our zbey bo I;he SapTe whi7,e the Pcniri,c3 s&:]pruek Cr.en of t:he Ketch toeTe seen

pourying -Consbtiipiiation. fr.om their. Sev6Tal quon_ber._s of ±n them the perished L[faos.i; i,n the FZca'nes. obheps jwriped bn the Wcrder. and

tier.e I.escned bg the other. I/esseLs of the FLeeb and the Kebeh soofn bwened so as bo par.b from her. -cnd. was moor.Lngs, consumed bo chen thes:he Wdeer.'s drfefbe_a Edge. on Shor.e Capb. Thomas zbas nor eo fo_r±una;_be.

He ¥a.s

fir -showed ch thehks Rear. posbtion oaiidbo thethe Phghi EneTng fr.om ,_ w¢o rqu ship ape_ned a vigorous -eo[ri;monade caiid pr.epqred .themse.I?es ±o Tireet I;he aS±ack. Bu:i not;hang da:uyi;±e4 by bed:ng disccoJr.ed3 he boy?e doiunrL on the PEf age2r|±±

George N. Wilson

arLd beccme gr.appz,ed wi,th her..

He t:ham appz,Led. the Mdech bo the Condbusti;bzes but i;in such a v]ccy thde his rebrea± bo the Boat teas qub off a]'ld he zbas obtkdged to Lec[p overbocmd bo escape 5:he FLarrles.

Fbve of

his_ men zper_e corxpeLLed ±o foLLou his EeearrrpLe

c[nd nob bet,mg chze bo reach the Bocds all perished Ln the WcteeT. The Phoendee was on feTe i;n a_ever.al ptaces, she -toes scroed fr.on

De_sbeuetion by cutting oney pontio!ns of her. RI,ggings and stbppbmg her. Codies. Im the q;±bqck I:he Fhe:rrry Zost neaitg seDendy men,

besfd;es Women cnd, CledLdren witLo ver.e ofn bocttd

the Ketch.

When Gen. Washington received word of this event he was not satisfied with the results. On August 18,1776 he write to Gov. Trumbull, On, the ndghi of the 16th two of our Fine Vessezs atbeiripbed bo bwen i;:he Ships of Won

ap the RI,vep.

One of these boar.ded the

P_f a_o?n4_g3_ of i or.by-four Guns cmd zbas Gr.appzed

with her. for. some Mi;yutes but un,Luehitg she ctectr.e_a her.seLf .

The oin.kg dmage the Ere:rrry

susbck:Ined toes the Destructioin of one Tender.. One of the Captedn. Thomas fb ks bo be feared perished bn 5:he debe:rripb or. bn making his Escape by sol,rmi;ng as he has rrob been hecttd

of .

Though this Ehiexpndse did not succeed

bo our Wishes I'm LncLbme to thiirk i,t alc[:]m:led the Ere:rr[y gr.eattg for this mo]enkmg the Phoendco

and the Rg95±toLth their two remainkng tender.s tahingatidEcnfrcndsageofabrickcmdpr.ostperous Gale and fevorchze Tide quitted bhebr sba:ti,on cti'id ha:De reb:urned card dobned the I.esb of I;hat Fzeeb-

General Washington and the N. Y. Convention did not

realize the successful role our fire ships played.

They

Jdid exactly what was expected, "To annoy, if not to

destroy and to drive them out of the Hudson." Not only did they drive them out of the Hudson, they destroyed the largest (bomb ketch) of the tenders. They also badly damaged the largest frigate. According to the British report, "The Phoenix narrowly escaped destruction. " Much more, they instilled fear in General Hove and the rest of

the British Ministry.

As a result the British plans

described above were abandoned.

Two hundred years earlier

the Britisn had executed a similar plan in their defeat of

The Poughkeepsie Navy

the Spanish Armada in 1588. It was the fire ships of Sir Francis Drake and Lord Charles Howard's mosquito fleet that defeated the powerful 300 ship Spanish fleet while they lay in anchor in Calais Harbor. With a favorable breeze Drake and Howard sent several fire ships into calais Harbor driving the whole armada back into the North Sea and

into the violent storm that destroyed more than half the armada. General Howe did not want this to happen to his fleet which consisted of more than 400 ships with 31,625 experienced troops.

August 22nd, four days after the fire ships drove the British out of the Hudson, General Howe landed 15,000 exp8rienced troops.at Gravesend, L.I. August 27th Battle

of Long Island, Generals Sullivan and Stirling were taken prisoners and the Americans were defeated. September 15th New York City was occupied by the British. September 16th at the Battle of Harlem Heights, the British were repulsed. At Fort Washington the Chevaux de Prize represented the last American stronghold against the British. William Duef , a mehoer of the Committee of Correspondence wrote to Lt. Col. Tench Tilghman, aide de camp and secretary to General Washington stationed at Fort Washington. The letter dated September 28,1776 reads as follows, Iou obserive i:ha± Lf the Passage of the ELdson River. £s suf fochendz,g obst:ruebed _i_hde our tbmes vi;Il keep the Eneny fr'on "¢::_bapg g]'ay FrogI.ess. I eapeJt that Vessetls toi!}kch the Ccyw?enticrn of this sbcL±e hcroe or.d€r._ed _bo For.b Y_acp!-.

Lngtor; wi,TL aritpe b_eforle. the.s.I.ette.I.

N.o i.!me

I Vdore say vi,I.I be I,ost Lm sbndckng th_en Lm _t:he proper Chanmetl, sLpee_ the Sueeess of our A:rlrr[y depends so rriuch crn this Measure.

Tilghman wrote to the Cormittee of Correspondence a€ Fishkill October 9th, About -fE!iiii4i 8 o'cLock of 44 G!f this l'is Trmen;kng each_ cnd_3 the Rgg±b±3q_ck__ Frii5Ffff ap3_y±_ apd I6---6i;irir€ Jab under to_ey from EL.ooTnd;ngqg:1e., of aere

t:hag hair;e been tcayb:ng some ti,me. cnd. stood_on wijih c[n easy sowjheedy 13r.eeze tcm_pr4 our. apevcue de Fedi;e.. chi,ch ire hc!p.e_a uoul± 7iqDe .gi,van b:hem some Iwieri:]p:apb±on u}hble our Ba±teries_ pLeyed apon them.- But bo our. surprise cnd.

George N. Wilson

rnor.tifoeation they alz TeniL thaough without

the Least difficulty and without recei,ving arty appar.enb danage fr.om our For.ts, zDhich

kept pZ,eybng on them fr.om both sides of i:he Rhoer..

Hco for they bndend, ap I don'f; kmclw

but lits Eaeedleney thonghi bo give you the eaiti,esb Imforrmation, thai you meg put Gen. Cttndon ixpon h;ks Guond cde the ELghhands3 for they may hccoe troaps co:neealed on Bocmd with Lnderit to surrpndse those For.bs.

General Heath has this to say about the event, Eaity this rro]enkng bhaee ships vi5h two or. thaee bendeTs stood ap i:he North Rfroer.. They wer.e bndsl¢kg ccunonaded fr.on Fofro Wash-

chgbon clad, Fort Consbituticrn. They hcroever passed our b]or.ks and the cheva:un de fndse3 the Amendcari gedleys, small cr.afts onrid two Lunge ships stcnrLding on beforpe them.

The

two ships were I.un on shore neon Phitbpse TrrttL T:YondK!ers|, card two of the Galleys recap Dobbs Fen.Try. The enerriy bock possessfon of

the two Gedleys. A boat Lcended a rurrben of men, who ptunder.ed a sbore, stove the casl<s, cend then set the sbor.e on fore. The enerrly bock a schoorueT Loaded with rurri, sugcm. vi;ne cnd, sunk a sLocrp bJhich had on boar.a. the machbne invented 13y Mr. BushaeLL.

This machine was the famous submarine called the Turtle.

Actually it's the first submarine invented. Exactly 51 days after the fire ships drove the British squadron from the Hudson the British f inally returned on October 9th as explained above by Tilghman and Heath

bringing expectation, suspense and humiliation into the American camp. First, they ran through the Chevaux de Frize then they took control of the lower Hudson again as far as Kings Ferry, causing considerable havoc and fear to those loyal to the American cause. As fast as the British

sailed up the river they returned hastily with their spoils of war.

Perhaps they too did not want to become

victims of the fire ships. It now became a battle of strategy. General Howe pondered should he send his powerful fleet up the Hudson as far as Tarrytown, then cut across Westchester County to White Plains and points along Long Island Sound, a feat he

The Poughkeepsie Navy

could have accomplished with a f avorable tide in a couple of days. Or should he take the risks of sending his troops through the dangerous whirlpool waters of Hell Gate then through the Long Island Sound, cut across Westchester to the shores of the Hudson entrapping the Americans. Luckily for the Americans, Howe chose the later. October 12th, three days after running the blockade of the Chevaux de Prize, Howe put his Army 12,000 strong into motion.

First he landed on Throggs Neck where he was f inally repulsed by the Americans. Tnen on the l8th he landed at Pells Point. That afternoon on Prospect Hill, Pelham Manor, he was engaged in a sharp skirmish by Col. John Glover's regiment, concealed behind stonewalls. As a result General Howe had to make camp in New Rochelle where he remained three days, October 22, 23 and 24. The Brit-

ish did not arrive at White Plains until October 28th, taking exactly 16 days. This extra length of time gave Washington the time he needed to withdraw his troops and provisions from Fort Washington to White Plains. That afternoon, October 28th, the famous Battle of White Plains took place. Repulsed again, Howe returned to Manhattan Island where he captured Fort Washington. This gave General Washington and his troops the time they needed to retreat across Kings Ferry into New Jersey and a new lease on liberty for the American cause. The f inal decision of General Howe to take the route of the Sound instead of moving up the Hudson was indeed a reversal of what was expected by Washington, the Secret Cormittee, the New York Convention, the Provincial Congress and most of the officers for they knew, had Howe moved up the Hudson, American independence would in all

probability have received its deathblow. kept Howe out of the Hudson?

What was it that

The British had control of

the river as far as Kings Ferry.

The only strength the

americans had in protecting the Hudson River was a f ew row

galleys that proved useless against the British.

The

Chevaux de Prize, the-guns of Fort Washington, Fort Lee

George N` Wilson

and Fort Constitution also proved hopeless in stopping the British.

At Poughkeepsie, two sloops of war, the Montgom-

e=±£ and the Congress, were still under construction. Could it have been our small fleet of f ire ships from Poughkeepsie that made General Howe take the route of Long Island Sound?

ENDNOTES

Campaign of 1776 Around N. Y. and Brooklyn, H. P. Johnson, 1878

History of Harlem, James Riker, 1881 History of Westchester County, Shonnard and Spooner, 1900

Hudson River Obstructions, E. M. Ruttenber, 1860

Journal of N. Y. Provincial Congress, 1842 Memoirs of General Win. Heath, 1904

Tbe American Revolution in N. Y., prepared

by Division of Archives and History, 1926

SALE OF LOYALIST ESTATES IN DUTCHESS COUNTY:

The Ef fect on Landholding Patterns John T. Reilly About 12o,000 acr.es of Leycdist band in Dutchess Cap!i;kid zbas eoryrfesccleed bg the Ameri,ecus drri;ng the Revotution,.

Th;ks Land Vac red;ksbri;bated bn smaller par.eels to bndtvid:uals of Lesser. mecnris. The Tesulb was a mop_e_ denoercdic a:irstr+;bu:ttofn of I,cnd. Ccryitrc[ny bo ecmLker bedkef s , nets:her i;:he u)ealtdy _nor specnd,cdeoT_a _to.exle the

benefechcches.

Joha Rettkg bs professor. of hasbony ak

Mourle Sb. Mcaay Coflege.

Among the many events that have excited the interest of historians of the American Revolution, the question, "What were the results of this struggle?," has produced a continuous stream of monographs, theses, and articles. Historians have supported both sides of tbis question. Some have felt that there were significant economic, social, and political changes, while others have denied that the Revolution was revolutionary at all. With regard to the question of social change, there has been consid-

erable interest in the disposition of the estates conf iscated from those Americans who remained loyal to England. I. Franklin Tameson, Alexander C. Flick, and, more recently, Catherine S. Crary, Beatrice G. Reubens, and Staughton Lynd have argued that in New York many large estates were broken into small parcels and sold, often to persons of the middle and lower social orders, many of whom were former tenants of the Loyalist landlord. This

resulted in an expansion of ,agricultural democracy ulEi1 mately leading to greater political democracy Other historians, such as Thomas Cochrane, Frederick Tolles, and Harry a. Yoshpe, have questioned these results

by citing the par.ticipation of large speculator, merchants, powerful politicians, and landowners in the sales. They have concluded that it was not until the nineteenth century that smaller landowners came into possession of these lands. With re.gard to patriotic tenants, who had been-given the right of pre-emption of their leaseholds by

John T. Reilly

the Confiscation Act of 1779, Yoshpe concluded that many

of them were well-to-do rather than from the lower orders of society. In addition, the economic dislocations of the 1789's had an effect on the purchasers. Many had borrowed Eo pay for their lands, and, when unable to meet mortgage

payments, lost them to speculators and large merchants To the historian who wishes to reconcile these conflicting viewpoints there are several concerns that must be addressed. First, the need for an accurate description of the initial sales; for example, the location and number of acres involved, and the social and economic status of the purchasers. A need which only a few historians have answered. Second, an examination of the ability of the

initial purchasers to continue to own their lands into the nineteenth century. If they had lost them, then thedemocratizing effects of the sales would be moot. It is only through a study such as this that the long term results of these sales can be brought into focus. The Middle District of New York comprised of Dutchess,

Orange, and Ulster Counties, with their mixture of large tenanted estates and nulnerous small farms, has been a

fruitful area of study for historians of this question. This article studies the ef feet of sales of loyalist estates in Dutchess County on the expansion of agricultural democracy. Dutchess County, which by 1790 was the second most

populous county in New York State, had been only recently

opened to extensive settlement.4 A majority of its settlers came from New England, although a few did filter up from New York and Long Island.5

The muster roll of a

militia company in Fishkill in 1790 contained forty-eight men of whom only fourteen were natives of Dutchess County, the rest came predominately from New England.6 The region they came to was one dominated by large landowners, the

Philipse family in the south and the Livingston f amily in the north. In those areas only leaseholds were available for settlement. Only in the center of the county, in the

Sale of Loyalist Estates

precincts of Rombout, Poughkeepsie, Charlotte and Amenia, were freeholds in abundance. From the evidence now available to historians, such

as tax lists, rent rolls, and historical accounts, it is possible to construct a fairly accurate description of the Revolutionary period. Based on these sources, as will be shown, an eighteenth century inhabitant of Dutchess County can be described as a yeoman-farmer possessing a small free hold or leasehold. The size of his farm varied. A typical farm in the late 1700`s was between 150 and 300 acres, with the average for New York being just under 200 acres.8 Economically, he was as well off as any other

small farmer throughout the state. Tenant status seems to have incurred little in the way of hardship for its holde'r. Recent studies have found the position of the tenant in New York to have been better than it has generally been assumed.

He could obtain good leases and in some instances

his economic condition rivaled that of his landlord Despite these benign conditions, Dutchess County in the .1760's was the scene of violent tenant rebellions. Both the Livingston and Philipse holdings experienced o.utbreaks of violent discontent. Midnight raids on tenants` homes and county jails, posses, intervention by Royal troops and even a few deaths marked these rebellions. Preliminary investigation, despite some of the older

historical interpretations, seems to indicate that these pre-Revolutionary rebellions had little to do with economic or social conditions.10 In one area where tenants complained of being exploited, the area of rents, an examination of the rent rolls of the two major I.oyalist

landlords of the region shows that their tenants paid rents, which aver.aged from five to seven pounds per year, that were somewl'`iat higher than the surrounding area. The rent on the neighboring lands of Margaret Philipse and the Manor of Cortlandt was about four pounds. However, other areas of the state, such as Sir William Johnson's Kingsborough tract and Philipsburg Manor of Frederick

John T. Reilly

Philipse, rents were close to those of Morris andRobinson. In general there does not seem to have been an econom-

ically oppressed tenantry.L[

Thus there is little evi-

dence of any connection between the tenant rebellions of the 1760's and the confiscation and sale of the I,oyalist lands, In fact, the opposite may be t`rue., Many of the

tenants followed their landlords into battle on the side of the Crown.

Beverly Robinson, who was quite active in

suppressing these rebellions, made up at least one-half of the members of his regiment from His tenants, and there were similar instances in other counties 12 During the Revolution Dutchess County remained on the Whig side. Loyalists, while not as numerous as in other counties, such as Montgomery and Westchester, were still a troublesome lot. There was a sizeable number of these supporters of the Crown active in Dutchess during the war. In 1775 almost one-third of those asked to sign the Association supporting the Continental Congress refused.L3 Throughout the war there were continued reports of various I

dissident bands scattered throughout the county that needed to be suppressed.14

While there are no exact data

available on the extent of Loyalist sentiment in southern Dutchess County, where tne large Loyalist estates lay, it seems to have been slightly more than in other areas of the county..15 The number of Loyalists, however, who had their prop-

erty confiscated was small. Alexander C. Flick put the number of Loyalists in Dutchess County at 264. This is

probably the total of all county residents who were involved with the Commissioners of Forfeiture, Specie, and Sequestration.16 There were, however, only ninetysix persons who were convicted of Loyalism, in addition to Roger and Mary Morris, Beverly and Susanna Robinson, Charles Inglis, George Folliott and John Watts who were named in the Confiscation Act. Only thirty-seven of

these ninety-six persons actually had their lands sold by the state.17

Sale of Loyalist Estates

Hampton's

Map

the

Upper

Patent

Philipseburgh,1757

divided among the heirs of Frderick Philipse 11. Courtesy of

New

York

State

Library,

Albany,

N.Y.

}]anuscript

No.11068

The majority of the land sold in the county belonged to two men, Beverly Robinson and Roger Morris.

These two

gentlemen, married to Susanna and M_ary respectively, the daughters of Frederick Philipse, owned the entire South Precinct of Dutchess County. Containing about 205,000 acres, the Precinct was divided into nine lots (see map) .

Each of the Philipse heirs received these lots.

The three

lots owned by Philip I>hilipse were not touched because after his death in 1768 his widow married Rev. I.ohm Ogilvie and they remained on the Whig side during the Revolution. Through their marriages to the Philipse daughters, Roger Morris and Beverly Robinson not only obtained control of large tenanted estates but also became members of New York's aristocracy. Morris was a former colonel in the Royal Army who came to America during the Frencn and Indian War. After his marriage he became a member of the Council of the Colony of New York and remained in that position until 1773. With the outbreak of the war he went back to England, returning br.iefly to New York from 1778 to 1783 to

John T. Reilly

serve as Inspector General of Refugees and as a member of

the Provincial council, he retired permanently to England in 1783 with his family.L8 TREIE 1 IOHAI±Srs rmro FIIm aAirs CIN I]ADo CENED IN DUDclHSS couNT¥

rtyalist* John & Peter Angevine ThcHus Barker BartholcmEinr Crannell

tertullus Dickerson Stephen Dcrdge

George Fblliott Joshua Gidney Daniel HamTill

-1es Inglis John Kfro

Eleanor & Peter Maybee Etoger & Mary lforris

fros ParfellcIV Oueb Pctwell Eieverly Robirson John Shav Thcms Spragg Joseph Tbbias

TTh€ Fhole

Charles VirREent

John Watts

Ck=cupation

FaJ-S FaMercfiant FFafyierchat FaFaMinister rmchat

Fa-s Esquire

FaFFFFaFF-

Esquire

' Merchant total :

119 , 323

315

*A11 were residents of Dutchess Cbunty except Folliott, Inglis, and Watts who lived in New York City. SOURE: American Iqyalist Transcripts, XVII, 359-63; XVIII, 605-22; 2EC[X, 273, 285, 361; 2EE, 515, 541, 605; HIV, 225-56; 2flv, 495-555;

XILVI, 432-43; IIEIVII, 213, 287-88, NYPL; Cmtario, Bureau of Archives,

United Errpire lqyalists, 2nd Report (2 Vols. , toronto, Canada: 19041905) , 233-35, 291-92, 312-13, 533-34, 756-57, 776-77, 848-49, 88284, 886, 1261.

Beverly Robinson, a native Virginian, came to New York in the 1740's. After his marriage he shunnedpolitics on the colony-wide level and became very active in boththe local political and economic life of Dutchess County. He served as First Judge of the Dutchess County Court of Common Pleas, Sheriff and Supervisor. During the War, Robin-

Sale of I]oyalist Estates

son fled to New York City where, under Sir William Howe, he organized the "Loyal American Regiment" of about 250 men. Many recruits in this regiment were from Robinson's own tenants or from Dutchess County. Robinson and his 19

family also left for England at the end of the war. The property of these two men and their wives was extensive. Morris, in his report to the British Commission on Loyalist claims,listed 53,102 acres in Dutchess County on which he had 156 tenants, and loo acres and a large mansion in New York City.20 The holdings of the Robinsons were similar to Morris's, 59,954 acres with 146 tenants plus a house and land in New York city.21 |n

their life style, the two men differed considerably. Morris seems to have been more at home in the drawing rooms of New York rather than on his estate in Philipse Patent, for he and Mary spent only three or four months

out of the year there. He evidenced so little interest in it that he never bothered to visit one of his three lots, let alone examine them.22 Robinson, as mentioned previotisly, was more involved in the area. It was here that he built "Beverly House," a mansion located on a mountain-

side overlooking the valley that de Chastelleaux found so picturesque and it was he who directed much of the suppression of the tenant rebellion which had broken out 23 on the entire patent in 1766. Besides Morris and Robinson there were a number of other prominent Loyalists, such as Bartholomew Crannell of Poughkeepsie, one of the foremost pre-Revolutionary lawyers of Dutchess County,24 the Reverend Charles Inglis, Rector of Trinity Church in New York and a pro-Loyalist pamphleteer,25 and John Watts and GeorgeFolliott, New York merchants, who owned property in the county. One of the largest landowners of whom little is known was Henry Clinton, who resided in southeastern Dutchess. He had at least 12 tenants on 1,889 acres of land; however, there is no record of who he was, how he came in possession of the land, nor what happened to him. It is

John T. Reilly

clear that he is not Sir Henry Clinton, the British General stationed in New York at the time.26 While not as prominent as the above mentioned Loyalists, John Kane and Malcolm Morrison were also extensive landowners in Dutchess County and elsewhere. Both men were county storekeepers, Kane in Pawling and Rombout Precincts and Morrison in Fredericksburg. Kane possessed about 1,927 acres with 13 tenants. Morrison only owned seventy acres in Dutchess County which he bought in Philipse Precinct from Mrs. Ogilvie, and he lived as a tenant on Beverly Robinson's estate, leasing about 130 acres. He did, however, own several thousand acres of land with some tenants in Albany County 27

Dutchess itself suffered little during the P`evolution. The Highland area, especially around Fishkill and opposite West Point, had become a patriotic strong point. It was in this rectangle formed by Fishkill, West Point, Poughkeepsie and Kingston that Washington made his headquarters after 1776. It was here also that the Continental Army had its principal depot of supplies, and the State of New York centered most of its governmental officers.28 The end of the fighting in 1781 saw peace return to this once troubled land, and the sales of the estates by the Commissioners began in earnest. Those who have previously examined the sales of Loyalist lands in Dutchess County have almost unanimously agreed that it resulted in a growth of freeholds where leaseholds had predominated before the Revolution.29 some of these historians, however, have seen evidence of a degree of speculative activity and engrossment both during and after the initial sales.30 The most recent historian to examine the sales, Staughton Lynd, while supporting the democratization effect of the initial sales in Dutchess County, has concluded that many of the tenants who purchased their land escaped from the landlord only to fall into the hands of the money lenders and ther.eby lost effective control over their freeholds. The result, Lynd

Sale of Loyalist Estates

felt, was a threat that tenancy might return. he cited the high nulrfoer of sherif f sales and foreclosures in the 1780's, and the struggles Livingstons and several of the people to whom loaned money.31

As evidence, mortgage between the they had

These losses, coltoined with the evidence

which he found of speculative activity both during and after the sales, led Lynd to conclude that there was a danger of a return to tenancy and of land engrossmentwhich would negate the democratizing effect of the initial sales.32 In order to arrive at an overall conclusion asto what were the long term ;ffects of these sales, it is necessary to summarize, as I.ynd and others have done, the

ilrmediate results of these sales, but also, to examine the subsequent history of the lands involved. Under the Confiscation Act three Colrmissioners of Forfeiture were appointed for the Middle District, Samuel Dodge, Daniel Graham and .ohm Hathorn. In addition, Jonathan Lawrence and John H. Sleight were appointed Commissioners of Specie for both the Middle and Southern Districts . 33 The Commissioners of Forfeiture began the f irst sales 34

in the spring of 1780 on the Folliott and Inglis estates, but it was not until 1785 that the estates of Morris and Robinson were offered for sale. The sales continued until 1788 when, on the eve of the abolition of his office, Graham offered a large block of Morris's and Robinson's lands, probably to try to clean up as many loose ends as 35 possible be.fore the Surveyor General took over Under the auspices of these state agencies DUEchess County experienced an unprecedented sale of lands to anyone

who could pay the price, with the patriotic tenants of the Loyalist landlords having first choice on their leaseholds. By 1810 a total of 93,382 acres belonging to 37 Loyalists 36 had been sold in 519 sales to 493 purchasers

This figure, however, does not represent the total amount of acreage involved. The combined estates of Morris and Robinson a-lone amounted to over loo,000 acres,

John T. Reilly

and the total acreage claimed by Dutchess County Loyalists was 119,323, a difference of about 23,941 acres.

We can

only speculate what happened to the rest. There were, for example, numerous advertisements in the Poughkeepsie and New York papers in the late 1780's and 1790's offering for

sale forfeited land, but there are no records as to their disposition 37 T2RE 2 Io¥AIEST IABDs IN DUTCHEss OOuNIy sorD By NET yoRIc STHTE

Sold her Crmissioners of Forfeiture

and Speie

Ioyalist

BLryers

Acres 38,694

ltober dybmis

136

Be©1y ltobiuson

202 17 219

38,372.75 735 39,107.75

Roger tolfis and

4,397.50

Beverly REbinson

Oues total :

log 493

11,183 93,382.25

*Sold by the Surveyor General

The lands were eventually sold, but when and to whom is not known. Most certainly, however, it was after the Commissioners left office, for during his tenure Graham found iE increasingly dif ficult to dispose of the considerable amount of land remaining. 38 Therefore, between 20,000 and 25,000 acres of landremain as a blank spot to the historian. The evidence of their exact disposition is presently unavailable because of inadequate local recOrds

From the initial sales it is evident that there was extensive democratization in landholding. Almost loo,000 acres owned by 37 Loyalists passed into the hands of 476 freehold owners with an average of 194 acres. Secondly, there seems to have been few large landowners or specula-

Sale of Loyalist Estates

tors moving in and picking up many lots, for the number of purchasers was relatively close to the number of sales, 574, and the average sale was 161 acres. The close correlation between the number of sales, the number of pur- , chasers and the acreage involved indicates the lack of a small group of individuals coming into possession of the 40 bulk of the land sold

On their face the initial sales had an extensive democratizing effect. This result, however, would be neutralized if the bulk of the land passed into the hands of members of the upper end of the socio-economic strata. A further weakening factor would be a high degree of participation by persons who could be identified from various sources as speculators interested in a quick

profitable return within a year or two after purchase or investors interested in long term appreciation over several years. Lastly, a high percentage of former tenants failing to exercise their pre-emptive rights would also bring these results into question. However, as previous commentators have pointed out and as this study will show, there is no need for a significant change in the above conclusion 41 Eighteenth century deeds often indicated the socioeconomic status of both the seller and the purchaser of a particular piece of property. Dutchess followed this practice to some extent.

However, only 15 percent, or 75

of the purchasers of confiscated land, are identifiable from these sources, and of these, 31 may be classed as yeomen-farmers.42 While these results are meager, there are other sources available for Dutchess County, such as

tax lists and rent rolls, which can be used to indicate the socio-economic condition of the purchasers. As pointed out earlier, eighteenth century Dutchess was predominately an agricultural society. There was only one area which might be considered urban, Poughkeepsie, and during this period it was a small town without any large scale commercial base. Given this predominately

John T. Reilly

agricultural position one can assume that the majority of men who resided there for any length of time were econom-

ically tied to agrarian pursuits eitber as freehold or tenant yeomen-farmers. Based on the aforementioned sources it was found that there were about 376 persons or 78 percent of the purchasers who were residents of Dutchess County either as taxpayers or tenants, or in possession of

forfeited estates before those estates were sold. While it is necessary to take into consideration the probability that some of these purchasers were only temporary county residents merely waiting there for the departure of the British from New York, the figures do point out a sizeable portion of the purchasers were from the area and were probably of the same socio-economic class.

The data also

indicates that there was no large imf lux of purchasers into the county for speculative or investment purposes. Further support for this conclusion is lent by the tax lists. These rolls show that in Dutcness County, and especially in south Dutchess, where most of the sales took place, there was a significant disparity in wealth. Only a few of the several hundred taxpayers listed may be considered among the wealthier members of society, the vast majority belonging to the middle and lower ends of the socio-economic ladder.43

Therefore, since there was wide

distribution of lands in the initial sales and many of the purchasers were residents of the county, it may be concluded that the average purchaser was of the farmer-yeoman class. This conclusion will be further buttressed by the data assembled in examining the question of tenants fail-

ing to exercise their pre-emptive rights. To what extent did members of the upper social strata participate in these sales? Is there any evidence of speculators' and investors' attempting to gain control of a portion of these lands? Any large scale participation by members of these groups would cancel out a democratizing effect produced by the sales. Two criteria have been used here in answering these questions. The first is acorrela-

Sale of Loyalist Estates

tion between individual purchasers and the total acreage each person bought, either in single or multiple sales, to see if there was any attempt at engrossment. The second is the extent to which well-known politicians, businesmen, landed gentry and speculators participated in the sales. In determining the extent of land engrossment in these sales, the figure of 500 acres, a .figure which is slightly more than double the size of the average eighteenth century farm, but one which would encompass as wide a variation in

individual freeholds as possibla, will be used as the line of demarkation between those purchasers who may be considered as tending towards la`nd engrossment and those who bought for the purpose of establishing their own homestead. There were .26 individuals who purchased 22,6921/2 acres in amounts varying from 500 to 3,394 acres. This represents 25 percent of the total acres sold. Only 7 of these individuals purchased land in excess of 1,000 acres, and

collectively they accounted for one-half of the above 20,000 acres. The two largest purchasers were William Denhing, a New York merchant, lavyer, member of the Provincial Congress and State Senator,44 who bought 3,394 acres and Ebenezer Boyd, a tavern keeper and militia captain, who purchased 2,012 3/4 acres. There is no information concerning the remaining five. Among the other nineteen

large purchasers there were several men who were either wealthy merchants, lawyers or men prominent in local and . state affairs. Among them were Zephaniah Platt, a local Dutchess County politician and founder of Plattsburg, New York;45 Comfort Sands and William Smith, New Yorkmerchants

and speculators.46 Little is known of the others. The sales in Dutchess also produced a moderate interest among men who can clearly be identified as speculators. Mensuch as William Duer, John Lalho, John Morin Scott and Melancton

Smith, all prominent merchants and politicians who spec-

ulated in land in other parts of the state, bought land in amounts under 500 acres from the Commissioners.47

Two,

Duer and the Revolutionary financier Robert Morris, were

rohn T. Reilly

definitely interested in speculation.48

Duer wrote to

Morris in 1780 recommending ". . .a j.udicious purchase of

forfeited land in the improved part of this State is by f ar the most eligible mode I know of improving a fortune in a secure way .... " He went on to relate how he had purcbased two farms from Beverly Robinson's estate in Dutchess County for Morris and one for himself insisting that they were a fine bargain. Morris's parcels amounted to 494 acres, and the one which Duer bought was 208 acres, small pickings for men such as these.49 The acreage bought by purchasers of this category was minimal, only 3,464 acres,

or less than 5 percent of the total. In general, then, the extent to which men of the upper social strata, invesEors or speculators, participated in disposition of these estates may be considered insignificant. In the consideration of the disposition of these estates, one of the most important questions is the extent to which the former tenants exercised their pre-emptive rights. In Dutchess the effect was not as dramatic as elsewhere.50

Only 142 out of the 302 tenants on theMorris

and Robinson estates in 1779 exercised their rights, and none on the estate of John Kane exercised theirs.5L While the Morris and Robinson totals are slightly less thanhalf,

forty-three percent of the total, it is still sizeable enough to signify democratization, albeit` qualified. Equally important is the question of what happened to those who did not exercise their rights. There are no clear cut answers. None of the members of this class left written records from which their motivations could be ascertained. However, it is known that a number of Robinson's tenants

did follow him into battle on the English side, thereby losing their pre-emptive rights, and it could be assumed that at least some of Morris's tenants also joined theLoyalist ranks.52 What inducements were proffered by the landlords in rallying a portion of their tenants to the side of the Crown are unknown.

There may have been a

promise of freeholds on Whig estates which brought in many

Sale of Loyalist Estates of them.

Perhaps the landlord may have used a combination

of force and fear, threatening to drive tenants out if they did not follow him and remarking that if they joined the Whigs and lost, they would lose everything. At least following him they had the Crown to fall back on if worse came to worse, as it did.53 It is also entirely possible that many simply did nothing, neither followed their landlords nor evidenced any desire to exercise their tenant rights. The tenants, at the time of the Revolution, may have felt that they were fairly well of f and had no desire to purchase land on their own. This is somewhat difficult to prove as there are few sources which show a desire to remain as a tenant. However, there are several instances which may, by inference, lead to such a conclusion. The

tenant, after the sale of his land by the state to another owner, was under no legal obligation to vacate his land; his lease with his previous landlord remained in force; the purcha'sers only bought the equity of the redemption when the lease expired. The tenant lost only the value of his impr.ovements up until the date of sale. There were a few 54 recorded instances of this happening in Dutchess County It is possible that some tenants remained as such under a new landlord. This new landlord could even have been a tenant of someone else; Colonel Henry Ludington for example, a tenant on now confiscated lands of the heirs of Philip Philipse, purchased land formerly belonging to Beverly Robinson. He leased this land to someone else and did not purchase his own leasehold until the nineteenth a.eLtury..55

Other reasons for the lack of a large turnout:by former tenants to purchase their lands may have been that they were incapacitated in one way or another. Because of their Loyalism some were unable to purchase theirs, others were dead, although in some instances members of the ilrmediate family did purchas.e the f arm of a deceased relative.56 Tnis, however, was more the exception than the rule. Financial cliff.iculty also could have kept some from

John T. Reilly

purchasing their leaseholds.

In the 1781-1782 period a

number of petitions were presented to the legislature from Dutchess County residents complaining of financial difficulties in trying to meet payments on their estates. Their particular grievance was the necessity to pay back rents due on their lands as well as meeting the payments to the state. There were 183 names on their petitions and only 30 were identifiable as tenants of the Loyalist landlords involved 57 As Reubens has pointed out in the case of Westchester County, the extent of poverty among the non-purchasers must not be exaggerated.

Mortgages and time payments from

the state were available to all purchasers. Many of the wealthier, more substantial tenants in Westchester were either Loyalists or non-purchasers, and an examination of the tax lists in Dutchess County brings out similar findings.58 There were seven persons in the South Precinct, where the estates of Morris and Robinson lay, who paid from ten to seventy pounds per year in taxes. None of them purchased a confiscated estate and all except one, Thomas Davenport, a tenant of Philip Philipse, were Loyalists. In the next highest category, those who paid more than six pounds per year, there were twenty persons, but only six purchased. The majority of the taxpayers paid from one to five pounds per year, with the average being about two pounds per year. Many in this category were also tenants, and it is here that a greater part of the purchasers are found.59 There is no question that financial difficulties played a role in the decision of some of the tenants and those in possession not to purchase their estates; however, it does not seem to have been a serious, insurmountable obstacle . What, then, did the sales produce in Dutchess County?

There is little doubt that a wider distribution of landholding resulted, for the number of individual landholders increased twelve fold, and most of these new owners were from the lower classes. While there was a noticeable lack

Sale of Loyalist Estates

of widespread tenant participation, the number was high enough to indicate that tenants did take advantage of the opportunity offered. Also there is little evidence of any attempt by the members of the upper classes or speculators to move in and take advantage of this opportunity to increase their holdings or make many purchases in the hope of a quick killing. A few did purchase, but their number

was insignificant and has little effect on the overall conclusion. In her examination of Philipsburg Manor, Reubens commented that the re-distribution achieved by the Commis-

sioners would not carry much historical significance if tenancy had been widely re-established within a few ye`ars, if speculators had obtained a colrmanding share of the estate, or if a large number of the new owners had lost their farms through foreclosures of mortgages.60 To

answer this question, it is necessary for the historian to examine all of the re-sales, mortgages, leases, wills, and newspaper advertisements relating to these estates. The results of this study seem to indicate that the post-sale period had little imf luence on the landholding pattern in Dutchess County. Only 15 percent,13,62l acres, belonging to 80 purchasers were sold to 87 buyers, a 1-to-1 ratio. Almost half of the new owners were county residents, together with a sizeable group of newcomers from

Connecticut.

About one-third were either related to the

former owners, who were mainly of the middling sort, or could be identified as yeoman-farmers or artisans, andnone

were identifiable as speculators or wealthy investors. There was little indication of speculation in the resales. A common sign of speculative activity is a quick turnover in landholding within 1 or 2 years af ter the initial purchase. In Dutchess County only about 10 percent was disposed of within this period. More than half , 8,000 acres, was sold from 5 to 10 years after its purchase.

Another indicator of speculation that can be used is the disposition of a large single holding within the 1779-1800

John T. Reilly

period, either by breaking it up into smaller units or in one single sale.61 The largest single holding sold in Dutchess witnin this period contained 512 acres. This was part of the extensive holdings of William Denning in South Dutchess, and they were sold to two farmers.62 These were the only sales made by Denning, who remained in possession of the bulk of his 3,000 acre estate well into the nineteenth century.63 The only other purchasers who disposed of what might be considered large amounts of land were Comfort Sands of New York City, who sold 456 acres soon

after he had purchased it, and Gilbert Bloomer, an Orange County merchant, who sold 485 acres 10 years after its

initial purchase

Most of the land which was re-sold was in small tracts of under 300 acres, the average size being about 156 acres.

These re-sales were undertaken for a variety of reasons, for example: Richard Slattery divided his lands and sold them to his sons to help tnem get a start in life;65 lands belonging to John Meeks and Tekiel Bouton were broken up

and sold by their families after their death;66 Burnett Miller sold his estate to f inance his move to Plattsburgh where he hoped to join in Zephaniah Platt's speculative efforts in northern New York.67 This small turnover in land and the lack of any discernible pattern in the sales which did take place does not mean that attempts were not made to dispose of this land. Evidence of such attempts can be found in the various sources: newspapers, private documents and the like.

However,, with respect to Dutchess

County, little indication of efforts in this area has been found.

An examination of the newspapers for the 1785-1800

period found only 804 acres belonging to 5 purchasers C>ffered for sale.68

This lack of turnover, or conversely stability, in landholding is manifested in other sources. The Census. of 1790, which listed by county and town all the heads of families in the United States, has been a valuable tool. While the Census does not indicate those who owned prop-

Sale of Ijoyalist Estates

erty, it can be used in conjunction with the above results to show stability. Seventy persent, 316 purchasers, were found to be residents in 1790 in the same area where they purchased land from the Commissioners of Forfeiture. Only eighteen were found outside the county. The continued residency in the county of a large number of the purchasers,69 most of whom were middle class, coupled with

the lack of a large number of re-sales, is clear proof that many of these purchasers were able to retain possession of their lands. Wills are another source which can be used, albeit in a limited way, to demonstrate stability. Between 1785 and 1812 Dutchess and Putnam County's probate records

contained the wills of some seventy-one persons who had purchased forfeited land, all of whom with the exception of two, Israel King and Abraham St. John who had sold part

of their estates, were in possession at the time of their deaths 70 The purchaser of a Loyalist estate was under no obligation to take possession of his lands or to sell them. He a.ould, especially if he was an absentee landlord, lease his newly acquired land. Leases were not recorded, as a result it is dif ficult to say how many new owners leased land Eo others. In Dutchess County, John and Robert Watts leased the lands of their father, John Watts, Sr., for

several years before attempting to sell them. 71 In several instances Whig tenants chose to remain as tenants under new owners. Why they chose to do so can only be surmized. As had been pointed out several times

in this study the conditions of the tenantry in preRevolutionary New York was good.

In addition, the pur-

chasers had to honor the leases of those tenants not convicted of Loya.1ism. 72

Although leases were made and

honored, the practice does not seem to have been wide-

spread. Therefore, it had little effect if any on the overall results. While the purchasers of Loyalists estates may not have been interested in a quick sale or leasing their new

John T. Reilly

freeholds, they were all subject to the economic dislocations of the post-war period. The region was predominantly agricultural and a decline in demand for its products, as experienced during the 1780's, could have been serious. It could have lead, as Lynd seems to suggest, to a return of tenantry and land engrossment..through foreclosures and distress sales.73 Although the records are not complete, the situation in Dutchess was not too dismal. The county seems to have been af fected only marginally by the economic conditions. There were eleven purcnasers of confiscated estates who mortgaged their lands, including two speculators, Ebenezer Boyd and William' Smith, and all discharged their debt.74 only five purchasers, Caleb Frisby, Stephen and William Field, Jeremiah Hughson, and Daniel Ter Boss, had their lands sold for debt. This amounted to 2,517

acres, less than 3 percent of the entire land sold by the Commissioners in Dutchess, and all were sold in the |79o's.75 The largest sale was that of 1,497 acres belonging to Daniel Ter Boss. After his death this land was sold to John Dewitt, a New York City merchant to settle Ter. Boss' estate. The remaining lands were sold to local

residents . In addition to ordinary mortgages, purchasers of conf iscated estates often availed themselves of the time payment provisions of the several acts which authorized disposition of these lands.

In 1785 the Commissioners of

Forfeiture for the Middle District listed 184 purchasers who were paying on time.76

If payment was not met when

due, the Commissioners were authorized to sell these lands again. In the Middle District only ten purchasers fell into this category. The lands of two individuals, Moses Dusenbury and Benjamin Propean, were advertised for sale because of non-payment. Eigbt others, 5 from Dutchess County and 3 from Ulster County, who owned a total of 933

acres were listed by the Commissioners as having failed to make payment

While the records show only a minimal loss of lands

Sale of Loyalist Estates

due to what may be described as economic conditions, are there any other sources, such as petitions, which would

indicate that the purchasers of these estates were laboring under some form of f inancial hardship?

As mentioned

above, I.ynd has been especially critical of the ability of the purchasers in Dutchess County to hold on to their estates. He cited problems such as the ability to meet installment payments due to an outbreak of the Hessian Fly in 1786, a locust type insect which preyed on the wheat crop of the Hudson River Valley; the high degree of foreclosure notices and sheriff sales in Dutchess newspapers; and the dangers from land engrossment policies of Hudson River landlords such as the Livingstons. As mentioned above, Lynd's concern over these conditions has been

motivated by political considerations, to him the threat as well as the actuality of loss of these estates was important . However, as has been found in a previous discussion

of the problem, there was little actual threat to the owners of this property. Many of the difficulties mentioned by I.ynd belong to the pre-sale period, involve the Commissioners of Sequestration, concern persons who did not purchase confiscated land, or concern areas outside of Dutchess County.78

While there may have been a danger,

few persons in Dutchess County lost their lands. In Dutchess County the lands of 37 Loyalists totaling 93,382 acres were sold to 493 purchasers.

Many of these

persons had never owned land before and most could be described as belonging to the middle and lower orders of society. The average purchase, about two hundred acres,

was the size of the typical eighteenth century farm. In regard to the major points made by historians of the subject, the role of speculators, the ability of Whig tenants to pre-empt their lands, and the ability of the purchasers to retain their lands into the nineteenth century, the f indings indicate that the trend in the Hudson River Valley was toward a society of freehold farms. The fact

John T. Reilly

that New York State limited the size of each sale to five hundred acres and permitted time payments by purchasers, while probably not intended as a leveling measure, undoubtedly assisted in producing the above results. While the number of tenants purchasing their land in the county was not high, only 142 of 315 identifiable tenants purchased, there are some plausible answers. As several historians have recently pointed out, the condition of the tenantry in the Valley was not that onerous. Many

tenants willingly followed their landlords into battle, a clear indication that they were not dissatisfied with their situation. Others seem to be willing to remain as tenants under new landlords, as the State honored the leases of Whig tenants. Altbough financial difficulties may have prevented some tenants from purchasing their lands, it does not seem to have been a widespread problem.

In the post-war period, few purchasers lost their lands either due to economic distress, or other reasons. While the sales had no ef feet on the lands of patriotic landlords, such as the Livingston's and the Van Rensselars's, they did represent a significant step toward the growth of agricultural and political democracy in New York.

Endnotes Ld. Franklin Jameson, The American Revolution con(Princeton, New Jersey: sidered as a Social Movement .

Princeton University Press ,

1926) , 27-36, 41; Alexander C.

Flick, The american Revolution in New Yo.rk (Albany, N.Y. : University of the State of New York, 1926) 221, 133, 235 Alexander C. Flick "The Loyalists" in History of the State of New York (10 vols. New York: Columbia University Press,

Catherine Snell Crary, Loyalist +, JJ I ---,---, 1933) Ill 353: \,`-`-+++,--`---_ I ---- __ -__-i, "Forfeited __ Lands in the Western District of New York-Albany and XXXV (1954) 254-256, Tryon Counties ," New York History "Revolution 247-248, 256; Staughton Lynd,

and the Common

Man, " (hnpubiished-doctor~al dissertation, Department of IIistory, Columbia University, 1966) 125; "Who should rule ---_ _ _ _ _County __ i at home? Dutchess in the American Revolution," Wil1iam & Mary Quarterly 3rd Series, XVII (1961), 330, 33Fr Anti-Federalism in Dutchess County, New York (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1962) , Cnapter IV, passim; Be`atrice C. Reub=ns, "Pre-Emptive Rights in ETh-e Disposi-

Sale of Loyalist Estates

tion of a Confiscated Estate: Philipsburg Manor, New York" William & Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, XXII(1965) 437, 453.

2Thomas Cochrane, New York in the Confederation

(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1932) 64; Harry a. Yoshpe, The Dispo.sitio.n o`f I.oyal.ist Estates in the Southern District of New York (New York:. Columbia University Press,1939) 114-117; Frederick 8. Tolles, "The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement: A revaluation," American Historical Review, LIX (1954) 7-9. 3Jackson Turner Main, Social Structure of Revolutionary America (Princeton, N.I. : Princeton University Press,1965)

24.

4Henry Noble Mccracken, Old Dutchess Forever (New York: Hastings House, 1956) 76-77; United States, Bureau of the Census, Heads of Families, 1790, 9; Helen W. Rey-

¥=;±£:Sine=i: ::E=e::::nur3fR::::i:s:fc::=:§e::s::=:¥i New Society, VI (1938) 7; James Smith, Hist.or.y of Dutchess County (Syracuse, N.Y.: D. Mason & Company,1882)

59-62

5wi||iam S. Pelletreau-Histo

of P.utnam County, New York (Philadelphia: W. W. Preston 1886) Ilo-120; David

M. Ellis, Landlords and Farmers in the Hudson-Mohawk Region: 1790-1850 (New York: Octagon Books,1967) 4-5; Frank

Hasbrouck, History of Dutchess County (Poughkeepsie, N.Y. : S.

Matthiew,1907)

52-54.

6T. Vant Wyck Brinkerhoff Historical Sketch .of the Town of Fishkill (Fishkill, N.Y.: Dean and Spaight,1866)

73-74; Patricia U. Bonomi, A Factious People: Politics and

Society in Colonial New York (New York: Columbia University Press,1971) 167. 7Mccracken, Old Dutchess Forever, 40; Lynd, AntiFederalism, 39; E. Wilder Spalding, New York in the Gritical Period: 1783-1789 (New York) : Columbia University Press, 1932) 277-282; Colonel Henry LudingEon, a militia

officer from southern Dutchess County, wrote to Governor

George Clinton that every of ficer in the southern district

of Dutchess County was a tenant, there were no freeholder, February 20, 1778, Public Papers of George Clinton (10 Vols.

Albany,

N.Y.,1899-1914)

11,

784-85

8spau|ding, New York in the Critical Period, 51-53, 57; Tackson Turner Main, "The Redistribution of Property

in Post-Revolutionary Virginia " Mississippi Valley

Historical Review, XLI (1954) 245-246; Percey W. Bidwell

and John I. Falconer, History of Agriculture in the NorthCarnegie Insti-

ern United States: 1620-1860 (Washington tute,

1925)

115.

9A|fred P. Young, The Democratic Republicans of New York= 1763-1797 (Chapel Hill, N.C.= University of North

John T. Reilly

Carolina Press, 1967) 92, tends to place the southern Dutchess County farmer in a low economic classification; however, his evidence is based on a description of Westchester County in the 1790's; William Strickland found Dutchess County yeomen in good. circumstances, Diary, October 9,1794, NYHS; Bonomi, A Factious People,193-200. For

more recent views see Sung Bok Kin, Landlo-r.d and Tenant in Colonial New York (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1978) , pas.sin. and Edward Countryman,-. "Out of the Bounds of the Law: Northern Land Rioters in the Eighteenth Century," in Alfred F. Young, ed., The

American Revolution

(DeKalb, Illinois: Northern IlliE6Is

University Press,1976)

37-70.

L°The older interpretations are found in: Lynd, "Revolution and the Cormon Man," 38-39, 44-45`; Elisha P. Douglas, Rebels and Democrats (Chicago: Quadrangle Books,

1955) 57-58; Lynd, Anti-Federalism, 38 Ellis, Landlords, 10-11; Irving Mark, Agrarian Conflicts in Colonial New York: 1711-1775 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1940) 62-63, 71 72`; Recent research, however, has brought some of -these conclusions into serious question. Sung Bok Kim, "A new look at the Great Landlords of eighteenth cen-

tury New York," William & Mary Quarterly, 3rd series,

XXVII, 583-584, 599, 611, 181-193, 200, 215, 226.

614 Bonomi,

A Factiou.s People,

L[Rent Roll of Roger Morris, Great Britain, Exchequer and Audit Office,13-16, Public Record Office, I.ondon; American Loyalist Transcripts, XLIII, 233-234, 243-247, 295, NYPL, Robinson felt his tenants could pay a higher

rent, at least five times more than they did. Mark, Agrarian Conflicts, 137..; Pelletreau, Putnam Co.unty, 286287,

634-635,

547

Kin, William & mary Qu`arterly 3rd

597, 614 generally. found that the tenants received good leases. Lease of Beverly Robinson to Elijah Oakey of Fredericksburg, June 25,1773, Miscel

Series,

XXVII,

583-589,

MSS. , Fredericksburg, New York,NYHS; Bonomi, A Factious People, 196-200. 12Lynd

Anti-Federalism, 47, 49; To buttress his

contention that the spirit of the rebellion carried over into the confiscation acts, Lynd cites the petition of

Simon Calkins and others to the legislature in 1779 asking for restoration of the lands which they said had been stolen by Beverly Robinson. The location of these petitions bears little resemblance to those which experienced the disturbances. Petition of Simon Calkins and others, 1779, Assembly Papers, XXVI, NYslj; Pelletreau, Putnam County,119,120, 283, 418-419; American Loyalist Transcripts, LXIII, 225, NYPL; Wallace Brown," ,"American Farmer Agricultural

Duririg the Revolution: Rebel or Loyalist?

Histoiy, XLII (1968) 327-339; Mark commented that the

dence connecting the 1776 rioters to Loyalism was insufficienE, Mark, AgrarianConflicts, 201.

Sale of Loyalist Estates

L3F|ick, Loyalism, 133-134 Brinkerhoff , Fishkill, 82; Philip Smith, Dutchess County, 53; N.Y., dourna.ls. tbe Provincial Congress, 466-467; Hasbrouck, Du.tchess County, 90; Peter Force, comp.,Amer.ican Archives (9 Vols. Washington:

1837-1853) ,11,

305.

14phiiip Smithi Dutchess Co.unty, 55; James Smith, Dutchess County, 130; Isaac Hunting, History of I.ittle Nine Partners (Amenia, N.Y : Charles Walsh & Co.,1897) 73-76; N.Y., +ournals of the Provincial Congress, I, 757, " 94= Wil766-767; Lynd, ''Revolution and the Common Man, liam H. Nelson, The American Tory (Boston: Beacon Press,

1961) 100-101; Warren H. Wilson, Quaker Hill (New York: Columbia University Press,1907) 50-51, 55.

[5S|ightly overstating the number of Loyalists in the County , the . Coun.try

iJ.ournal

of July 8, 1786 remarked

that "In Dutchess tne people were pretty much evenly divided in sentiment, the Thigs being the majority in the north and western parts of the county and the Tories in the southern and eastern," quoted in Mark, Agra.rian Con-

flicts, Note 68, 201. L6F|ick, Loyalism, 141; CliffordM. Buck, `'Dutchess County People " Yearbook of the Dutchess County Historical

Society, LII (1967) 91-97 Lynd, W&MQ, 3rd Series, XVIII, Note 69, 350; Edmund Platt, The E=§IE's History of P.ough-

keepsie (Poughkeepsie, N.Y.:ilatt and Platt,1905) 37, repo-rted that of forty-five persons in Poughkeepsie who

had their land sequestered only one had it conf iscated

[7New York Packet, June 22, 1780, June 21, 1781, Amount of

June 13' December 20, 1782, April 24, 1783.

sale of Forfeited Estates sold by Commissioners of For-

feiture, Middle District, N.D. [1788], War of Revolution MSS, V, Box 2, NYSL, puts the figure for the entire Middle

District at seventy-f ive I.oyalists who had their land confiscated and sold. In addition there are others who

were not lis.ted and whose land was sold, Abel Flewelling, William Bayard, Oliver Delancey, Thomas .ones, David Colden, and Isaac Low. The full total for the Middle

District is ninety-six.

LBA||en Johnson, ed. i Dictionary of American Biograp±y_ (20 Vols., New York:

Eh-aries Scribner ` s

Sons,1928-

1936) XII, 226; Pelletreau, Putnam County, 58 Historical and Genealogical Record, 215-216 American Loyalist Tramscripts, LXIII, 283, NYPL Alice Custis Desmond, "Mary

Philipse, Heiress," NYH, XXVII (1947) 26.

aneri::ip±i±;±:==-gii=aB:=IS:=±:i-:g-r#o5D#!,Avrdp3:;pet_ 1etreau, Putnam County, 520-521. 2°American Loyal-ist Transcripts, LXIII, 283, NYPL;

John T. Reilly

Morris sold some of his land, William Hill bought 245 acres in 1785, James Rhodes bought 702 acres and Joshua Merrit 200 acres, Liber of Deeds, Putnam County, County Clerk, Carmel, N.Y., A, 390, Putnam County, 363-364, 575.

480;

55,

430;

Pelletreau,

2LAmerican Loyalist Transcripts, LXIII, 231-234, NYph

22|bid., Lx||, 295; Martha J. Lamb, History of the City of New York (3 Vols., New York: A. S. Barnes,1896) 11,

605-606.

23Lynd, Anti-Federalism, 35, 46-47. 24American Loyalist Transcripts, IXX, 331-370, NYPL.

Crannell was f ather-in-law of Gilbert Livingston and Peter

Tappan, two prominent Dutchess County Whigs, and his house served as the residence of Governor Clinton while he was in Poughkeepsie. He also owned acreage in Albany and Ulster Counties. Helen W. Reynolds, ''Bartholomew Crannell," Dutchess County Historical Society Yearbook, -VII (1922)

39-50.

25American Loyalist Transcripts, LXI, 541-545; NYPL, Nelson, American Tory, 51-54, 74, 121; Reginald V. Harris, Charles Inglis (Toronto Canada: 'General Board of Religious Education, 1937) 39, he had 9 tenants on 2,562 acres

in Dutchess County plus acreage in Ulster County.

26Ledger 8, Liber of Deeds, Dutchess County, County Clerk, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.; Flick, I.oyalism,147-149; William Wilcox, Portrait of a General (New York: A. A. Knopf , 1962)

6-7,

20-21.

27Mccracken, old Dutchess Forever, 301.-305; American HistorI.oyalist Transcripts, XLIV, 5-54, 225-250, NYPL:

ical and Genealogical Record,186. 28]ames Smith, Dutchess County,I. 130,141; Ijynd, "Revolution and the Common Man," 65 French, Gazeteer, 541 John Alden, The American Revolution (New York: Harper & Brothers,1954) 208-213. 29pe||etreau, putnam County, 93-94, 106-113, 328, 578, 676; Ellis, Landlords, 27-28 Zimm, Southeastern New York ' 11,160.

3°Mccracken, Old Dutchess Forever, 424-25: Spaulding,

New York in the Critical Period 153-54; Robert A. East, Business Enterprise in the american Revolutionary Era (Gloucester, Mass. : Peter Smith, 1965) 111-12.

These

riistorians have based their conclusionson the large sum of money for which the estates were sold and on the presence of some speculators and wealthy patriots; however, the evidence does not bear this out.

Sale of Loyalist Estates

3LLynd, Anti-Federalism, 74; "Revolution and the Commom Man," 120-133; Robert G. Livingston to Gilbert Livingston, November 22, 1786; Henry G. Livingston to Robert Livingston, March 4, 1781; Gilbert Livingston Papers, Box I, NYPL; Petition of Abraham Paine, 1781, Assembly Papers, XXV, NYSL: None of the evidence cited by Lynd involved

purchases of confiscated estates. 32|,ynd, "Revolution and the Common I..tan," 116,121-123.

Lynd cited such evidence as six or eight purchasers after one farm in 1785, and William Duer selling one of his

farms for five or six times what he paid for it.

MCAulyto

MCKesson, December 24, 1785, jM. cKesson Papers, NYHS; Uduy

Hay to William Duer, June 20., 1784, Duer Papers, NYHS;

East, Business Enterprise,lil-112. 33Dodge, a member of the Assembly from Dutchess Coun-

ty, Graham, a merchant from Ulster County, and Hathorn, a Revolutionary Militia General and State Senator; Lawrence and Sleigbt, both New York City merchants, Old Ulster, VII (1911) 392-393; Pelletreau, Putnam County, 93-94; Coch-

rane, New York in the Confederation, 57, 60-61; Flick, Loyalism, 150-151; Ferdinand Sanford, "General John Hat-

horn," Historical Papers of the Historical Society of Newburgh Bay and the Highlands, XL (1940) 10, 91-98 New York Packet, December 28, 1780; New York Comptroller, New York

in the Revolution, Supplement, 1, 259; Flick, Loyalism,150 34New York Journal, April 17, May 22, 1780. 35New York packet, May 22,1785, March 23, December 11, 1786, April 15, 1787, July 8 1788; Poughkeepsie Country Advertiser, August 12,1788, March 12,1784New York Journal, July 24, 1788 Laws of New York, Chapter XL,

22,1788,I,195 New York State, Office of the State Engineer, Division of Waterways, Department of Trans-

March

portation, State Campus, Albany, Deed Book, 8, passim;` Flick, Loyalism, 150-151,157.

36These figures were compiled from the following sources: Liber 8, Dutchess County; this is the same as Liber A, Abstract of Forfeited Lands, Dutchess County MSS, NYHS: Liber of Deeds, Dutchess County; Liber of Deeds, Putnam County; Deed Books, N.Y., Office of the State Engineer: Account of Jonathan Lawrence, One of the Commissioners to procure a sum in specie, N.D. [1782], New York

Revolutionary Committees and Colrmissions , Revolutionary War MSS, Box V, NYHS; Abstracts of Sales of the Commis-

sioners of Forfeiture for the Middle District, May 20, 1785; March 21,1788; August 20,1789; War of Revolution

MSS, Oversize, NYSL; The accuracy of some of the sales is

attested to by a report by the State Treasurer, Abraham

Lansing, to Morris Robinson, son of Beverly, when he

inquired as to the amounts of money collected by the state in the sales of his f.ather's lands. The amounts given by

John T. Reilly

Lansing corresponded to those which were reported by the Commissioners of Forfeiture and Specie, John Lansing to Beverly Robinson, Tr., September 1,1806, Great Britain, Treasury Papers, Series T.79, Public Record Office, London. 37New York Packet, May 23,1785, July 8,1788.

New

York Journal, July 2, 1788; Poughkeepsie Country Journ.al, March 23,1788,

August 12,1788.

38Advertisement of lands for sale appeared in the following papers: New York Packet, May 22, 1785, May 23, 1786, July 8,1788; New York Journal, July 24,1788

Poughkeepsie Country Journal, March 23,1786, August 12, Graham to New York State I.egislature April 26, 1785, "There is still a considerable amount of lands remaining unsold which I have not been able to dispose 1788.

of ."

War of the Revolution MSS, XLIV, Box 2, NYSL.

39|n the putnam County Clerk's office, Carmel, New York, there are several maps which were made in 1888 of . the forfeited lands in Putnam County. These were compiled from Liber 8 of the Dutchess County Clerk's Office and

contain the location and name of the purchasers. On these maps one can see the blank spots of lands whose sales were never recorded. 40Lynd Anti-Federalism, 27-28, 75; Lynd, "Revolution and the Common Man," 125; Pelletreau Putnam County, 579 Lynd cites only 401 purchases, some 751ess due Eo a fail-

ure to examine all sources. Morris's and Robinson's lands were sold to some 402 purchasers alone. Not all the land was sold immediately, Bartholomew Crannell's lands in

Poughkeepsie were withheld from the initial sales and it was not until his sons-in-law, Gilbert Livingston and Dr. Peter Tappan, petitioned the legislature th.at his land was sold. Crannell's house had been occupied by Governor Clinton and his wife, who was Tappan's sister, after the burning of Kingston. Petition of Gilbert Livingston and Peter Tappan respecting the estate of Bartholomew Cran-

nell, March 10,1788, Assembly Papers, XXV, NYSL; Pough-

keepsie Country Journal, April 15,i.787; May 6, 1788 American Loyalist Transcripts, XIX, 331-370, NYPL: I. Wilson Poucher, "Dr. Peter Tappen," DUEchess County Histor-

ical Society

Yearbook, XIX (1934)

38-44

4LLynd, "Revolution and the Common Man," 121-125.

Farme:::ig:? ::q::::: ; #CE::; g:::::is#id:::Ta:?

Judges, 3; Tailors, 2; Tavern Keepers, 2; Shoemaker, 1; Seamen, 1; Lavyer, I; Physician, 1; Town Clerk, 1; Black-

smith, i.

43anerican Loyalist Transcripts, LXIII, 231-234, 287288, NYPL; Rent Roll of Roger Morris, Audit Office,13, 116, Public Record Office, London; I)utchess County Tax

Sale of Loyalist Estates

Lists, 1771-1779, County Clerk, Poughkeepsie. 44Edward M. Ruttenber, ed. , Catalogue of Collections at Washington's Headquarters: Newburgh,` New Ygrk (Newburgh, New York: E. M. Ruttenber, 1874) 144; Pelletreau, Putnam County, 501, 526, 529; Rodney MacDonough, "William Denning, " New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, XXX

(1899),133-194.

45Lynd, Anti-Federalism, 58; Young, Democratic Repub1icans, 46; Mccracken, Old D.ut.c.hess Forever, 424; New

York, Secretary of State, Calendar of New York C.olonial Manuscripts, Indorsed I,and Papers,1.647-190.3 (Albany, N.Y.:

Weed,

Parsons

& Co.,1804) ,

735;

Wilson Poucher,

"Zephaniah I>1att, " Dutchess County Historical Society

Yearbook, XXIX (1944) , 51-55; Biographical Directory of the American Congress,1774-1927 {Washington: U., S. Government Printing Office, 1928) , 1461, Liber of Deeds, Dutchess County, 8,194-195. Several Dutchess Countypurchasers

of Loyalist estates such as Platt, Melancton Smith and others were involved in the Plattsburg speculation. 46]oseph Scoville

[Walter Barrett] , The Old Merchants

of New York City (5 Vols., New York= Carleton,1863) , IV,.. 299-305, DAB, XVI, 341-342. Sands bought 643 acres. 47Lynd

Anti-Federalism, 58; Biographical Directory

of American Congress, 1540 East, Business Enterprise, 94, 108,.117-118,146,

225,

275,

368;

Wilson Poucher

"Melancton Smith, " Dutchess County H.istorical Society

Yearbook,

(1925),

39-48;

DAB,

XVIII,

310-320,

515;

Doro-

thy R. Dillion, The New York Triumvirate (New York: Columbia University Press,1944) 164-165. 48DAB, x|||, 219-223; East, Business Enterprise, 111112; Joseph S. Davis, Essays on the Earlier History of American Corporations (2 Vols., New York: Russell & Russell,1965),I,

371-372,11,119,

276-277:

John F.

Wat-

son, Annals and Occasions of New York City and State (Philadelphia= By the author, 1846) , 241 Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1105 49wi||iam Duer to Robert Morris, August 27,1780; Robert Morris to William Duer, September 12,1780, quoted

in East, Business Enterprise,lil-112.

Receipt from

Gerard Bancker, Treasurer, NewYork State, to William Duer for farms in Dutchess County, struck off in the name of Robert Morris, September 30,1780, War of the Revolution MSS, LXIV, Box 2, NYSL.

5°Reubens, William & Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, XXII, passim.

5LRent Rolls of Roger Morris, G. a., Audit Office, 13,116, PRO; American Loyalist Transcripts, XLIV, 226226; LXIII, 231-234; NYPL.

John I.. Reilly

52Brown, Agricultural History, LXII, 327r339; tierican Loyalist Transcripts, LXIII, 225, NYPL; Mark, Agrar-

lan Conflicts, 200-201; Flick, I.oyalism, 88; Spaulding-;

New York in the Critical Period, 132; Reubens, William & Quarterly, 3rd Series, XXII, 451-452

53Twe|ve tenants eventually did file claims.

Amer-

ican Loyalist Transcripts, XVIII, 447-450, 475-480, 515517;

XIX,

173-178;

XX,

107-115;

XXIX,143-162,

175,

NYPL;

Ontario, United Empire Loyalists, 766-767, 771-772, 787, 790,

809,

815-817,

823,

886,1246-1247.

Bonomi has

pointed out that the Crown often sided with the small

farmer in a title dispute with a large landlord like the

Livingstons and that this could have caused many farmers

to be Loyalists, A Factious People, NOEe 47, 210; Wallace Brown, The Kings Friends (Providence, R.I. : Brown University Press) 1968, passim. 54Comfort Sands sold 456 acres of confiscated land to

Thomas Mitchell subject to a lease to Simon Wright from Beverly Robinson for three lives. Mitchess in 1780 sold

the farm to Asa Haines still subject to the lease, Liber

of Deeds, Dutchess County, 11-312, 12-448; Stephen Ward

bought a farm from Nathaniel Delavan, who in turn purchased it from the Commissioners of Specie, when Ward

bought the farm it was subject to a thirty year lease to Archibald Campbell from Robinson.

Petition of Stephen

Ward to the legislature, N.D. [1796] Assembly Papers, XXVII, NYSL; Mark, Agrarian Conflicts, 203-204; Yoshpe, Disposition, 32, 54, 114-115

55wi||is F. Johnson, Colonel Henry Ludington (New York: privately printed, 1907) , 208; I.amb,History of the City of New York, 11, 212-213; Pelletreau, Putnam County,

692; I.ist of tenants on Captain Philip Philipses' long

lot No. 6; 1804, 1810, Philipse-Gouverneur Papers, Colum-

bia University.

56Tohn o`Brien purchased his deceased mother's leasehold, while Hester Van Tassel purchased her late husband's, Liber of Deeds, Dutchess County, 8, 317, 355.

57petition of Ruben Ferris and ninety-three others, New York Senate, Journal, April 10,1782, 71; Petition of Alexander Kidd and 102 others, March 1782 Petition of residents of Philipstown, March 1782; Petition of George Lane and fifty-seven others, March 16,1782; Senatepapers, 11, 2088; X, Box 11; XI, Box I, NYSL: New York Assembly,

Journal, march 28,1782, 81; Lynd, ''Revolution and the Common Man," 116.

58Reubens, William & M.ary XXII,

451-452.

Quarterly, 3rd Series,

Sale of Loyalist Estates

59pe||etreau, Putnam .County, 121-128; Dutchess CounPoughkeepsie ty Tax Lists, 1777., 1779, County Clerk, 6°Reubens, William & mary Qu`arterly, 3rd Series, XXII' 454.

6LLiber of Deeds, Dutchess County, p±=±±p; Liber of Deeds, Putnam County, passim. 62Liber of Deeds, Putnam County, L,14,19. L

63pe||etreau, Putnam County, 500.

64sands later gave the remaining portion of his land to his daughter, Liber of Deeds, Dutchess County,11, 312;

12,

242;

15,

247.

65Liber of Deeds,

Dutchess County,12,10;

14,141,

144.

66|bid.,

17,

177,180;

10,146.

67|bid., 15, 82; Burnett A.tiller to Zephaniah Platt, May 27,17E4; Misc., MSS, NYSL.

68poughkeepsie Country Journal, May 18,1786; December 30,1788; April 9, November 5, 1791; New York Journal, December 7,1791.

69Bureau of the Census' Heads of Families,1790, passim. 7°Frederick C. Haacker, `'Early Settlers of Putnam County, New York," (Typescript, NYPL,1946) , 39-52; Eliz-

abeth I. Mccormick, "Abstract of Wills of Putnam County, New York,"

(2 Vols., Typescript, NYHS,1940-1942) ; Robert

a. Miller, "Index of Probate Records of Dutchess County, New York,1751-1798,"

(Typescript, NYPL, N.D.) , passim;

Minnie Cower [Cohen], "Abstract of Wills of Dutchess County,

New York,"

(13 Vols.,

Typescript,

NYHS,1939-1944) ,

Vols. 1-6; AIos Can field, "Abstract of Wills Recorded at Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County, New York," NYG&BR, LXI (1930)

6-13,119-126,

256-263,

381-386.

7LNev York Journal, 7 December 1791.

72Liber of Deeds, Dutchess County, New York, 9, 312; 15, 247. Comfort-Sands honored two leases on lands

formerly belonging to Beverly Robinson. 73Lynd' Anti-Federalism,

76-77; idem. , "Revolution

and the Common Man," 121-123.

74Liber of Mortg.ages, Dutchess County, 4, 414, 432.

John T. .Reilly

75Liber of Deeds, Dutchess County, 9, 209, 344; 11,

3€£e22€ : :;;8¥:;=:=e28:u#;¥; J::::a::w:::fez ' i±:::i fourteen purchasers of confiscated land in the 1787-1792 period as insolvent debtors of whom only two had their estates sold, Frisby and Ter Boss; Poughkeepsie Country Journal, March 28, 1787, December 20, 1788; March 31,

1789, January 12, June 19, June 24, July 12, September 11, October 18, October 25, November 12, December 25, 1790; April 30, Decelnber 15,1791; March 1,1792.

76Abstract of Sales of Commissioners of Forfeiture for the Middle District, May 20, 1785, War of the Revolution, MSS, Oversize, NYSL.

77±±±g. , poughkeepsie Country Journal, January 7, 1787;

March

12,1794.

78Lynd, Anti-Federalism, 76-79; L nd, "Revolution and the Common Man," 122-123; Petition of Reuben Ferris and

others, June 26,1781; Petition of Alexander Kidd and others; March 1782; Petition of sixty-one residents of Philipstown, March 1782, Senate Papers, X, Box 2; XI,

Box i, NYSL; Petition of Nathan Pearce and twenty others, February 1, 1785, jMisc. MSS, Dutchess County, NYHS; Peti-

tion of James Reque., Gilbert Dean and sixty-eight others, March 2,1786, Assembly Papers, XXVI, NYSL.

Petition is

from persons in Westchester not Dutchess County. Spaulding, New York in the Critical Period, 23-24.

....,,...

--...--'=_-_ -,,-,

.` .,,,... .I

i.),

'..

•':...,,.,

I,'J

``,

i.i...,.I.

;`;.`:,:T?i,I:I,.,I:-I:::,'..; ; ,.,:.`..-i: : ,.::". "..I. "

r.O`i.Oicnts. .:. t: ..... :.. hi.. I: .... „|T`. :OI.,.w„ ..

ii!,:!I:i;::,.\:::I;1,i;,,-:i,I:i;:,`,::,i.:::::,`.',::,`..i:i,,:,,i,,-: rfu lc,(`. IhThc Farrl .n r}fl ulfitl ilf l'.iLl .','.nl-otl,

co,:*Tnh;

c3,?,:,.,r..::[gc.I:;.,::I:;,nj.',*..T.,:.n..fF.ben":I/~-.r„. +.I. i I.{ ..I I . I .I. :.1 :r..?ten at. /t-;c. :I. . m' ' , ` -, :'``. „ .` ...i,, `.I `,.'. .,::,L, .`i" ." :5. .c'' .. ``:.i,

.,!1

lt't;`r

,`uJ`.`.-.

L;-:`„

l't`.`-..:,'

J=.L!

. I.

I,,` ,L ''1I.:'1`.

¢!!:.

A :.`.I;n. ciinlai[.in{: ir. .. ? i?a ..c...`

tw:`!`

a v`,.tut lio`iii.. i..til, [iitl ul` .L .rd. In p. II..ri..I. ..!. J,.t`a

I ,...Ji.I,`:^=.

:3;;,¥`!l,i?;.?,:C::.:?b.:`,:;'::!'`:;::::;;,'j::a:,:^::c{ji.;:::.I:;:.:°u:.;;::f i all,. u` Cfgf`' I,,

fd!?:';.a:`ii::::.I:.`r`::,`i}?i::.:,.:'.°u.';,5h.::::,:;,.i±:.p.I:!j ml`,0,C'I,`|,i,. €tl.. A I.i].. corit.ii]ie`.: .bout 7o ilcrt:i, in I.o!.`

;r;:!S;:i::::::,;:ni,,J`;::,,::,I:::i;u:i,i:.:;.i:;;,i:ji:i; rfrd-,J.

gi#Lliji:rh¥``.;r=i.:I:ul;:nit:.:;i,i.::.::.:i! -,\

Cq®® thnc., o',`o,in,Lou-

Notice of sale of the lanclLs and buildings in .rmenia Precinct Ch.,met-I. ky George Folliot, 1{g.\7

York merdiant .follcndmg his cx)nviction as a loyalist. Sale Tvas held at the house of prraj. Sineon Cbok of .A.menia on April 13, 1780. Fron

the I.few York Packet, newspaper published in Fishkill, my 11, 178o.

Poughkeepsie Iron Works (Bech' s mrmace)tryy I-I. Carmiencke, 1856. Oil on .canvass 29 x 36¥t'. Cburtesy of Yale Uhiversity Art Gallery, bequest of Evelyn ammins

Pbotograph of James Finch's store ca. 1910. by Iorin J. Eggleston, Millerton,. N.Y.

Frcm a post card photo

THE NEW AMERICAN IANDSCAPE :

an analysis of Poughkeepsie Iron Works (Bech's Furnace)

Jeffrey A. Arons A descri;ption of a nd:neteendh cent:unay pcknttng of one of PoughkeepsLe 's Lndustrbes corweys the i:rripor.bc[nce of pchnitngs as sources of historical and soctal bnforirriation. Jeffrey Arons bs a sender at Yale UndveT.sity.

Johann Hermann Carmiencke painted Poughkeepsie Iron Works-(Bech's Furnace)* in 1856. Edward Bech became a

partner in the Poughkeepsie Iron Company sometime between 1848 and 1853.

In 1853 a second furnace, moderately

larger than the first, was built. It produced 24 tons of iron. Which of these furnaces is depicted in the painting is not apparent. The wisp of smoke in the trees on the left near the widest part of the river south of the furnace depicted suggests that that, too, may be a furnace. Therefore, the furnace recorded in the painting may be the northern most furnace.

The Poughkeepsie Iron Company is

credited with beginning the pig iron industry in Poughkeepsie.

Iron ore was hauled by mule from Sylvan Lake and

vicinity to the furnace near Union Street on the Hudson River The painting is a 29 x 36 i/4 inch oil that pictures the landscape of the Hudson River at Poughkeepsie. It is distinguished from other Hudson River. paintings in that the beautiful scenery serves as background for an iron works, pictured at lower right. In addition to being a

fine piece of art work, the painting is an interesting bit of Dutchess County history lying undiscovered in the Yale University Art Gallery. It should be appreciated not only * The pal;ndchg zbas ori,ginal7ay l<mourn cryi,kg .as Facbo]ey on

bE]i±_B2i_dson. Iba eor.I.ecb i,dentif acccdion bs cdebri:bated bo Cabheri;ne Iayrm, AssLsbcafle Pr.ofessor of Ar.t RI,sborrg cid Yale Undver.sfdy. Her reseonch chi,Le a gr.ed:udee sbuden± un.covered. I:lee corr.ecb bLbze.

Jeffrey A. Arons

as art but also as an historical document f illed with information.

Carmiencke and his contemporaries, who were

also painting industrial scenes, were actually recording important social, economic, environmental, and cultural changes taking place in the United States during the second half of the nineteenth century. The following description of the painting is provided to enhance the reader's understanding of the painter's use of color and composition. The f actory buildings are a light brown color and have associated with them several different sized chimneys. Out of two of these issue wisps of turquoise smoke. From a third, which is more like a vent, billows white smoke

that is probably steam because steam is initially full but dissipates more quickly than smoke. It would thus be more likely to issue from a vent than a chimney.

The factory is behind a grass-covered hill that slopes from left to right. On top of the hill, to either side of a rocky path, are grouped two white goats and three children. One of the goats is lying down and two of the children, a boy and a girl, are seated. The third child, a girl, is standing. The boy is gesturing and the three seem to be engaged in conversation. The girls are wearing work clothes: long skirts, aprons, and scarves over their heads. The boy, wearing light brown pants, a white shirt, a gray vest and a hat, is also dressed for labor. A black man stands below the hill, to the lower left, in the entrance of a brown barn that is part of a group of similarly colored buildings to the left of the factory. A white picket fence curves between two of the buildings, emphasizing the rolling contour of the land. Beside the barn, faintly pictured in the lower left corner, are a brown carriage and three dark mules with long ears. Two are harnessed and the black farmhand seems about to hitch them to the carriage. He is wearing dark pants and a red

shirt that matches the red in the girls' clothes. He is also wearing a straw hat that is similar to the one the

The New American Landscape

•:::::::.`r`Sf:*,.g*&:i*x::r'-:`.$3+ -:»* rty.*i-^>``

Detail of Carmiencke' s painting.

boy is wearing. A tall but scrawn-y pine tree is growing next to the barn. Another pine tree, also not completely full, grows to the extreme right,. This tree is on top of

the hill so it appears taller and reaches higher on the canvas than the tree to the left. 1 In the distance to the left are rolling hills of various shades of pale green interrupted by occasionally autumn browns. One large tree in the center foreground is completely golden brown. Scattered among the hills are homes; one in particular is large and prominent. It is probably brick but in the distance it appears light brown. The river, a pale light blue, flows from the lower right corner to the center of the canvas where it begins to curve back to the right. Two steamboats and several

sailboats under full sail travel along in the same direction (right to left) . The sailboats and one steamer are clustered in the center of the canvas while the other steamer is at lower right and is painted in Inore detail. Black smoke escapes from its two tall black chimney stacks. The hull is white and the encasement for the paddlewheel is clearly visible. A large crowd sits or stands in the stern and three flags flap in the wind; one

Jeffrey A. Arons

appears to be 01' Glory. Another American flag waves from a pole on a house behind the iron works.

The river, the sky, and the rolling hills to either side of the river all converge at the horizon that exactly divides the canvas. The upper half is completely pale blue sky, characteristic of the Luminists. It is flushed of color by the sun that is not pictured. Long white clouds hover close to the horizon. Only the top right corner of the canvas is saturated and nearly matches the turquoise color of the factory's smoke.

Marking the

widest point of the river to the left is an almost unnoticeable wisp of the same blue smoke. The color is unique and unmistakable and can only signify another iron works. Two-dimensionally, there is a strong sense of line,

especially the diagonal. It is repeated in the roofs of all the buildings, the slope of the hill in the foreground, the slope of the hills along the riverbanks, and the direction of the river itself . The boats, especially the steamer at the lower right, are slanted to give a sense of movement. Tbere are round forms in the trees, the hills, the boy's hat, and the paddlewheel of the steamer, but the predominant feeling is linear. The picket fence forms a long curve but the individual pickets are themselves vertical forms, like the factory chimneys. Three-dimensionality is created by the sloping hills that diminish toward the horizon. The river, too, pulls the viewer's eye into the canvas. The viewer is situated above the scene, perhaps on another hill.

The worn path

is the entrance to the painting for the viewer, leading first to the goats and children, then to the factory, and then to the river. The colors, overall, are subdued; there is not much contrast. The lower left corner is dark and here Carmiencke has signed in brown. Isolated bright spots are the steam, the white goats, and parts of the children's clothing where sunlight strikes. The factory buildings are well-lighted and are clearly the prominent

The New American Landscape

Detail of Carmierrdse' s painting

feature of the painting. Poughkeepsie lies midway between New York City and

Albany. It is on the east bank of the Hudson so the point of view in Carmiencke`s painting is facing south. The boats are undoubtedly heading for the city. At midcentury, the steamboat was the most important and certainly the most impressive means of Hudson River travel.2 The shadows cast by the large center tree and the chimneys as

well as the lighting on the roofs suggest that the sun is to the left in the eastern sky. The shadows are long, suggesting 8 or 9 o'clock in the morning. The leaves are beginning to change color so it is most likely late September. There is a breeze in the air; sails are set, smoke moves to the left, one girl's apron and scarf also sway to

the left as does the flag behind the factory. For so early in the morning there is much activity. Initially, it appears as if Carmiencke has painted simply a Hudson River landscape.

However, there is much

more at stake. Bright, detailed, and prominent, the iron works are clearly the artist's primary interest. The Hudson River Valley, of course, has provided the source for innumerable paint-ings owing to its natural splendor.

Jeffrey A. Arons

Thus, one cannot help but ask why, in this painting, has it been reduced to serving as background for what is

effectively the portrait of a factory. By 1856, the Industri:i Revolution in the Northeast was in full gear and theJiron industry was already old. Iron ore could be found in almost all of the original colonies and in 1644, Massachusetts already had an iron works in operation; other New England colonies were soon to follow suit. By 1750, American ironmasters were making

iron products of nearly every kind and the arts of iron manufacture were steadily improving.3 One hundred years later, the Northeast was becoming increasingly urban and

industrialized and thus was better prepared for the war that was inevitable.4 The two goats suggest the relative lack of agriculture in the Northeast. No crops or other livestock are visible-just two goats. The two pine trees to either side of the canvas do not look healthy, suggesting perhaps the land is not very fertile. The factory seems to be occupying the only f lat piece of land that could possibly be used for planting. The children and the goats have seemingly had to make way for the factory and are now forced to occupy the rocky hill. No schools or playgrounds are visible.

In the industrialized areas, the family system of economic and cultural unity was giving way to the f actory system which,drew even young children into its fold. This may explain the inclusion of children in Carmiencke's painting. If it is the morning of a Sepember day, why are these children not in school? The reason may be that they are on their way to work in the factory. They have worn a path which they follow daily, leading from work to home. In 1856, there was no compulsory education law and it was not until the 1930's that legislation did away with most

child labor in industry. The children are visually related to the goats; they are two groupings, one a reflection of the other. The countryside is rocky, hilly, and not as well-suited for agriculture. The white picket

The New American Landscape

fence, in an attempt to mark a plot of land, is severely curved and thus seems not to belong on such a rolling countryside. Fences are a form of control over the environment, but the fence here serves only to emphasize tbe

hills, indicating that agrarian control of the land is near impossible. Only goats are adapted for such terrain. Unlike the goats, however, the children do not seem to belong on the rocky hill. They seem displaced. It is not apparent where they live and twentieth century mentality dictates that they should be in school if not at home. The black farmhand is wearing the same type of hat as the young boy so it would appear that the boy, too, is a farmhand. However, this is not the case. There is no farm apparent on which they could work. In addition, according to Edmund Platt, in Eagle's History of Poughkeepsie, the the iron ore to be smelted was hauled by mule teams. These teams were long a familiar street feature.5 The mules in the lower left of the painting are no doubt such a team. It could be said that the boy is watching the. goat.s but there is no need to watch only two goats. If he lived in the area, he probably worked in the factory, for Platt reports that the homes surrounding the iron works were mostly those of furnace employees The steamboats are further evidence of burgeoning industry and are typical of dozens that plied the Hudson River in the mid-nineteenth century. The American flag on the steamboat and on the shore would have had thirty-two stars in 1856.

The Poughkeepsie Transportation Company,

which operated a steamboat landing, was just upriver from Poughkeepsie Iron Works.

The two companies can be seen in

the painting The larger steamboat is visually identified with the facPoughkeepsie, New York (1870) by Jim Evans.

tory because the two are adjacent and, more importantly, because both are emitting smoke.

Smoke was to become a

symbol of the new industrialism.

It is certain, too, that

factories such as Poughkeepsie Iron Works were in the process of polluting the Hudson.

Jeffrey A. Arons

The river itself is a visual metaphor for the change and progress occurring. The sailboats are on the horizon while the steamboats, about to become the dominant mode of

transportation, are following closely, seemingly about to force the outdated sailboats out of the picture. Themovement along the river is all directed toward New York City so there is a sense that Poughkeepsie is moving toward the city, toward ilrminent urbanization, and that it is dependent on other cities, together forming the emerging northeastern metropolis. Indeed, Poughkeepsie was incorporated as a city in 1854, just two years before Carmiencke's

painting . In addition to urbanizing towns, factories (particularly iron works) were to have effects in otber areas of society as well.

In 1858, at a meeting of the American

Institute of Architects, Henry Van Brunt delivered a paper entitled "Cast Iron in Decorative Architecture. " `

Th;.4s ks called cm ±±±g]± age~for no ot:her mdeer.bat Ls so ormrfesednd i:n alL the ar.bs of utLtttry. 1IJhetherp mc]ulded from the furmace bcitbered o:rL the an;ail, or. Tolled, Ln

the rndtl, i,b i,s drtty deveLaped for. new fomls cend new uses. Its ssr.engths, bbs toughness c[nd its end:urcmee I.ender. de apptkcdeLe bo a thousand echgenci,es of marl;ufacb:ur.es .... It has been agal;in and

agckn offer'ed to the fbme arts. But orc;hibecture , sdeitng ha:ughtiz,g on her. acr.opoLfs , has bndtgncari;tlg I.efused bo receLve de, or. Teeeivbng b±, has done so

s±eatthitg cnd, urroorthkty , enszc[vi;ng bb to basest use_a caiid denying honor. caiid grace bo

i,ts toil. 7

And indeed although Sir Henry Bessemer invented in 1855 a

process whereby the more fire-resistant steel could be fabricated in quantities that made its use for architectual components practicable, it was not until the last two decades of the nineteenth century that architectural design began to incorporate steel into structural systems The Poughkeepsie Iron Company was one of several iron companies. A map of 1889 shows two other iron factories:

The New American Landscape

the Fall Kill Iron Works and the Buckeye Works. Poughkeepsie Iron Works closed down in 1909 due to competitio.n

from southern and western iron.9 Just eight years earlier, .. P. Morgan had consolidated the concerns of Carnegie and others to form the f irst billion-dollar corporation in the history of the country: United States Steel , Industrialism had important ef fects on American society and it is these ef fects that are part of a Proader understanding of Carmiencke`s painting. Factories were new buildings on the American landscape, but in addition

to visually changing it, factories physically altered the (?

environment: they addad smoke to the air and sludge to the water. People's lives changed. Factories employed child-

ren, changed family-oriented labor, facilitated a vast railway network, and promoted urbanization as people

situated themselves around their work place. Plait r.eporEs that "without the snorting of the blowing engine at the 'Lower Furnace' residents of the southern section of Poughkeepsie scarcely knew how to go to sleep at night."[° New architectural forms employing iron were

also to alter the landscape.

The natural beauty of the

land gave way to new features on the horizon.

Many paint-

ings of this period depict mills or factories, fast becoming common sights : Mt. KEaadn, by Frederic Church (1853) , Baker's Falls, by William Guy Wall (c. 1850) , Morning Belle, by Winslow Homer (1873) , and Glens Falls, New York, by Henry Augustus Ferguson (1882) . Carmiencke's

father was a civil engineer which may partially explain

his interest in factories, although it is not apparent that he painted other industrial scenes. Carmiencke and his contemporaries were part of a new

tradition of industrial scene painting. The tradition was continued and broadened during the early twentieth century by the Ashcan School, known for painting urban eyesores.

Although these artists may well have thought that they were simply painting what they saw around them, they were,

Jeffrey A. Arons

in fact, recording important changes in American life, changes of interest to the American historian. Carmiencke painted what was quickly becoming the new American landscape .

EroNOTEs

Lp|att, Eag|e's History of Po g 2||owat, The Hudson River, 3Beard, A Basic p.

eepsie, p.143.

p. 171.

History of the United States ,

207.

4statistics from Ibid. 5p|att, Eagle's History of Poughkeepsie, p.143. 6|bid.,

234-

7Spencer, Readings in American Art,

180.

8qu.' p.176. 9P|att, Eagle's History of Poughkeepsie, p. 234. |Olbid.'

p.143.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bark, Eugene C. and Henry Steele Commager, Our Nation, Evanston: Row, Peterson and Co.,1945.

Beard, Charles A. and Mary P`. Beard, A Basic History of the United States, New York: The New York Home Library, 1944.

Flint, Janet A. , Johann Hermann Carmiencke: drawings and watercolors, Washington D.C. Smithsonian Institute,

National Collection of Fine Arts, exhibition catalogue, Jam. 19-March 18, 1973.

The New American Landscape

Howat, John K., The Hudson River and its Painters, New York: Viking Press, 1972

Platt, Edmund, The Eagle's IIistory of Poughkeepsie from

the Earliest Settlements: 1683-1905, Poughkeepsie:

Platt and Platt,1905.

R. V. ±Eg::y;o:gi:::::: =±;-:±g: sL:::;=::g3ie city DireglReynolds, Helen Wilkinson, ed., The Records of Christ Church: 1766-1916, Poughkeepsie: Enterprise Publishing Co.,1919

Spencer, Harold, ed American Art: Readings f rom the Colonial Era to the Present, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1980

AcknowledgementSpecial thanks to Kevin J. Gallagher, local history librarian, The Adriance Memorial Library, Poughkeepsie, New York.

Personal correspondence, March 30, 1982.

The Poughkeepsie Iron lforks. From Edrmnd. Platt History of PougHceepsie 1683 -1905,Eg. 233.

MASKED BURGLARS IN MILLERTON - 1880

Chester Eisenhuth Fbhoh's general s±or.e cend post office zbas the.scene of a burgzeney Ln 1880 by thaee mcrsked men zDho escaped drti;o

i;he nd,ghi utthout a brace. The $1;000 reticmd for. their captwe toes never coLbeeted. Chesbexi EbsenhaEh fs Tcrij}n ELsborian3 Tcm!i of Nor.theast.

One hundred years ago, the village of Millerton, a thriving railroad "hub", was a peaceful little community located in northern Dutchess County, where it's law-abiding citizens went about their daily tasks with hardly any interruption. However, before this particularly hot August day in 1880 came to an end they were in store for

far greater excitement than they had ever known since the village was founded only thirty years earlier. The large, rambling Finch store stood (and still stands) opposite the New York Harlem Railroad depot and was presided over by the genial Jim Finch who had taken on

the business in lieu of his wages when the originalproprietors went into ban.kruptcy a few. years before.

The mer-

chandise consisted chiefly of furniture, dry goods, groceries, crockery, hardware, shoes, boots, paints and oils. The focal point of the premises was a huge "pot-belly" stove with a circle of chairs around it and it was here that the old-timers gathered to discuss many varied subjects. Part of the building housed the first Millerton Post Office with John H. Templeton as one of the early postmasters which leads us to the opening chapter of our tale ®

On a particularly hot August night in the year 1880, Jim Finch had locked up for the day and retired to his bedroom in the rear of the store. His teenage clerk, John Decker, had preceded him to bed and when his employer

checked the room, found the tousle-headed lad fast asleep. When all was quiet about 12:30 A.M., three dark figures

stealthily pried open a window on the north side of the

Chester Eisenhuth

building and made their way upstairs.

They first came to

the room where young John was sleeping and he was rudely

awakened by a strong hand clutching his throat and the

bright light of a lantern shining directly in his frightened eyes. As they held him tightly, one of them said, "Young fellow, we want you downstairs to open up the safe

for us." Producing a roll of clothesline, they rolled the helpless youth on his stomach and tied his hands tightly behind his back. As his ankles were being tied together he told his captors he was unable to open the saf e as he did not know the colnbination.

One of the men said, "That's

too thin" and proceeded to tear a long strip from the sheet for a gag. Grabbing Decker by his thick mop of hair, they jerked his head back and tried to force his mouth open,

but the lad held it firmly shut.

He continued to resist

as they started to pound him. Hoping to alarm his employer, young Decker suddenly shouted "Jim" as loud as he could. But he made a wrong move for just as he opened his mouth a gag was stuf fed in and tied f irmly before he could

close it again. The three men ran to Finch's room and found him just arising from his bed, apparently awakened by Tohn`s cry. Feeling a gun pressed to his temple he remained silent as he glanced at his own gun lying on his bureau across the room. Noting this, one of the thugs walked over and pocketed the weapon. Two of them returned to Decker, pulled him off the bed and ordered him into his employer's room. However, being tied so tightly he was unable to move so was dragged along the floor. They tied and gagged Finch, cut the ropes from Decker's ankles and marched the two prisoners down the stairs. Then the men ordered Finch to open the safe he replied that he didn't know the combina-

tion and besides there was little of consequence in it an:yway.

One of the men struck Finch on the head with a

gun and he retaliated by rushing at his assailant and butting him against the opposite wall. They restrained him and continued to hit him with.the revolver. Knocking

Masked Burglars in Millerton - 1880

him to his knees, the leader put a rope around Finch's neck, saying "Now damn you, open up or 1'11 choke you to

death." They threatened Decker as well but were soon convinced that he knew nothing about the safe. Finally Finch surrendered saying he would open the safe if he could have his spectacles. One of the men, moving silently

as a cat, his feet being muffled, retrieved the glasses. When the saf e was opened the three went through the con-

tents, sorting out the things they wanted and putting them in a large bag they had brought with them. Feeling faint, Finch requested a drink and one of the men obliged with a full glass of water, throwing it into his face to revive him. When the intruders had completed ransacking the premises, they blind-folded tne two prisoners and marched them upstairs to their respective rooms. Finch was tied spread-eagle to his own bed, hands tied to the headboard

and feet to the footboard.

Young John, still tightly

gagged and tied, was thrown face down on his bed and hog-

tied, hands and feet roped together behind his back. Convinced that their prisoners were helpless, the burglars went downstairs and continued to rummage the store, finally leaving by the front door. Sometime later, Mr. Finch succeeded in loosening his gag and started shouting for help. Miss Kate Clark, (later Mrs. Kennard) daughter of "Grid" Clark, proprietor of the Millerton Hotel, (stood until 1936 in the parking area behind the present diner) heard his cries and notified her father who came over to investigate. Discovering the hapless Finch on his blood-covered bed, he ran J

to the street Eo sulnmon help where he found Conductor George Kisselbrack and Wil.1 Woodruff . The three released

Finch and did their best to relieve his suf fering until the doctor arrived. During the excitement, poor young Decker's plight went unnoticed as he struggled vainly to release himself from the tight ropes. Finally someone went to his aid and when the ropes were cut the lad was unable to move for some time until the blood began to

Chester Eisenhuth

Jarres Finch 1327 - 1897.

Merchant 5n }thllerton, N.Y.

Photo taken ca. 1870 by

C. QIl]man, artist at

FiTh' s Gallery 298 th St.

PougHteepsie, N.Y.

circulate again. By this time the entire village had been aroused as the curious populace began pouring into the Finch store for a first hand account. A group went to the residence of Webster Deacon, the local telegraph operator who hurried to the railroad depot where he sent messages to the authorities at Poughkeepsie, Hudson, Hartford, Albany and New York. The Millerton Telegram started it's presses going and in a short time posters were printed of fering one thousand dollars for the apprehension of the villains so that all conductors on the early morning trains were liberally supplied with them. The following is taken from one of these original posters: "The store of James Finch, containing the post office, was robbed at one o`clock this morniing, Tuesday, August 3rd 1880.

The safe was robbed of

$1,000 in cash, about $275 in checks and Sl,000

in postage stamps of different denominations. The burglars were three in number and snort and thick set and dressed in dark clothes. Their height is about 5 f eet 5 inches and their hands soft and white ,

Masked Burglars in Millerton - 1880

$1,000 will be paid for the arrest of the thieves and the return of the property. James Finch

Millerton, N. Y."

After inventory was taken, it was found that the following items had been ta.ken from the safe: $105 in cash from Deputy Postmaster W. E. Penney,

$ 30 in cash property of George Snyder, placed there

the night before, $ 45.96 in cash, belonging to Mr. Finch, $570.85 cash and stamps of Postmaster Templeton, the

heaviest loser, $ 60 in gold, belonging to Horace Jenks (a $500 bond

belonging to Mr. Jenks was found in the morning, overlooked by the burglars) , $480.16 in corporation taxes,. placed there by Lon Austin of which $272.56 was in cash and $207.60 in checks.

All were taken, but as checks were not endorsed, payment was stopped. Mr. Austin's commission had not yet been taken from the amount. In all, a total of $1,088.35 in cash and stamps, a good night's haul for the burglars. Messrs. Finch and Decker described their assailants as short and thick set, two of them about 5 ft. 8 in., and

the third a little taller.

All three wore dark clothes

and short sack coats. As their faces were masked, no good description was forthcoming. However, one talked with a slight German accent. A few days later the Millerton Telegram came out witli these headlines : "MASKED BURGLARS!

clerk bound and gagged.

James Finch proprietor and

Mr. Finch knocked down

three times With a revolver! funds taken!

The corporation

The Village alarmed!

Meeting of

the citizens!" For the remainder of that memorable night crowds of men with lanterns could be seen going in all directions looking for traces of the vanished burglars. Had they

Chester Eisenhuth

been apprehended that night, certainly they would not have fared well. The Postmaster General's Office in Washington

reported that the total value of stamps taken amounted to $486.64 in denominations from one to thirty-cent stamps: the largest of them being three-cent stamps,10,420 in all, amounting to $312.60. Also, 3,470 one-cent stamps and 1,167 two-cent stamps were among the amount. A detective was employed from Pinkerton's Agency in New York for

over a week at a great expense but with no result. After the initial excitement had died down, Messrs. Finch and Decker were thoroughly examined by Dr. Stillman and his young assistant, Dr. Hoag. Mr. Finch was found to

have been brutally battered about tlie head and face, painful wounds which would remain tender for some days.

Young

Decker's injuries were not so bad, chiefly around his mouth made in the attempts to gag him, and rope burns on

his wrists from tne tight bindings. It was found that the burglars had f irst tried to enter the store through Humeston's meat market, where they had torn a hole in the wire netting on one of the windows. However, once in the market they found their way blocked by a heavy partition in the cellar. They then went up the outside stairs on the north side, trying to force a window there until f inally they were able to enter by a window near the safe. At first it was thought they might have been three escapees from the jail in Hudson who had broken out only a few days before the Finch robbery. Three men, believed to have been the ones connected with the robbery, had purchased tickets at the Harlem ticket office in Grand Central Depot in New York, for Coleman's Station that morning. All three got on Conduc-

tor Charley Francisco's train, taking seats in different parts of the car. They got off at Coleman's and started toward the Wheeler place. The station agent thought it strange that the men, one carrying a large black carpetbag, would start off so suddenly after alighting. They

Masked Burglars in Millerton - 1880

left the road soon after walking the track toward Millerton, talking earnestly to one another. When the Harlem express reached Coleman's on Tuesday morning, some of the

reward circulars were thrown out and af ter reading one the station agent concluded that the three men he had seen the night before were the culprits. As there was no telegraph office there, the agent drove immediately. to Millerton to

report the facts. At about midnight a short time before the robbery, Mrs. Horton, who lived in the Moran house, (where Dutchess Auto now stands) opposite Dr. Stillman's, (later the now-

gone Millerton Inn) heard one end of the clothesline

strike against the side of the building and thinking the line had broken did not immediately investigate. In the morning she discovered that the line was missing and upon

examination it appeared identical to the rope used in tying up Finch and Decker. The Harlem toolhouse near the lower railroad switch had been broken into and a crow-bar taken. A meeting was held on the top floor of the Brick Block

Hotel to take proper steps to catch the burglars, aboutl00 men present, presided over by Lawyer E. W. Simmons.

Many

suggestions were of fered and f inally it was decided that teams would go out on all the roads leading fromMillerton, inquiring at all the houses along the route. The groups were gone all .afternoon but returned without having unearthed any clues. On Wednesday, a letter from StewarE Eno, Pine Plains, stated that three men had stopped at the residence of Leander Smith, (three miles south of Pine Plains and near the P.H. and B.R.R.) about midnigbt on Tuesday, saying

they were lost and inquiring the way to Rhinebeck. Later they appeared at the residence of John A. Thompson near Stissing mountain making the same inquiries. The police at Pine Plains were notified and Messrs. John Scutt and Perry Loucks immediately started for that place with a fast team of horses thinking the fugitives were headed for

Chester Eisenhuth

the river. The trip was in vain for they were unable to either track down the men or unearth any further clues.. The story about the great robbery seems to end at this point and the tbree fugitives fade away into thepast. As far as can be ascertained, they never were apprehended nor is it known whatever became of them. reward was never paid.

Consequently, the

For the benefit of the interested historian, the building which was the scene of this robbery still stands, one of Millerton`s very few, fast-dwindling landmarks. Today, unoccupied and sadly neglected, it still looks down on it's scarcely recognizable surroundings. Gone is the huge front porch where sat the village Cornet Band serenading the ''boys in blue" as they marched off to the Civil War. Gone, too, is the Millerton Hotel, it's next door neighbor, razed in the 1930's and now a parking lot. The Finch building was erected in 1851 by E. W. Simmons, the

first place of business to appear in the newly formed setlement established by the advent of the extension of the Harlem Railroad, whose rails are also gone today. During the seventeen years remaining to him, Finch was called upon repeatedly to give his version of that unpleasant night in his life.

Young Decker, too, was some-

what of a hero and needed little coaxing to relate his harrowing experience. Eventually he married and fathered two sons, Louis and Ted, both now deceased. In later years he organized a local orchestra composed of his two sons, Arthur Warwick, Harry Husted, and himself . In 1897, at 70, Mr. Finch died a bachelor, havinglong courted Miss Alma Eggleston. Somewhere along the line, their romance was blighted and Miss Eggleston remained to the end of her days "one of life's beautiful unclaimed treasures . "

ARCHAEOLOGY AS HISTORIC PRESERVATION:

An Example f rom Dutchess County

Charles Fisher Locatio:n an,a pr.eser.vation of the Lccoscrn B:urn,al Grounds site of I)utchess Couri;try 's eaitkesb fcDnddy , gr.ew from pLcaii:ndng prior bo constr.uetion of a zi)asbencteer. breci:inend fachtdey. Chaates Ffsher bs an orchaeozogbsb empLeyed by New rock Sbc[±e .

Combined archaeological and historical research directed at the site of a proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility in the Town of Poughkeepsie resulted in the location of several historic and prehistoric sites.1 Among these were the stone foundations of historic structures and the Lawson Family Burial Ground. Since Pieter Lawson (Lassen) was Dutchess County's first recorded "permanent"

settler, the location of his house and the related family cemetery have generated considerable interest alnong local historians. While it is known that he was living in a house along the east shore of the Hudson River and on the south side of the Caspar Kill by 1688, the exact location was not clearly documented. The family cemetery, which was better known to local inhabitants, was also the subject of speculation when it came to on-the-ground

identification of this plot. The researcb briefly outlined in this report resulted in the identification and location of this family cemetery, which enabled the preservation of these features It is necessary to point out that the objective of this study was not simply to locate the Lawson Family Burial Ground, but to assess the proposed Tri-Municipal Treatment Plant Site for the presence of historical and archaeological resources. The aim is to preserve sites of importance, by locating them prior to project construction. In this way, projects may be designed to avoid

destruction of historic sites.

Charles Fisher

The proposed treatment plant site is situated in tbe southern portion of the Town of Poughkeepsie in Dutchess County. The study area is along the east shore of the Hudson River, bordered on the north by land of N. Y. Trap Rock and on the south by Bowdoin Park. It is currently overgrown with dense vegetation, which made field observa-

tion difficult. An earlier archaeological survey dTescribed the project area as extensively bulldozed, which eliminated the

possibility of locating prehistoric and historic sites. In contrast, our initial test excavations in the fall of 1979 revealed very little disturbance of subsurf ace cultural deposits in some areas, including the vicinity of two stone foundations. A number of soil layers containing artifacts dating from the mid l8th to the 20th century in their expected vertical sequence were located around the foundations. In addition, a prehistoric site was discovered. While our initial archaeological tests suggested that undisturbed historic and prehistoric material evidence was present at the proposed plant site, new historical doculnentation became available which indicated the probable location of the Lawson Family Burial Ground. This information was obtained by 8. Bucbanan of the Bowdoin Park Historical Society who kindly in;de it accessible.3 A

brief sur[mary of this historic evidence of structures and activities within the proposed plant site follows. Settlement History According to Reynolds, Peter Lawson, the first Dutch landowner living in Dutchess County, had a stone house south of the mouth of the Casper Kill in about 1688. This would place his house north of an existing foundation

investigated during this study, but possibly within the proposed treatment plant site. In a deed of April 4, 1751 Peter I.awrence Lassing

(Lawson) transferred the parcel north of the stone wall on the proposed site to Drake and Jaycoks. In this document, Peter Lawrence I.awson is referred to as "boatman of Pough-

Archaeology as Historic Preservation

keepsie". It is possible that Lawson ran a ferry in the vicinity of the project area, thus the title "boatman". In addition, the deed referred to "houses, barns, outbuildings, eta., quarries, mines, etc."5 The deed also excepts i/2 acre for a "burial place". An untitled map of 1798 shows two houses within the northern portion of the study area marked "Leroy".6 one

of these structures is back from the river, apparently the location of an early stone house, uphill to the east of the project area.7

The second house is shown to be in the

vicinity of foundations in the project area. A number of early maps indicate a road ending at the approximate location 6f a stone wall known as the Landing Place.8 According to local tradition,i the landing for a ferry across the Hudson River was located in the southern t corner. of I]eroy's property along the river until the 1850's when the railroad cut it off. This location is the terminus for a road given a nuriber of names in various deeds and maps.

• Meridith Howlands Estate, called Pleasant Hill, is

remembered by a number of local residents to have been in

the location of a third foundation located during orir field study.

Lawson Family Graveyard

The exact location of the graveyard is not clear from the historical records. Poucher and Reynolds placed the graveyard in an orchard.9 An orchard is visible on a 1925 aeiial photograph of the site area which closely corresponds Eo the "graveyard" tested unsuccessfully during an early archaeological s.urvey of the site. An aerial photograph from 1935 shows the cemetery as a dark area in a cultivated field.- It is claimed that during the 1930's and 1940's

the stones were moved .aside to permit plowing

and then replaced. Eventually the stones were no longer visible. The superintendent of Bowdoin Farm staked out the area believed to .have been the cemetery prior to soil mining in the early 1950`s.

Charles Fisher

Historic documentation clearly indicates that the area of the graveyard was plowed for at least two decades, which would have formed a zone of uniformly dark soil

rendering evidence of graves in the upper stratum invisible at the sod level. Any technique employed to locate graves or other subsurf ace f eatures in a plowed area requires examination of soil zones undisturbed by agricul-

tural activity, below the topsoil. Archaeological Testing

The burial area is currently elevated above the surrounding land, which has been heavily soil-mined. Fence posts outline this land which was historically maintained as the cemetery site (Fig. i) . Soil cores were

taken at regular (i meter) intervals along an east-west line in the southern portion of the fenced-in area and in the central portion. Cores in the central area (10 meters north and 8 meters west of the southeast corner fence post) indicated a soil rich in organic matter at a depth of over one meter. Test 40 was placed over this soil core to investigate this anomaly. This test, initially a .5 meter square, was enlarged to a one meter square when a

dark stain was found in the northeast portion at the base of tbe plow zone. This stain was also present at the base of the plow zone in the northwest portion of the enlargement to Test 40, so another one meter square (Test 46) was

excavated to the north of Test 40.

An additional test

(Test 47) was placed to the north of Test 46 and also excavated to the base of the plow zone. The actual graves were not excavated or exposed during this study, which merely located and napped the upper portion of the grave trench . The topsoil, a dark brown sandy loam, was carefully excavated to its final depth, approximately 20-25 cm. below the surface. As soon as the subsoil, a yellow-brown sand, appeared the excavation floor was cleaned with trowels. A long rectangular stain was present in the

central portion of the excavated trench, oriented north to

Archaeology as Historic Preservation

Figure i Map of Cemetery with Best locations and Soil Cc>re Locations

BOWDOIN

FARM

CEMETERY

Archaeology as Historic Preservation

south (Fig. 2) . This stain consisted of slightly darker soil, probably greater in organic content, which continued into the subsoil. At the north end of this dark stain was a limestone slab which had been chipped along its border. Another piece of limestone was present over the northwest portion of the stain. A second rectangular stain was

partially revealed in the west-central portion of the excavated trench. A third limestone slab was present above this second stain. The completely exposed stain, approximately i.4 meters long and 5 meters wide, was probably the burial of a small child or infant. Although the second stain wasnot totally uncovered, its north-south dimension is considerably larger than the east-west dimension of the first stain. If the relationship between .the length and width of these features is assumed to be similar, an estimated length of over i.8 meters may be obtained for the second burial stain.

In addition to the regular, rectangular soil stains that would be anticipated if the earth was excavated and replaced, the presence of the limestone slabs at the ends

of these features further supports their interpretation as burials. One of these slabs (situated between the two stains) resembles a headstone, although no inscription is present. This stone has roughly chipped borders that ''round off`' one end of the stone. All of these stoneswere found on their sides at tbe base of the plow zone and evidence plow scars.

It is also necessary to mention that the exploratory archaeological trenches excavated previously by others are located in other areas of the graveyard and are not the dark stains recorded here.

Johnson and Howson opened a

trench at the south-central portion of the graveyard and another archaeologist (personal communication) has tested

the south-west portion, both with negative results

Recent trenches would also contain more organic matter and would appear much darker than the observed stains. The

relatively faint appearance of these features indicates

Charles Fisher

considerable antiquity for their formation. The presence of rectangular soil stains at the base of the plow zone with associated chipped limestone slabs in the documented location of the Lawson Family Cemetery has been demonstrated in this field study. These stains were not excavated and no human skeletons were exposed

during this investigation. A small number of prehistoric items, including one hammerstone, one utilized flake, eight flakes, and eight pieces of trim were recovered from the excavation of the plow zone in the cemetery. No prehistoric features or living floors were observed in the soil beneath the plow Zone ®

Summary

Cemeteries have been recorded as rich sources of

historical information, containing data on a wide variety of research topics including demography, . ideology and social organization. The archaeological" identification of the Lawson Family Cemetery supports the hypothesis that the first non-Indian settlement in Dutchess County was within the area of Bowdoin Farm in the Town of Poughkeepsie. While the archaeological investigations described

here did not attempt to excavate graves, or find the total number of burials within the cemetery, research with these objectives is possible in the future only if the cemetery can be protected and preserved. The archaeological location of the Lawson Family Cemetery, along with other historic and prehistoric sites, enabled the consulting engineers to avoid these locations in their plant design. The site will also be fenced off

to protect them from the general construction activities associated with the building of the treatment plant. It is also possible to place interpretive signs in front of these sites to inform visitors to the treatment plant of the former uses of this location during both prehistoric and early historic times 11

Archaeology as Historic Preservation

APPENDIX

Aerial Photog.raphs Privately made. In possession of Bowdoin Park Historical Association. Fairchild Aerial Survey, 8520 271. Soil Conservation Department, Millbrook, New York. 1946

#416VV-16Pli-M-2-16PS-13-MAR-46-5M 350 ,

Soil Conservation Department,

1960

n.d.

Millbrook, New York. 6-6 60EFC 54-25, Soil Conservation Department, Millbrook, New York. Sheet 15, Dutchess County Planning Board (c. 1960-1965) .

1966

Sheet 183. Board.

Dutchess County Planning

ENDNOTES

Lcharles Fisher, (1980a) Stage 11 Archaelogical and Historical Survey of Plant Site 18. (Bowdoin Farm -Town of Poughkeepsie) . Submitted to Hayward and Pakan Associates. With Greg Laden; (1980b) Addendum to the State 11 Archaeological and Historical Survey of Plant Site 18. Submitted to Hayward and Pakan Associates. 28. Buchanan, Documentation for the Location of the Lassen Burial Ground. (n.d.) (See Appendix Ill of Fisher, 1980a) .

3Ibid. 4Helen Wilkinson Reynolds, Dutch Houses in the Hudson Valley Before 1776 (The Holland Society of New York, 1929; reprinted 1965, Dover, New York.) 5c|ifford M. Buck, The I]ossing Family

(Privately

published genealogical manuscript, n.d. , Salt Point, New

York 12578) Deeds and Records, Dutchess County Court House, Poughkeepsie, New York.

6Hand drawn map, untitled,1798. Available in the Adriance Memorial Library, Poughkeepsie, New York.

Charles Fisher

loo

7Neil H. Johnson, Referred to as "Old Stone Cottage" (Site 431) , Literature Search and Windshield Survey of the Tri-Municipal Sewer Improvement Area,1979 , Dutchess County, New York; Clune and Johnson, 18 West Avenue, Albion, New York 14411, p. 26.

8|bid., F. W. Beers, Atlas of New York and Vicinity. Beers, Ellis, and Soule, 1861, 1891; 0. W. Grey and F. A.

Davis, New Historical Atlas of Dutchess County, New York, 1876 .

9]. W. Poucher and Helen Wilkinson Reynolds, Old

Gravestones of Dutchess County, New York, Dutchessi6:unty Historical Society,1924, reprinted 1976. L°L. Lewis Johnson and Jean E. Howson, Archaeological and Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation, Plant Site 18, Tri-Municipal Sewer Improvement Area,1979; Dutchess County, Project C-36-948, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York.

L[I would like to express ny sincere thanks to William Rohde of Hayward and Pakan Associates for his concern with

protecting the archaeological sites mentioned here.

a. Buchanan of the Bowdoin Park Historical Association shared her research on the cemetery, which was largely

responsible for the success of our efforts.

Clifford

Buck, Lee Beaudway, and Lawson Edgar were also helpful in

providing sources of information.

THE LASSEN FAM.ILY 1659-1982:

Dutchess County's first settlers a. Buchanan Evidence suppor.ting t:he hassen fandty as the eaiti,esi; settler.a i,s pr.esenbed together? with a a:kscussbon of the Lassen Pcdee:Iile.

8. BuehaiicDri

ks hksboricari for Bcrodoin Pa]ck cnd, also the Boa)dot;n Pcack Hi,sbo]deccid Assoebctekcrn.

With Dutchess County's Tercentenary upon us, it is

timely to set the record straight about our county's first documented settler. Many years of the early county historians' errors have been perpetuated from one account

to another. Pieter Pietersen Lassen, Dutchess County's first documented settler, was brought to Albany from Amsterdam as an indentured servant in 1659, probably about the age of 14. H; and/or his earlier family may have had their old

world origins in the Barnegat area of Friesland, in the Netherlands near Denmark. Within a few years of his arrival in Albany, Pieter had become part owner of a brewery there and had a growing family. About 1686, he moved

to Esopus briefly, then to the wild east bank of the Hudson above "the Hoek". He had purchased a tract of unsettled land from Arnout Viele, who had an Indian deed to it recorded in Albany in-1680. This tract of land was soon usurped by the Rombout and Schuyler Patents. Lassen and

Viele petitioned Albany to set the matter. Eventually in 1704 Lassen was granted a patent to a portion of the disputed land, where he had established a homestead.

The

boundaries of Pieter I,assens's Patent form a triangle, with the Hudson River as the west boundary, and the Wappingers Creek as the southeast boundary. The north boundary is formed by an east-west surveyed line running from the mouth of Jam Caspar`s Kil to just above the Little Falls of the Wappingers Creek. Pieter is known .Eo have built a stone house, by 1688,

a. Buchanan

102

on the riverbank just south of Jan Caspar's Kil. A son, William, born to him soon after, was the first non-Indi.an child born in Dutchess County. William, who was more than 90 years old when he died, was revered for this unique honor. When Pieter died in 1709, he was buried near his house.

The spot became the Lassen Family Burial Ground

and was used until 1794 or later. Local tradition says that some Indians are buried in it, too, probably Christianized Indians or Indian slaves. After his death, Pieter Lassen's Patent was divided into seven shares for his Heirs, redivided over the years, and sometimes re-combined into the original parcels. Much of the land stayed in the family for a long time, though names changed through marriage. The Lassen name itself also changed; several English spellings superseded the Dutch spelling. The land of Pieter Lassen dr. in.eluded the w;st side of the Great Falls of the Wappingers Creek. His son, Pieter Ill, was one of a dozen or so grandsons and greatgrandsons of Pieter Sr. who were also named Pieter Lassen. Pieter Ill moved to Beekman, where the spelling of the I

family changed to "Lossing".

Benson I.ossing, the noted

historian, journalist, and engraver descended from Pieter Jr

Ill. During the 1700's there were numbers of Lassens, Lassings, Lossings, and Lawsons in Dutchess County. The name {

Lawson was a common one in the patent area until the mid1900's. Many persons currently living in the county bear\ ing other names trace their families to Dutchess County's t*,

first documented settler.

.c+

The Lassen Patent cov~ered the so'uthern part of todayTs r

Town of Poughkeepsie. \ The Lassenluyler-Van Cortlandt. (Rombout) boundary 'iine is still plainly visible on aerial photographs and traceable -.in parts o.n the ground (the I

western descent of CoEtam Hill Road follows it) . Presently

well-known places lyihg within the paten`t are: the village of New Hamburg (daughter Maria Tansen's share) ; the partof

The Lassen Family 1659-1982

103

the village of Wappingers Falls on the west side of the creek (Pieter Jr. 's share) ; Mt. Alvernia ("The I.assenberg", divided between sons Isaac and William) ; andBowdoin Park (the share of grandson Pieter, Tohannes' son) . The South Hills Shopping !4all (Sears) straddles the surveyed north boundary, at Route 9. Pieter`s stone house evidently was torn down in 1911,

when the railroad acquired a narrow parcel of land alongside its tracks just south of the Caspar Kil, and built a water scoop there. The house is believed to have been located at the riverbank on this parcel, near the proposed Tri-Municipal Plant Site and Bowdoin Park. Most unfortunately, the land on which the house stood was deeply excavated for the water scoop complex, precluding archaeological investigation. The landing, the beginning of the old road inland from it to New Hackensack (DeLavergne Avenue

follows a part of it) , and the burial ground, lie on the sewer plant site and are being preserved in part as the plant is constructed.

• A small community of houses clustered around the land-

ing during the 1700's. Several stone foundations are tobe found on Tri-Municipal land and in adjoining Bowdoin Park. One of these, on the sewer plant site, the subject of recent archaeological test-digging, shows evidence of being

a very early all-stone house.

It is, therefore, also a

possible contender for designation a.s "Pieter's House". It is hoped that a future thorough archaeological excavation may be done to shed more light on the subject. Some pri-

vately owned pre-revolutionary houses are still standing in the neighborhood. One of these, quite nearby and alongthe old road, is all stone to the roof peak, and, though much altered and yet unrecognized by local historians, gives evidence of dating back €o Pieter's time. IE is well

worthy of further investigation. The Lassen Family Burial Ground, as described in Old Gravestones of Dutchess County, is barely discernible nowadays. The stones vanished some years ago. The burial

8. Buchanan

104

ground, the previously mentioned foundations, and the landing were spared in spite of repeated sieges of soilmining over the years which destroyed all the rest of the ground around Pieter's old homestead. Among the number of descendants of Pieter Lassen who

still reside in the county is Clifford M. Buck, a professional genealogist. He has done extensive research on the Lassen Family and their land holdings. His genealogy of the Lassen family, complete to the fourth generation after Pieter Sr., is available in local libraries. He has recently compiled a collection of deed abstracts and survey sketches of the deeds derived from the Lassen Patent . The Bowdoin Park Historical Association, committed to

the preservation and development of historic sites in Bowdoin Park and its environs, has done considerable field work and research to locate deed boundaries and house sites. This work compliments Mr. Buck's work by providing tangible evidence for the documentation. The Association encourages public awareness of the area's history, which began with Pieter Lassen three hundred years ago.

Documentation for the location of the Lassen Burial Ground: Deeds

2:333,

59:432,133:353,170:243,

235:221,

236:355,

416:491, and Mortgage 5:372 demonstrate that the "Bury all Ground" was on land north of the line described as "Begin-

ning at the River near a chestnut tree and running S60°E (or 63°) to a heap of stones near a rocky limestone kill", which line served as the southern boundary of land belonging successively to Pieter I.awrence Lassen, Drake & Jaycocks, Aaron Midlar, Peter LeRoy, John LeRoy, Meredith Howland, and (as a parcel) to I. & I. Grinnell, Temple Bowdoin, and the Children's Aid Society. Deeds

61:346,

61:349,

89:10,126:i,130:64,

416:491

dem-

onstrate that the line described above served as the northern boundary of land belonging successively to Peter

Johannes Lawson, Aries Vanderbilt, James Lenox, Gardiner

G. Howland, (very briefly Meredith Howland) , Toanna How-

land Grinnell (as the main body of the estate) , Temple Bowdoin (as a parcel separately described) , and the Children's Aid Society. 556:443,

597:174,

See also 629:304,

489:135, 648:219.

489:131,

497:215,

The Lassen Family 1659-1982

105

The book Old Gravestones of Dutchess County by J. Wilson

Poucher, M.D. and Helen Wilkinson Reynolds ,

published in

1924, describes the Lassen Burial Ground as being "on land owned by Mr. George T. (Temple) Bowdoin, north of the res-

idence of the late Mr. Irving Grinnell and south of Jan

Casper`s Kil, in an orchard."

Deeds 133:353, 235=221,

236:355, and 416:491 demonstrate that, at the publication date of the book, G. T. Bowdoin's northernmost boundary

was the north line of the parcel, formerly rohn LeRoy, resulting from the Howland-Banksrfrinnell exchange of 1888, and later conveyed to Bowdoin as a part of the Netherwood estate. Maps of the time, in possession of C. Howard Ellis of New Hamburg, illustrate this transaction. Aerial photograph in possession of Bowdoin Park Historical

Assrdoc., privately made, a.1925,low altitude,low angle, mid-summer. Shows cemetery location hidden by trees of a mature orchard, as described in Old Gravestones of Dutchess County. M. Howland house and I. Grinnell house both

show clearly. Aerial photograph available from Soil Conservation Dept. , Millbrook, Fairchild Aerial Survey 8520 271, 1935.

dark area in cultivated field at site of cemetery.

Shows

Wit-

nesses say that in 30's and 40's the stones were moved

aside to permit plowing over the burial ground. After plowing, the stones were replaced. This procedure was

continued until the stones disappeared years later.

Aerial photograpb available from Soil Conservation Dept. , Millbrook..

Numbered 416VV-16PL-M.-2-16PS-13-Mar-46-5M 350.

Field where cemetery located still under cultivation, but no soil discoloration visible due to snow cover at time of photo.

March 1946.

Aerial photograph available from Soil Conservation Dept. , Millbrook.

Nulrfoered 6-6 60 EEC 54-25.

1960.

Clearly

visible is the area staked out by Frank Searles, superintendent of Bowdoin Farm, many years before, to mark cemetery after the stones vanished. Soil mining immediately around the staked area was done in 1954. Aerial photograph available from Dutchess County Planning

Board, Poughkeepsie. By Aero Service Corp., between 1960 and 1965 (not dated) ; sheet 15. Area staked as cemetery

plainly visible. Aerial photograph available from Dutchess County Planning Board, Poughkeepsie.

sheet 183.

Aero Service Corp., dated 1966;

Soil mining in 1961, on all four sides of area

staked as cemetery, is clearly visible.

8. Buchanan

106

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adriance Memorial Library, Poughkeepsie. All the usual sources of old documents, atlases, maps,

clippings, and collected papers.

Buchanan, a. , Documentation for' the Location of the Lassen Burial Ground. Unpublished. Listing of per-

tinent deeds, maps, pijblications, aerial photographs.

1979.

Buck, Clifford M. The Lossing Family. Privately published genealogical manuscript, Salt Point, N.Y.

Buck, Clifford M. Collection of Extracts of Deeds held by Lassen Family and descendants, and/dr derived from the Lassen Patent. Unpublisbed. Poucher, I. Wilson and Reynolds, Helen W. eds., .Old Gravestones of Dutchess County, New York, C.oil.ec-

tions Dutchess County Historical Society (Poughkeepsie,1924) ,

Reynolds, Helen W.

vol.11,

232

Dutch Houses in the Hudson Valley Re-

Before 1776 The Holland Society of N.Y. printed 1965, Dover, N..Y., p. 318

Reynolds, Helen W.

Poughkeepsie, The Origin and Meaning of the Word, Collections of the Dutchess County

Historical Society (Poughkeepsie,1924) , vol.1 Reynolds, Helen W.

Library .

Unpublished Notes.

Personal communications.

Personal field work.

1960-1982.

Adriance Memorial

THE WASHINGTON HOLI.OW FAIR

Louise Tompkins Hkstcndeal nob6s cnd: per.s6ndl eapendenees ` a± the original I)u:±chess Corn;dy faingr.ounds. Louise Torrrfubns bs bo:imiL hisboricm of t:he

Torn of Washington.

The original fairground of the Dutchess County Agricultural ., Society, organized in 1806,I was situated at the northeast corner of Routes 82 and 44 at Washington Hollow. It was so named to,honor George Washington. According to '..I

tradition he and his of f icers made camp one night under a huge cottonwood tree which stood in f ront of the present Cottonwood Inn. For a great many years, the WashingtontHollow Fairwas

the grand event of the sulrm.er season.. Farmers and their families came from all over the county in coaches drawn by four horses, wagons drawp by two horses, carriages drawnby one horse, ox carts, and on foot. Many of the familieshad to leave home at 4 o'clock in the morning so they could spend as much time as possible at the Fair. The farmers usually owned their own farms. Some lived on farms which had-been in the family for three generations. The farmers, their wives, children and grandchildren all knew each other. When they arrived at the Fair, they greeted each other with such joy and enthusiasm that they seemed to be aE a Farmer's Reunion, instead of .at a )

country fair. Bands played lively music, and when:one band stopped

playing, another began. Vendors,.sold cotton candy and lemonade, "made in the shade, by an Old Maid"-r so they said! Farmers' wives displayed at booths their canned fruits, jellies, pickled pears, peaches, and cucumbers. At other booths they displayed things tbey had made such as bedspreads, rugs, dresses, aprons, and other handmade items. The farmers exhibited their finest horses, cows, sheep, pigs, goats, chickens, turkeys, geese, and ducks. Some farmers started the day before the Fair opened to +

Louise Tompkins

108

drive their cattle along the road to the Fair, arriving at the Fairground in the late afternoon. Animals were put in the barns or under the sheds, where they spent a restful night. In the morning they were refreshed and ready to be judged for prizes. The horse races were the sensational attraction at the Fair. Some farmers raised, trained and raced their own horses at the race track built on the fairgrouhds in 1842. Edwin Thorne raised race horses at Thorndale, his estate near Millbrook. His magnificent stallion named Thorndale was the father of Lady Thorndale, one of the fastest race horses of her time. She trained and raced on the Washington Hollow Fairground race track, although Thorne had built his own track at Thorndale. When the famous stallion died, he was buried on the lawn at Thorndale, and 300 people

attended his funeral! Azariah Arnold of Washington Hollow raised a beautiful race horse which he named Mambrino Chief after a character in Mambrino's "Helmet", a popular mystery novel of that time. Mambrino Chief raced at' the Fairground and his ability deeply impressed Edwin Thorne. When James 8. Clay, son of Henry Clay, came north looking for good horses, Edwin Thorne advised him to buy Mambrino Chief . He followed Mr. Thorne's advice and took the horse back to Kentucky, where he became the ancestor of the famous Kentucky race horses. A

One day Washington Velie of Washington Hollow saw a lively brown mare following behind a gypsy wagon. He purchased her, named her Flora Temple, and trained her as a race horse. She became a famous race horse, and the inspiration for the song "Camptown Races. "

Beautiful cattle were exhibited at the Washington Hollow Fairground. George Ayrault of La Grange exhibited.oxen which weighed 4,000 pounds apiece. His magnificent "Queen of Cows" weighed 3,800 pounds and had to be transported in a specially constructed sledded pen. The-Queen of Cowswas exhibited in Chicago in 1876.

The Washington Hollow Fair

log

Dr. G. Howard Davison of Altamont Stock Farm near

Millbrook, exhibited in the early l890's beautiful prizewinning Shropshire sheep which ne imported from England. Dr. Davison also exhibited prize-winning Guernsey cattle, Berkshire pigs, horses and prize-winning white ponies he imported from England.

I remember the f irst time I went to this f amous Fair with my grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. W. D. Hale, in 1913.

Grandpa hitched Topsy, his fast road horse, to the carriage with the top. Grandma and I climbed into the carriage with him and Topsy took us at a fast trot to theFair at Washington Hollow. Grandma met several ladies at the Exhibition Hall. They went into the Hall together, talking happily about what had happened since last year. Grandpa drove Topsy under a shed, and tied her there. Then he and I walked around the grounds looking at all the beautiful animals. We stopped at the grandstand to watch the trotting horse races. I had never seen a horse race and I was

thrilled to see the horses flash around the race track ata terrific rate of speed for horses-r so it seemed to me. Grandpa picked the winner in each race, and I picked the loser! "Weezie", Grandpa said, "we can`t stay for the baseball game, we must start now if I am to get home in timeto milk our cows." After we picked up Grandma at tne Exhibition Hall, Topsy galloped home as fast as any race horse. As we drove into our driveway, Grandma said happily, `'This is the end of a perfect day!" A day at the WashingtonHol1ow Fair was one to be remembered always. ENDNOTES

[Helen W. Reynolds, "The Dutchess County Agricultural Society", Yearbook, Dutchess County Historical Society, 1928, 54 ; Caroline Haviland, "Some of the Members of the Dutchess County Agricultural Society in 1853", Yearbook, Dutchess County Historical Society,1942, 55-57

THE CIVIL WAR COMES TO DUTCHESS COUNTY

David I]und Hen rock catty dr.aft I.i,obs a:wing the Civtt Won had a disrapbbve effect on I.esi,dents caiid pr.aperrty Ln Pougivheepsbe , Pfeascaite

Vedley, cand Bc[ngofl. Less than tine peTceat draftees Ln Dutchess Coon:ty act:ualtg seTi]ed Ln the Undcrn arrng. David I,and beaches Lm a privclee schooL.

The Civil War Era has been one of the most studied periods in Dutchess County`s history. The county's mil-

itary contribution to the war effort is well known, as are many of the major effects of the war on noncombatants. Yet

often the minor crises of the day, from the fear of riots and sabotage to the irritations of avoiding the nation's first military conscription, have receded into the misEs of history, large though they may have loomed at the time. The wartime issues of the Poughkeepsie Daily Eagle give

vivid evidence of the immediacy of these crises to their contemporaries . The citizens of Dutchess received their greatest scare of the war during IIee`s invasion of the North in mid-1863. It was not the spectre of Confederate soldiers

that then terrified the county's inhabitants, but rather the presence of angry, rioting mobs just downriver in New York City. On Saturday, July 11, 1863, the draft was begun in upper Manhattan.

Over 1,000 names were peace-

fully drawn. Things didn't go as smoothly on July 13, however, and by the end of that day the infamous New York

draft riots were in full swing.1 mobs raged through the city.

For three days, angry

The events in New York were

to have quite an effect on the city of Poughkeepsie. One of the f irst acts of the rioters was the cutting of the telegraph lines, thereby isolating the city from the rest of the country for long periods. Since Poughkeepsie had the first Associated Press of fice north of New York, the local telegraph operator and a reporter from the

David Lund

112

Eagle set up what they called "a sort of headquarters for New York news" to relay what news of the riots they could

gather to the rest of the state.2 As steamboats, overland travellers, and occasional trains reached Dutchess County from N.ew York City, news and rulnors that they brought would be sent on, so that upstate New York and some other

sections of the Northeast received most of their news of the riots via Poughkeepsie. The telegraph was not the only service disrupted by the riots. Sections of railroad track were torn up, with the result that the trains running north to Dutchess County were suspended for several days, interrupting passenger, mail, and freight services. The trains couldn't run south into New York, either. On July 14 the citizens of Poughkeepsie found themselves confronted by "about 40 ununiformed solders" who had come down on the railroad and

who "by means of the interruption of travel were obliged

to wait here for further orders.

During their stay they

comlnitted outrages in various places, smashed the windows of the railroad saloon, broke into J. P. Dickenson's grocery, and fired their muskets, loaded with ball and car-

tridge, into the air."3

Several citizens were treated to

the sound of musket balls whizzing past their ears.

Four

or five of the soldiers declared their intention of joining the rioters when they reached New York.

Not surprisingly, it was that very night that several meetings of concerned citizens were held to prepare to defend Poughkeepsie against any possible violence arising from the New York riots. Three companies of about 100 men each were formed, described by the Eagle as "resolute men,

ready to assemble at a moment's warning. If their services are needed, they will not fire blank cartridges.''4 Since one of the main targets of the New York rioters was that city's Black population, Poughkeepsie's Negro colnmunity naturally f eared for its safety should rioting spread. Accordingly, a Negro military company was formed, its approximately 60 members determined "to defend their

The Civil War Comes to Dutcness County

113

rev. James W. C. Pennington

fugitive slave, abolitionist and

author of a blacEc history' teat. Rev. Pennington taught in a black school jn 1863.

Frfu Armistead,

A Th:ibute for the Negro,1878,p.408

lives and homes from unlawful and riotous assemblages". Commanded by George E. Dickenson, this company met every

other night for drill throughout the rest of the sulrmer and occasionally paraded through the city.5 With the railroad tracks in New York torn up, milk

trains couldn't make their daily runs into the city. They began to be stopped at stations outside New York to await the restoration of service. By Wednesday, July 15, several freight cars full of milk were at Poughkeepsie and

could go no farther.

It was decided to sell off their

contents at a penny a quart. The sale began at noon and immediately people of all ages and classes` f locked to the

station with anything that would hold liquid to take advantage of the bargain. At three o'clock there were 40 to 50 people in line to buy milk and the streets near the depot were f illed with people either carrying of f milk or coming back for more. It was a hot afternoon, and, by this time, the milk was beginning to sour, but people continued to buy it through the early evening. As one woman cormented, "the pigs will drink it if no one else

David Lund

114

will."6 The pigs didn't drink alone. Many of the city's children spent their pennies on the souring milk, and doctors were kept busy the next day treating young stomachs that had drunk too much of it.7 Unfortunately, not all of Poughkeepsie's residents were as lightly touched as these children. On July 27 the

E±g±± printed a letter from J. W. C. Pennington, the principal of Poughkeepsie's "Colored School". Pennington wrote i About I:he 13bh tot Last rro:yi:th], I Left ray fand:Ly caTiong seven ot:her. peacechLe eozor.ed fcndtkes cde #31Z W. 26bh Str.eet. . .Nee York vihere zbe have I.eskded for. mor.e than 3 yectt.a, caiid carne her.e to bal€e Char.ge of the CoLor.ed

SchooL.

I br.crughi onLg a Change of ctothimg with me,

cmd a fen notebooks, beeving alz rag other effects .... AV the close of rriy schooz. . .I proceeded peacechz;g bo Ne:ul ¥oth, cnd, a;ireckdy bo rriy Tesi,de:nee, hcipi;mg I:ha;i I

should see rrry fcnd:dy chene I Left i;hems but crn Teaching rag door I found it bcdeteTed by i:he mob, c[nd Closed. Nor

bs this all,. rty ctppeccecnee zbas the si,gnat for. the hadr eons shout-''KLIl the dcrmed black nigger," foflcJijoed by a she)er2 of s±oines.

W£€hout shabLmg cniay signs of alonrri

oT eonar.dice, I left i;:he boceditg as socyn as I could c[:nd tialked cifeout the chby for sbtt hours deth a vben bo fond rrry foniez;g, and to see hco it zbas with t:he coLOTed peapze genenalty. I di,a nob succeed Ln findi;mg Tray I_arrlthy, ap bo this moment. I de not l<encro zbhether. ray w±f_e i,s arriong I:he tfroi;ng or I:he dead. I I.eb:urmed h?I.e _I:his evend:yig by the 'Many PcroetL' 3 sc[ttsfted I:hak I:he half

has not been boLd.

J. W. C. Pend;ngf;on

P.S. Should this meet the eye of calayone who can Lnforrrl ne of t:he u)her.echouts of lay robfe A:hera Penndngbon, they wttl do _a kbndness by cormrruri;i,ea;itmg.with rna ct

this peace. 8 Pennington's family was apparently unbarmed, and they were

eventually reunited. When a momentous event occurs today, publishers inevitably rush out a `'quickie" paperback book to capitalize

on the public's interest. Publishers of the Civil War era were no less slow to smell a profit in current events. On August 3, Hickock's bookstore in Poughkeepsie advertised for sale: THE

GREAT

RIOT

NEW YORK

A full accoun;± of I:he chalesale owbpage on bbfe arid PrTmappe;;;E|#£;2:;i::;:]{p£;:ceep?:;oe¢d.FTonofffchalsouTees.

The Civil War Comes to Dutchess County

115

Eventually, the riots were quelled and the draft was held in New York City. A month and a half later~September 6,1863-the draft was begun in Poughkeepsie for the 12th Congressional District-Dutchess and Columbia Coun-

ties. It is a credit to the law-abiding populace of Dutchess County that no disturbance marred the draft in Poughkeepsie. Its citizens did, however, have some help in maintaining the peace. The 600 men of the 2nd Vermont Regiment patrolled the streets of Poughkeepsie, and nearly i,000 men of the 2lst National Guard and the various Home Guard companies were armed, equipped, and ready to assemble at a moment's notice 10 Recent research by William Benson has shown that over 3,000 Dutchess County men volunteered for service in the Civil War.11 While a large proportion of the county's men

were willing to serve, those who were not had little to fear from the draft. An examination of the results of the draft held in September of 1863 reveals that, of 3,028 men

drafted, 409 failed, for whatever reason, to respond to the sur[imons.

Of the 2,619 men that did respond, 885-a

full one-third~ere exempted by reason of physical disability. Another 804 were exempted for various other reasons. A $300 commutation fee in lieu of service was paid by 799, and another 115 paid substitutes to serve in their places. When the dust had settled and the examinations were completed, a grand total of 13 draftees from 12 Dutchess and Columbia Counties marched of f to war Almost one-third of those who responded to their draft notices in the 12th District paid the commutation feequite a la±ge number considering that $300 was the average workingman's wage for one year. Some, of course, were wealthy enough to pay the sum out of their own pock-

ets, but for the less well-off, there was an alternative. Several draft insurance associations were formed around the county. The members of these associations agreed that if one or more of their number were drafted, the association would pay each draftee enough money to procure a

David Lund

116

Presquerian Cthurch jn Pleasant Valley,N.Y. ELec±ed ca. 1840

substitute or commutation. The money required for this would be raised by an equal assessment on all the members, with $50 to be paid in advance. If all the money paid in advance were not used, the remainder would be shared equally among the members 13 Not all the citizens of Dutchess were as loyal Eo the Union cause as the 13 draftees who marched off to war. New York State was notorious for its Copperheads (Confederate sympathizers) , and Dutchess County had its share of them. Often they were content to give three drunken cheers for Jeff Davis from the courthouse steps, but

occasionally their activities were more serious. On June i, 1861, the citizens of Pleasant Valley

raised a national f lag on the steeple of the Presbyterian Church. Six speakers gave patriotic orations and a brass band played.

Some 6,000 people turned out, most of them

The Civil War Comes to Dutchess County

117

to cheer and applaud.

A few came for other reasons, and threats were openly made that the f lag would not f ly the next day. Those threats were almost made good. Early the next morning the sexton discovered smoke coming out of the church's windows. He ran for assistance and the fire was

put out, but not before it had burned a ten-foot square hole in the floor of the church.L4 The fire had been deliberately set, and only the sexton's fortuitous discovery prevented the church from being destroyed. Even more scandalous was the case of Miss Sarah

Briggs, the schoolmistress at Bangall.

Early in the autumn

of 1863 she began to display "Copperhead emblems" in the

schoolroom and to discuss politics with her students. Her political persuasion may be surmised by the f act that her students began to wear small American f lags and badges as a protest to her discussions.

On November 4,1863, sev-

eral of the older boys decided to raise an American f lag at tbe school. Schoolmistress Briggs warned them that if this were done the schoolhouse would be burned. The flag was raised anyway, but was torn down that same night. A new flag was soon raised. Miss Briggs gave a political lecture to the class, then dismissed tbe school at 11 A.M., saying that she wouldn't stay in the school building if the flag were flying over it. In fact, she refused even to walk under the cursed pennant. Since the flag was flying over the school's only door, this made exit from the school rather difficult for the teacher, and she was forced to sit in the school for three hours until some of her friends came and helped her to escape through awindow. Needless to say, this ended the teaching career of Sarah Briggs, at least in Bangall. The first flag raised over the schoolhouse was later exhibited at the Eagle's office, 15 where "the curious" were invited to view it By late 1863, the tide of war was flowing ever more strongly in favor of the Union. As Northern armies advanced ever further into the South, Copperhead sentiment

increasingly disappeared in the North.

After the trauma

David Lund

118

of the 1863 draft, subsequent conscription calls became

less painful.

The crises recorded in this article began

to fade from memory. This is unfortunate, for Dutchess County's home front was as interesting, and as important,

as her. contributions on the battlefield. ENDNOTES

LFor a full discussion of the New York draft riots see: Adrian Cook, The Armies of the Streets: the New York Cit Draft Riots of 1863 (Lexington, Ky 1974) Eagle,

ruly 14,1863.

3E±, July 16,1863. 4Eag|e,

July 15,1863.

5ELj±g±±, August 3,1863; August 15,1863.

6ELrfe, July 16, 1863. 7Eag|e,

July 17,1863.

8Eag|e, July 23, 1863.

9E±, August 3,1863. L°EL±g±±, September 7,1863.

[Lwilliam S. Benson Jr., "Dutchess County's Role in the Civil War", Dutchess County Historical Society YearBook,

vol.

66,

1981.

L2Fishki|| Journal, December 31,1863.

L3E±, August 22,1863. L4Eife, June 3,1861. L5E±£[±±, November 13,1863.

Cbrmer of Afajn and Market Streets in 1861, chowing Liberty Pole. Frunn Echmd Plait, History of Poughkeepsie 1683 to 1905, pg. 178.

THE BARDAVON 1869 OPERA HOUSE

1869 - 1979

Jesse Effron The Conbngr]ood Opera House zDas tpe stage _uri:±tt 1917 for the most v)eLL-known perfon?rr!_er.s of Trrusb; card the dr.oo'ridebe cttbs. Its history dwimg

thai period. a:nd the period zbhich _i otlcoe_a un;.tit bbs ;eeeat I.ebLrth is a thecdere fop perfoinmg orbs bs a:kscussed. Jesse Effr.oin ks on the Bocmd of DLrecbor.a and ±s t:he hisborban, of t:he thecder.e.

On February i, 1869 the COLLINGWOOD Opera House in

Poughkeepsie, N. Y. opened with a gala concert, sponsored by Poughkeepsie business men, in tribute to the ovi7ner and

builder, James Collingwood. The tribute was richly deserved. Collingwood had designed his opera house for a Poughkeepsie of the future, in size and elegance quite out of proportion to the city of 1869. The building of the COLLINGWOOD Opera House came as a

climax to two exciting and exuberant decades for Poughkeepsie. During this time the population doubled (10,000 to 20,000) ; politically iE changed from a village to a city; it saw the advent of two of Poughkeepsie's most famous products: the Adriance, Platt and Company's Buckeye harvester and Smith Brothers cough drops; and it witnessed the founding of two famous colleges: Eastman, the first business college in America, and Vassar, the first American college to have the aim of of fering women the same quality of education as that available to men at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.

The COLLINGWOOD Opera House sym-

bolized Poughkeepsie's view of itself as a burgeoning cosmopolitan center. Although Poughkeepsie failed to fulfill many of the promises of 1870, the COLLINGWOOD survived an early period

of many "dark nights" and went on to become the keystone

of the city`s cultural life and its principal meetinghall. Because of the relatively early date of its construc-

Jesse Ef from

122

tion (15 years before the METROPOLITAN Opera House, 20

years before CARNEGIE HALI]) and its durability as a contin-

uously operating theatre for more than 110 years, the COLI.INGWOOD, renamed the BARDAVON in 1923, is important as a

prototype of the American provincial theatre during the past century. It has seen the greatest stars of thestage, the stock companies, vaudeville acts, and minstrel shows; its audiences heard the most important musicians of the 50 years before 1920; it made a graceful transition to movie palace in 1923; and finally, it has escaped the wrecker's ball to become, once again, a center for the performing arts. It is well on its way to building the kind of warm community support that led an earlier generation of Poughkeepsians to refer to tbe opera house as the "dear old Collingwood " .

James Collingwood, the daring and far-sighted builder of this theatre, was an English immigrant who had come to this country and had prospered in the coal and lumber business in Poughkeepsie. He was an energetic, progres-

sive person with widely scattered interests in real estate, new railroad lines, the building of the Poughkeepsie bridge and other such speculative projects. In 1863 he built an of fice building in the heart of the commercial, legal and governmental district. This five-storied structure, still in existence, had an arched passageway to a large lot in the rear used as a depot for his coal and lumber business. When he decided to build the operahouse, Collingwood chose this depot for its site. The passage way, large enough to accomodate horses and drays, became

an arcade entrance, and still serves as the entrance-lobby to the theatre. The presence of the opera house was marked by a small wrought iron sign. There was no proper marquee until 1923.

Apart from its location, nothing was self-effacing about the Collingwood. It could hold over 2,000 persons which was 10 percent of Poughkeepsie's total population. In 1869, it must be remembered, not much of an audience

The Bardavon 1869 Opera House

123

Egtrd a. Sweet First manager of the Cbllingcood apera Ii=ouse.

could be counted on beyond those who could walk or take a

carriage to the theatre. The seating arrangement consisted of a parquet, or orchestra with 900 seats, half of which, in the center, faced the stage while the other half were in rows parallel to the side walls, on a slightly raked floor. Above the orchestra was a horseshoeTshaped balcony, also called the dress circle, seating 600, and above that, a gallery with a capacity of 500 on benches plus a large area in the rear that could hold 200 standees. The seats, at least in the parquet, had chestnut backs set in wrought iron frames. The graceful columns supporting thebalconies and the gallery swept one's eyes upward to a decorated dome, 40 feet in diameter, with a rise of 14 feet, lit by 40 jets of gas. The dome's decoration, representing the firmament, with Apollo resting on clouds, was painted in fresco in the Renaissance style by a corps of Italian painters employed by Messrs. Batori and Baffi. Equally sumptuous was the drop curtain on which was painted a copy of Claude Lorrain's "Embarkation of the Queen of Sheba on her visit Eo Solomon".

Some of the statistics that interested the public at the time: Collingwood had spent $50,000 on the theatre; a

Jesse Effron

Sarah Berrinardt

Lillian Rissell jn H.M.S. Pinafore ca. 1889.

Decermber 8, 1917.

The Bardavon 1869 Opera House

125

half million bricks went into its construction.

It was a

malrmoth 80 by 120 feet with a 12 foot basement containing a dining room, 70 by 30 feet,with a320 sq. fE. kitchen. The stage was 60 by 34 feet not including the dressing rooms. The auditorium was almost square: 75 by 80 feet.

Four Littlefield furnaces provided the heat. James Collingwood was reputed to have taken a personal

interest in the design and construction of the operahouse, but he had little or no experience with theatres or with the performing arts in any form.

The man who has been

called the architect of the building, James Post, listed himself in the city directory of 1869 rierely as acarpenter and builder. The courage of these men to undertake aproject of this magnitude is truly astonishing. Wthat is even more astonishing is that what they built worked very well and has endured.

The original design for the theatre served quite well for the first fifty years. During this period only minor changes were made.

At some point before 1910 the stage

was enlarged, the s.eats in the parquet that they all faced the stage directly, opening was heightened and the design Seating was made more comfortable and

were rearranged so and the proscenium around it simplified. reduced to a total

capacity of 1400.

Opening night was, in the words of a local business man, "a stylish affair". The house was filled tocapacity. A reporter described the audience as "the most elegantly attired we have ever seen in Poughkeepsie. Diamonds and costly jewels, silks and satins worn by the fair ones there assembled glistened and rippled in the gaslight, while bejewelled fans in undulating movements sent wave after wave of perfume through the balmy air (those Littlefield furnaces were working just fine) from parquet to dome " ,

Irmediately after its opening the opera house was used for community functions not at all connected with show business.

On Feb. 4, the Phoenix Hose volunteer fire

126

The Bardavon 1869 Opera House

company sponsored a ball.

127

For this event Collingwood

built a temporary f loor over the stage and the orchestra chairs. That ball was remembered as the greatest occasion of its kind ever held in the city. While the temporary floor was still in place, the Home for the Friendless, an orphanage, held a benefit in the form of a two-day fair. A f ew days later this was followed by the Germania Society masquerade ball. The Lyceum series made the opera house its home and, on Feb. 12, presented Paul 8. Du Chaillu, the famous

African explorer.

But for the next three weeks thetheatre

was dark until March 3 when the Van Arnum and Everitt Com-

pany of Troy opened a three-week season with BulwerLytton's popular "Lady of I.yons". On April 5 the Grau French Opera (the same company that ran the} Metropolitan Opera House from 1898 to 1903) came with "G¢nevieve of

Brabant". Laura Keene, too, came for a three-night stand. in April, and the Van Arnum and Everitt Company returned that same month for another series of productions. This time they so enchanted Poughkeepsie that a group of

grateful citizens presented the acting company with a magnificent silver service. Quite a contrast to the usual experience of troupers in those days. The f irst manager of the COLLINGWOOD Opera House was

Egbert a. Sweet who remained in charge until his retirement in 1904. Sweet had no more experience at theatre management than Collingwood and Post had in building

theatres. But he had a sense of quality, brought the best that was available in American theatre and eventually built an audience. In the next three decades opera houses were built all across America, and enterprising managers responded by organizing tours of actors and musicians, stock companies, minstrel shows, magicians, dancers, lecturers-performers of every sort. Sweet was able to book the great stars for one day, stock companies for a week or more, showing old favorites, classics and melodramas, sometimes for a scale of 10-20-30 cents. Minstrel shows

Tesse Effron

128

were among the favorite attractions and the Collingwood showed the best. All of the greatest performers came to the Collingwood, Edwin Booth, Joseph Jefferson (who com-

mented on the "perfect acoustic quality" of the opera house) , Maude Adams, John Drew, all three of the Barrymores , Richard Mansfield, Lillian _Russell, Denman ThompSon? Anna Held, Sarah Bernhardt and so many others that

space does not permit listing them all here .

Similarly, in tbe music field to list the virtuosi who appeared at the COLLINGWOOD from 1870 to 1920 would

simply amount to duplicating the "Who's Who" of themusical

world. A few names will suffice to indicate the caliberof visiting performers: Tascha Heifetz, Ignace Paderewski, Josef Hofmann, Ernestine Schumann-Heink, Vladimer de Pachman, Mischa Elman, Osip Gabrilowitsch, Efrem Zimbalist and so on. The Boston Symphony Orchestra came on three occasions, once with the eminent conductor Karl Muck. The Symphony Society of New York with Waiter Damrosch conducting came more than once, as did John Philip Sousa and his band .

In addition to its program of professional theatre and music, the COI.LINGWOOD served as the platform for local

amateur dramatic and musical productions. Favorite homegrown shows were amateur minstrels in which prominent local lawyers, business men, and politicians (sometimes even the Mayor) participated. The opera house quickly established itself as the natural location for important civic events. On Jam. 24, 1871, there was a grand celebration at the opera house marking the opening of the f irst division of the Poughkeepsie and Eastern R.R., a line that many hoped would link Poughkeepsie with southwestern New England. An even greater dream of Poughkeepsians was the building of the Poughkeepsie bridge which would connect the coal f ields of Pennsylvania with all of New England. The cornerstone was laid on Dec. 17, 1873, and the ceremony was followed by a banquet at the COLLINGWOOD Opera House. To quote Platt's

The Bardavon 1869 Opera House

129

"History of Poughkeepsie": "The celebration was one of the

greatest that has ever taken place in Poughkeepsie High

school graduations , political rallies, controversial speakers-the COLLINGWOOD gave them all a platform; the opera house became a part of growing up in Poughkeepsie. Sometime after 1900, the Klaw and Erlanger vaudeville circuit contracted to supply the COLLINGWOOD with shows, and the boast was made that there would be no more dark nights at the opera house. Something was always going on. An ad in the Poughkeepsie Daily Eagle on Tuesday, Nov. 30, 1909, listed a calendar for the coming week: Tuesday-

moving pictures of the Johnson-Ketchel fight; Wednesdaya lecture by Mrs. Philip Snowden on Women's Suffrage (with

a considerable number of local dignitaries sharing the stage) ; Friday-Ben Greet Players in "The Tempest" (matinee) , and in the evening, the same company in `'Midsummer Night's Dream" with music provided by the Russian Symphony

Orchestra conducted by Modest Altschuler; Saturday-Ruth St. Denis in "Hindoo Dances", assisted by a company of

natives and augmented with an orchestra and special scenery. This was an impressive schedule in less than one week in a city of 28,000, most of whose wage earners took home less than $25 a week and very few of whose residents

had gone beyond the eighth grade in scbool. Tbe great period for the COLLINGWOOD was from 1880 to

the first World War. Hundreds of travelling companies brought performances of everything from the classics to early musicals, such as the infamous "Black Crook", which discreet Poughkeepsie ladies attended heavily veiled, from grand opera to Gilbert and Sullivan and Victor Herbert operettas. Herbertj incidentally, performed at the COLLINGWOOD as a cellist.

During the f irsE decade of the twentieth century a few danger signals began to show.

Motion pictures had

made their appearance in the 1890's and the COLLINGWOOD

was quick to show them.

Soon movies began seriously to

drain off some of the audience for popular entertainment.

130

Bardavon 1869 Cpera House.

Detail of hand Grafted

plaster cork, pa]± of the 1923 renovation.

Another blow came when the new high school was built in 1915, containing an auditorium with a well equipped stage and a seating capacity of 1,000. This diverted many community andi amateur events from the Collingwood, and a

number of professional musical recitals as well. By 1917, the Collingwood was in bad shape financially and the opera house changed hands a few times, finally to 1 be acquired by a group of Poughkeepsie business men who

had gotten into the motion picture business.

Under the

varying owners, the COLLINGWOOD, renamed the COI]LINGWOOD

Theatre (was Opera House too old-fashioned?) continued for

a while to present plays, vaudeville and concerts, until April 21, 1921, when it closed temporarily for radical alterations. (The last performance in the old-style theatre was a concert by dacques Thibaud and Harold Bauer, an elegant finale to the COLLINGWOOD'S first period.)

On January i, 1923, the theatre reopened under its new name: the BARDAVON Theatre.

In design the transforma-

tion from opera house to movie palace was (quite) thorough. The balcony and gallery, together with the columns supporting them, were removed and replaced with a single can-

tilevered balcony, divided into loge and rear sections.

The Bardavon 1869 Opera House

131

projection booth was installed as was a new film screen,

the largest and finest obtainable. Old style was gone but elegant art deco f ashion remained.

Much of the work done during the 1923 renova-

tion is still apparent in the general appearance of the theatre today.

Jeanne a. Opdycke, in preparing the

successful application for nomination of the BARDAVON to

the National Register of Historic Places, described one area as follows: "Main visible interest is the treatment around the stage. Plaster bas-relief decorates the entire arched area around the proscenium arch and around the boxes and exits at each side. Around the stage is a scrolled floral pattern with double Islamic turned columns in gilt. Side areas have a double arched passageway with Corinthian capitals under boxes with brass railings and projecting balconies. The two matching balconies have eight dancing Grecian figures, swags. and denEils, all over a supporting console alive with various leaf shapes. Over the balcony is a fan-shaped bas-relief with griffins`and urns. Outlining each section is a different band of floral plasterwork; one of passion flowers, one of entwined rococo, all 1920's movie palace fantasy". The elaborate dome of the COLI.INGWOOD was covered and

simplified, its lighting, of course, changed Eo electricity.

Apollo was wiped out but the firmament remained,

with points of light to twinkle in a permanently starry sky when the house lights went down. The proscenium deserves special mention. Above the opening was a mural, variously described as "Midsurimer Night's Dream", or as "Shakespeare (The Bc[z]d of AtJo7c)

seated in a meditative mood on the banks of the beautiful Avon river . " Although the BARDAVON was indeed a movie palace, it

was also designed and equipped to mount live performances. There was an orchestra pit; the stage was fully capable of handling scenery changes, and the lighting was the most modern available. The combined load of stage and house

Jesse Ef fron

132

lights amounted to 70,000 watts. The owners boasted that "Poughkeepsie now has the finest theatre of any city of

its size in the Empire state and the most beautiful auditorium between New York and Chicago".

The architect who designed the alterations was william Beardsley, a true professional and no mere journeyman car-

penter turned architect, like Post.

The contractor was

George D. Campbell, Poughkeepsie's most prestigious builder, and by coincidence, the city's mayor. As with the opening of the COLLINGWOOD Opera House in

1869, the re-opening of the theatre as the BARDAVON inl923

was a notable civic event. Theatre parties were the order of the day, and the town's elite turned out to celebrate the occasion.

The first production was "Mike Angelo"

starring Leo Carillo.

It ran for two nights before going

on to its of f icial opening at the MOROSCO Theatre in New York. Then came the film, "Robin Hood", with Douglas

Fairbanks.

That the new owners of the theatre had no

intention of slighting live productions was evident from the fact that. they opened with a preview of a Broadway show. Morever, two weeks later one of the most notable dance ensembles in the history of American dance performed there: the Denishawn Dancers. In this company besides Ruth St. Denis and Ted Shawn were Martha Graham, Charles Weidman, Louise Brooks, and Louis Horst. Surprisingly, for a provincial community such as Poughkeepsie, the Denishawn company played to a full and enthusiastic house, although this was 30 to 40 years before modern dance

achieved anything like popular acceptance in America. Plays were gradually discontinued later in the twen-

ties, but vaudeville continued for a while until it, too, was dealt a death blow by the talkies. In the thirties the BARDAVON became purely a movie House, the only live performer was an organist.

After 1943 the BARDAVON

briefly presented live attractions when it was used for try-outs of shows that were to open at the PARAMOUNT in New York.

The Bardavon 1869 Opera House

RECIT--|L

133

Tesse Ef fron

134

Amateur productions and civic events ceased almost entirely after 1923, but occasionally there were public meetings.

In May, 1927, Henry Noble Maccracken, President

of Vassar College, debated Representative Hamilton Fish on the subject: Resolved that the debt agreement of the Allies with the United States of America should be mod-

ified in the direction of further reduction.

An interest-

ing point made by Fish was that the British were making enough money by sending bootleg liquor into America to enable them to pay in full. As the shows changed character, so did the management.

When the BARDAVON replaced the COLLINGWOOD in 1923,

ownership was still in the hands of local Poughkeepsians, and the manager was not only a native but had considerable experience as an amateur performer on the stage of the old COLLINGWOOD.

However, in 1925, the owners turned the

management over to Paramount Pictures, and in 1943 the

theatre itself was sold to Netco Corporation, a subsidiary of Paramount. The theatre was now, for the first time, in the hands of an absentee landlord. The baleful ef fects of absentee ownership did not show themselves immediately. This was due, at least in part, to the influence of Harry Royster, the localmanager. He made himself very mucn part of the community, and since he carried considerable weight with the top management of Paramount, he ran the BARDAVON without undue outside

interference . Under Royster's direction the BARDAVON was improved

in a way that was almost a century overdue.

The lack of a

proper entrance to the theatre was never properly dealt with until the change-over from opera house to movie theatre in 1923. This is because, after James Collingwood's death in 1874, tbrough distribution of the estate, the ownership of the theatre was separate f rom that of the office building in front of it.

The COLI.INGWOOD had no

control over its entrance excepting a right-of-way through the arcade.

The men who bought the COLLINGWOOD also

The Bardavon 1869 Opera House

135

bought the office building, and they did put up a modest marguee in 1923. However, architecturally it was still a matter of walking through an arcade to get to the theatre proper. Harry Royster changed all that. He integrated the passageway into the lobby of the BARDAVON, moved the

box office out to Market Street, and put up a new marquee described by Royster in a newspaper interview as "the best in the country". "Constructed with egg-like crates built

in behind the light sockets to give indirect lighting", went on the newspaper account, "the marquee is the first of such type to be installed in a theatre". Before 1950, the Anti-Trust Division of the Justice Department compelled Paramount to separate its picture making from its theatres.

Theaters, Inc.

The BARDAVON became part of ABC

In time, ABC became more interested in

television and record making than in running theatres.

1973 the BARDAVON, along with several other theatres, was

transferred to a corporation called Hallmark Releasing, Inc. Hallmark was a Boston-based firm with attitudes toward real estate, typical of certain contemporary operators. Success for such corporations seems to consist of letting properties decay, paying as few bills as possible and finally ending the operation in bankruptcy, leaving the creditors holding the bag. In any event, the officers of Hallmark Releasing seemed to consider the BARDAVON unworthy of any care--

especially since they had acquired it during a period of decline in Poughkeepsie's downtown area, where the theatre was located.

On July 24, 1975, the BARDAVON Theatre and the office

building in front of it were bought.by Cossayuna Hills, a partnership of three local men. When the sale became public knowledge, a group of citizens interested in the arts met and formed an informal committee to work on the project of making the theatre and office building into a publicly owned facility. Kenneth Fricker, manager of the Hudson Valley Philharmonic Society, had proposed such

Jesse Effron

136

action in the past, but it seemed impossible to separate either ABC Theaters or their successor, Hallmark Releasing, from the property.

Now that the BARDAVON had been

bought by local parties, it seemed a propitious time to reopen the question. While meeting to discuss ways and means of approaching the Cossayuna Hills partnership and of persauding the community to acquire the property, the colrmittee was dis-

mayed to learn that the theatre had been bought with the intention of tearing it down in order to provide the Poughkeepsie Savings Bank, located next door, with a

parking lot. The colrimittee immediately organized itself as "Concerned Citiz.ens for the Bardavon" with the imme-

diate goal of saving the theatre from destruction and the long-range objective of acquiring the theatre on behalf of the entire community. With some hasty but astute actions the committee was

able to achieve its f irst goal of saving the theatre by working out an arrangement that gave the Savings Bank its parking lot without their having to acquire and tear down the building. As to the long range goal of converting the

theatre into a publicly owned and operated facility, the passage was much more tortuous, filled with near misses

that would expose the building once again to the threat of the wrecker`s ball. For example, on July 28, 1976, under a headline "Bardavon Owners Eyeing Demolition", the Pough-

keepsie journal carried an article, quoting Louis Greenspan, one of the Cossayuna Hills partners: "The only way we can make money on the property is through of fice rentals and the only way we can make of f i.ce rentals

attractive to local businesses is to provide parking in the rear of the office building. We didn`t buy that theatre to run it..as a theatre", Greenspan continued. "It was bought on behalf of the Savings Bank to provide them with added parking space.

Then Urban Renewal amended its

plan (through the initiative of the Concerned Citizens for tne Bardavon) the extra space was not needed and we were

The Bardavon 1869 Opera House

137

left with the theatre". Under th5 circumstances as outlined by Greenspan, Cossayuna Hills was interested in demonstrating that the BARDAVON was not viable as a

theatre, and they certainly were not interested in turning it over to an energetic group that was determined to prove that it could function as a home for the performing arts. In spite of all difficulties, success came for the community group on March 3, 1979, when in a public cere-

mony, after a celebration marked by a parade on the Main Mall and dancing in the lobby of the theatre, Mr. John Gartland turned the ownership of the BARDAVON over to the committee, which by this time had formally incorporated itself as the Bardavon 1869 Opera House, Inc. By this

time also, due to the efforts of this group, the theatre had been placed on the National Register of Historic Places .

Much of the credit for the success in saving the BARDAVON and then acquiring and running it for the benef it of the whole community goes to the f irst Board of the Bardavon 1869 Opera House, Inc. On a non-paid basis they spent a massive amount of time working to keep the theatre

going and to negotiate the transfer of ownership from Cossayuna Hills to their organization. This meant bringing in events and operating the theatre on a limited budget, lobbying for city, state, and federal funds with which to buy the building, and raising money from the general public.

Ziny history of the new BARDAVON must take note of

the contribution of Tulie Dunwell, the first director of events, and her husband Stephen, the first general Iri.anager, who put themselves on a round-the-clock, seven-daya-week schedule on a volunteer basis from Septelhoer, 1975

until the present time. In a sense the rebirth of the COIjl]INGWOOD as the BARDAVON 1869 Opera House has very much in common with its

beginnings. Once again the theatre is in the hands of people who have faith in Poughkeepsie and its future, and in the need for a theatre in the downtown area. Like

138

Tesse Effron

James Collingwood, the present owners have had very little experience in running a theatre. Ben Sweet, the COLI]INGWOOD's first manager had a slow start and he filled the

opera house with whatever he could find-usually events of community interest and with non-professional performers. So it has been with the BARDAVON 1869 Opera House.

first, it was important to keep the theatre going, so long as the cause was good and an audience was attracted. On this basis, from August,1976, when the Bardavon 1869 Opera House, Inc. began to operate the theatre under a lease from Cossayuna Hills until March 3, 1979 when it acquired ownership, a total of 332 events were put on before audiences totaling almost 100,000. More than i,000 citizens enrolled as members of the BARDAVON and substantial sums were raised

to buy the building and maintain it. Today, the quality of productions at the theatrekeeps rising at an easily-observable rate. In addition to amateur theatricals and civic events, there are professional theatre with original New York casts, chamber music featuring the most prestigious ensembles in the country, dance recitals by leading performers, and a season of children's shows put on by equity companies. There is a film society with wide community membership, and special series of films for Indian and Chinese groups. New lavatories and dressing rooms have been built under the stage area, and plans are under way to enlarge the orchestra pit, to redesign the stage allowing it to hold an 80 piece orchestra (as it did in the days of the opera house) , and

to install new seating which will increase both the comfort and tke capacity of the auditorium. Robert Cole, an experienced and able director has been hired. All signs are that stable future is assured.

The COLLINGW00D-

BARDAVON 1869 Opera House, having narrowly escaped

destruction is well started into its second century.

Bardavon 1869 opera House in its recently renovated splendor.

Ijegend - mall patents i - Aertson, Roosa, Elton 2 - Pawling 3 - Fauconnier

IJittle Nine

4 - Sanders & Harmanse

5 - Schnyler 6 - Cuyler

i}}pe

Beekman

Land grants awarded in Dutchess Countv 1683

-1731.

Based on map f rom

Dutchess County

IIistorical Society Yearbook volume 24 (1939),

Philipse

LAND GRANTS IN DUTCHESS COUNTY 1683 -173.3:

Settlement or Speculation? William P. IMc DermoEt A demogr.aphie 8_nd;_g of Putchess. C.otpe_try,_._i_nq?~o+a_bee ;'e~=bira.ta;and" tcniLE gin_oats .ononde4 Ln. tf ie_ _LLCLte,e_

-ir£6irii i;7~irir -;;ff5in -,--i ij;a±men i6Lnd_ dr; -o_i fact _vie.ro f icoe r.e.t?:rded h.eta bu. s.one set.t^1,5::rierl;i. lT8,th_ --;er;burdr ptou; of I telals bs Lneap,Let_e_._._L]I_t +3^V^er.i;:tiffs_ Vtrf;_;+fbrj: of son_e oaner.s _to. Se.3tl= nt_f i_eL

-i;iri iii idits to iafe Lnbo qeeoT± `?th^e:___I_cLtcLto^.I_._a 3unhfue;`c~Lf W€£i€6;.o.I i;6;:I;iiid -ijir;-Dutchess -stei±iemen_±.corn+g ." ....P., Ill,sboedcal Me. D_e.rmno_t_b^. soefetry. ^b+3. Yecmbook.

"Extravagant land grants to a few f avorites .... retarded the development and peopling of the province [New York] for many years to come."1

Charles W. Spencer's

judgement of New York Governor Benjamin Fletcher's land

grant policy in the 1690`s states succinctly the principle issue discussed in this paper. Did the land grants awarded from 1683 to 1706 encourage settlement in Dutchess County,

or were the individuals who obtained these sizeable land grants merely speculators? Recently Kin, in contrast with Spencer's thesis, proposed three types of large landowners in the 18th century. The first group, the purely speculative investor, expected to improve the land only enough to enhance prospects for an early sale. The second group, the developer with speculative interests, anticipated holding the land much longer enhancing its value through a combination of sales and leases. Settlement encouraged by these methods was expected to enhance the value of the land as newly created demand pushed values higher. The third group, developers for tenant settlement, were principally merchants whose interest in land was its value in strengthening their primary investment, overseas trade. Products from the land, such as wheat, in great demand in the colonies, provided cash with which imported goods could be purchased for resale and profit.2 Spencer's thesis

William P. Mc Dermott

142

suggests settlement in Dutchess County should have developed slowly and perhaps even more slowly within the larger "extravagant" grants of land. On the other hand Kim's

point of view suggests settlement in Dutchess County should have varied from one land grant to the next. Prior to Thomas Dongan's arrival in New York as gov-

ernor in 1683, interest in settling Dutchess County appears to have been almost nil. The general area was thought to be too cold or too mountainous for cultivation, thereby limiting its potential for settlement.3 However, after 1683 the need for vacant land north of New York City and the interest of some individuals in "up country" land encouraged a change in attitude toward Dutchess County as a potential area for settlement. "Wee are cooped up" wrote New York Governor Thomas

Dongan in a state of the province message to the Lords of Trade in early 1687 referring to the narrow boundaries of New York Province.4 Four years earlier land favorable for settlement had been transferred from New York to Connect-

icut in a f inal settlement of the boundary dispute between these two colonies. Almost two decades earlier New Jersey had been separated from New York, awarded by its owner the Duke of York to I]ords Berkeley and Carteret. As a result of these changes New York had become a narrow stretch of land hemmed in by its neighbors. To further aggravate the

situation all the available land was "pretty well settled" according to Governor Dongan.

However, he acknowledged

the availability of "great quantities of very good [land] •... up into the Country amongst our Indians".5 The "Country" of which he spoke was the unsettled, unsold

expanse of land between the half mile square village, New York City, and Albany. Just a few months earlier (1686) Governor Dongan had granted the 160,000 acre Livingston Manor to Robert Livingston for the purpose of `'encouraging future settlement."6 This grant was one of a number of

grants he made to open to settlement the territory between New York and Albany.

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733

143

Was the design for settlement initiated by Governor Dongan and continued by his successors successful?

Gov-

ernor Hunter thought not. Thirty years after the Livingston grant, Hunter colrmenEed in his report to the Lords of Trade, October 2, 1716,

" .... it is apparent that

extravagant grants of land being held by single persons unimproved is the true cause that this Province does not increase in numbers of inhabitants in proportion to some of the neighboring ones."7 This same theme was expressed again in 1732 by surveyor general Cadwallader Golden who

judged the large land grant approach to settlement, a failure. Golden believed New York was more attractive to settlement than its neighbors, New England and Pennsylvania, because of trade advantages. In spite of this New York had failed to settle as many inhabitants in proportion to the amount of land available. Complaining that the young people leave New York to settle in neighboring colonies he pointed out, "it is chiefly if not only where these large Grants are made where the Country remains uncultivated - tho they contain some of the best of the Lands, and the most conveniently situated "8 Recently the issue of early settlement has been studied through the relationship between tenants and landlords. Two researchers, Bonomi and Kin, independently have drawn conclusions from their work which are contrary

to the findings of the earlier research of Higgins, Mark, Spencer and others.9

While the work of Bonomi and Kim, in

a broad scope, presents a fine case for their conclusions, three limiting factors have a bearing on their findings. First, the period of study, usually the entire colonial period, is too long to conclude that original patentees encouraged settlement and were successful at it. Although Bonomi acknowledged the slow progress of settlement during the first years of the 18th century, she hastened to point to the substantial increase in population in later years. Noting the growth in Philipse Manor in Westchester County from about 20 families in 1701 to 270 families at the end

William P. Mc Dermott

144

of the colonial period, 75 years later, Bonomi and also Kim concluded there was signif icant population growth 10 In fact, on the average growth during that period was an unimpressive 3.3 families per year. And further, credit for population growth should not be given to the original patent owners. They. had passed their land to heirs, who themselves in some instances had already died during the period studied by Bonomi and Kin. In fact the change in population may be attributable more to the settlement strategies of later heirs. Secondly, comparison between the population growth within a particular manor and the overall population growth in New York Province was overlooked in these studies. Might not the settlement on these manors simply have been a reflection of more general population changes in New York Province? One historian, Fox, attributed the increase in settlement in New York in

later years to the pressure from the overpopulated, soilexhausted and land-limited New England inhabitants.11

is improper to attribute the results of pressures which may have affected the entire province, to favorable settlement strategies of the large landowner in New York. Thirdly, differentiation between growth from new settlement and natural growth was not considered. While proliferation is certainly an important aspect of population growth, it should be taken into account before conclusions about new settlement are made with confidence. While global judgements are necessary to understand the progress

of an entire colony, it is equally important to understand from a more microscopic perspective the factors which contributed to the larger picture. To do this effectively and to provide for more accurate understanding of settlement, county by county studies are necessary. It is with this in mind that the present study of Dutchess County was conceived.

Mandate for settlement The land grants awarded by Governor Dongan and his

successors clearly intended the land granted was for

145

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733

settlement. In fact, the language of the patents often included specific reference to settlement. Even before Governor Dongan, the intent to settle the area between New York City and Albany was apparent. In 1683 interim Governor Brockholls licensed Francis Rombout and Gulian Verplanck to purchase land in Dutchess County from the

Indians "for the future good of themselves and children to make impro.vements upon the plantation or farm."12 Governor Dongan was even more specif ic in his land grants

because he was concerned about the ef fect of the declining fur trade on the economy of New York. Recognizing the growing importance of exporting agricultural products he awarded land on the Hudson (Rensselaer) in 1684 to Robert Sanders, Myndert Harmense and William Teller "to settle and manure land for the advancement and improvement of

this Province in the produce of come stock."13 The specific reference to "come stock" indicates Governor Dongan's intent to encourage cultivation of the exportable colrmodity. This was a major change from using land merely for gathering furs, a commodity which did not encourage

permanent settlement. Requiring settlement continued over the next several decades as each new governor awarded land. Jarvis Marshall and his partners were careful to impress Governor Fletcher with their intent to settle when they requested permission in 1696 to purchase land in Orange County from the Indians. Their request included the following description: "for the most part being rockey & mountainous land yet there being some thereof which your petitioners believe with great labor and I?] may be capable of settlement."14

Although

Paul Dufour and partners did not receive the land in Dutchess County they requested from Governor Cornbury in

1702, their stated intent ''for the encouragement and further Peopling of this country" points to the consistency of the settlement theme almost two decades after Governor Dongan's arrival in New York.15

Even land which might

have some questionable value was referred to in terms of

William P. Mc Dermott

146

its potential for settlement.

Note the petition in 1701

of Dirck Vanderburgh and Abraham Staats for a portion of Widow Pawling's patent described the land "hardly .... of any other use than.to erect a sawmill thereon" was not granted.L6 However four years later Jacob Regnier and Company were more successful in obtaining a patent for the

identical tract of land.

Their request recognized the

"generally Rocky Mountainous" condition of the land but

they also indicated "some small places are to be found therein fit for cultivation and improvement. "]7 While this may not have been the only reason for the success of

these petitioners for the land later referred to as the Fauconnier Patent, the reference to the intent to settle contributed to the success of their request. Not to be overlooked in the failure of Vanderburgh and Staats to receive approval for their request was the attitude of reform brought by Governor Bellomont during the years of his tenure in office 1698-1701. Although land was awarded for settlement purposes, the extraordinary size of the land grants given by Governor Fletcher made it apparent that settlement over such broad expanses of land was improbable. Therefore Governor Bellomont's grants were fewer and much smaller in size. While not all of Bellomont's reforms were confirmed by the British government, the intended closer surveillance of land grants had an effect on some petitioners. For example, the petition of Sampson Broughton and others in 1702 for the land grant later known as the Little Nine Partners was careful to include the words "for the better improvement of the said lands and that they may not by [be] wast." 18 The letter of patent awarded in 1706 specifica.1ly stated that settlement and some improvements were to occur "Within three years from the date of the Patent."19 Two

years after the land was granted settlement had not yet occurred. Rip Van Dam, one of the grantees who was also a member of the governor's council with special awareness of

the attitude of the time, asked for an extension of the

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733

147

patent. In the new petition Van Dam and his partners complained the war between the French and Indians had produced hostile skirmishes in Connecticut which had caused "fear which New Settlers lay under of the Eminent danger they should run by going to live and settle in the woods so fare [far] from other settlements & assistances, and so near to the eneny".20 The requested extension with a promise to settle and improve the land f ive years after the war was over was apparently granted for the original patentees retained ownership. The pressure for settlement and the dissatisfaction with land owners, particularly owners of large tracts, continued. In 1727 the Board of Trade's instructions to Governor Montgomerie pointed to "a very Great Hindrance to the peopling & Settling of our said province, that large tracts of land have been Engrossed by Particular Persons, a Great Part whereof remain Uncultivated". The Board

threatened forfeiture of land grants which did not "plant Settle and effectually Cultivate, at least three Acres of Land for every fifty Acres, within three years, after the same shall be granted".21 Fifty years after Governor Dongan took office, continuing concern about the lack of settlement, Cadwallader Golden scathingly criticized large -landowners. "...the Grantees themselves are not, nornever were in a Capacity to.improve such large Tracts .... " He charged the large landowner's interest was for personal gain only rather than in the settlement of New York Province. Speaking of their fraudulent behavior he concluded, "...the Governor who granted them [1arge land grants] was

deceived as to quantity; but the King was deceived in all of them".

While the initial intent for granting land was to encourage and even require settlement, it appears the overall results of the settlement program was marked more by failure than success. Was this the case in Dutchess County? Did the large landoirner stimulate settlement or had he acquired the land merely for speculative purposes?

William P. Mc Dermott

148

Settlement in Dutchess Coun.ty : Growth Settlement in Dutchess County began in the 1680's

shortly after the first land grant was aw.arded.

The first

census, taken in 1703 when Dutchess was still under the

administrative supervision of Ulster County, recorded approximately loo settlers or seventeen to twenty families.23 Eleven years later in 1714 Dutchess, then With its own government, reported 417 white individuals or sixty-seven families inhabiting the county.24 These

statistics reflect a substantial growth in population in little more than a decade. This pattern of population growth continued through 1731 when the census recorded 1615 individuals living in Dutchess. The county assess-

ment roll for that year corroborates that finding, listing 339 names of families.

I-I. NIfroer of taxpayers jn each wa]ad .. 1718

1721

1724

1727

1730

RErth

101

121

145

rfuddle

loo

South

253

321

total

129

164

195

389

Source: Book of the Sxpervisors of Dutchess Cbunty, 1718 -1748.

Table 1 lists the total number of names on the assessment rolls for each year beginning with 1718; the year of the first assessment roll, until 1733, fifty years after the first land grant was awarded in Dutchess County. All individuals owning or leasing land were required to pay taxes. As a result the early assessment rolls can be regarded with conf idence as a true ref lection of the number of families residing in Dutchess each year. Evident in Table i is the continuous and steady increase in

I.and Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733

149

population over the fourteen year period 1718 --1733.

In fact the average rate of growth annually was an impressive seven and one-half percent. AE that rate population doubles every decade. And as expected the population in

Dutchess had doubled between 1718 and 1728, a decade later.

In spite of its growth in population Dutchess County continued to be the least settled county through 1731, except for Richmond County (Staten Island) , a county far smaller in size. In Table 2 the population census in each New York county is listed from 1698 to 1731. During that period New York grew almost three hundred percent. Although the rate of population growth in Dutchess during

that period is impressive, it appears it may have been simply a reflection of the general rate of growth in New York Province.

However, Table 2 suggests unevenness in

population change from one county to the next. Figures 1 and 2 help clarify these differences between counties. Figure 1 compares population growth between Dutchess and the southern counties of Kings, New York, Queens, Richmond and Suffolk. Immediately apparent i= the

relatively little change in population in Kings and Richmond from 1703 to 1731 in contrast to New York, Queens and

Suffolk which reflect sharp increases. Population change in Dutchess clearly was more pronounced than in Kings and Richmond during. the period from 1703 to 1731 but fell

substantially behind the remaining three southern counties. Figure 2 compares population change between Dutchess and the counties north of New York City. While Dutchess seems to have grown at about the same rate as Orange

and Ulster counties it f ell far short of the population change reflected in Albany and Westchester. Based on the information on population change as presented in Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 1 and 2, growth in Dutchess relative to many other New York counties was not particularly dramatic. Although population in Dutchess had grown remarkably since those few families appeared on the Ulster County census in 1703, this growth seems to

William P. Mc Dermott

152

I-2. NLrfeer of white inhabitants in Nen7 York Province 1698-1731 1698

New York

1703

1712/14

1723

|73iL

4,237

3,745

5,886

7,045

Kings

i ' 721

i,569

1'590

I,774

1,658

Queens

3 , 3662

3,968

4,800

6,068

6,713

Rictmnd Suffolk

6542 2 , 1212

1,251

i,513

3,158

5,266

7,074

Athy

i,453

Dutchess Ctrange

Westchester

Ulster

total Nbrtherm Cbunties

407

3,611

1'175 3,900

2,0734

2,87|

5,693

7,300

|oo3

417

i,040

1'615

2354

390

1,097

1,785

1,]u$4

2'553

3,961

5,341

i,4o44

1,800

2,357

2,996

3,798

5,560

8,031

14,148

19,037

12,099

12,847

15,076

20 ,245

24,003

15,897

18,407

23,107

34,393

43,040

total Southerm

counties Tbtal

Source: Gcxpiled from Evarts 8. Greene & Virginia D. Ifarrington: American Population Before the Federal Census of 1790, (New York, 1932) .

Las corrected in Rbberi V. Wells "The New York Celrsus 1731", New York Historical Society Quarterly, 57 (1973) , 256.

2the number of children in the available ccxpilations appear to be tco fen. 3estimated rmrfer of whites based on da{=a fr`om G]]eene &

Ifrington: fcotnote pg. 94. This estimate was sLfotracted from Ulster's total. Dutchess was adrinistered by Ulster during its

edy years .

4includes individuals over 60 listed separately :in the tables cxpiled by Cireene & Harrington: see pg. 95.

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733

153

ref lect more the general population change in New York Province than the special rush of new settlers to Dutchess. The entire New York province grew during the period 1703 to 1731.

Of course from another point of view one

must recognize where once there were no settlers in Dutchess, the 389 families or approximately i,900 inhabitants

fifty years later reflects interest in settlement. Where did Dutchess County f it in comparison to all other counties in New York Province? Certainly with f ewer than one hundred settlers before 1700 Dutchess was an

insignificant entity in the province.

Although it appears

from Tables I and 2 and Figures 1 and 2 Dutchess was not

particularly remarkable in its population change, its strength relative to some of the other counties seemed to be changing. Figures 3and 4 illustrates the percentage of the total population in New York Province in each county. Irmediately apparent in Figure 3 is the decreasing share of population from 1703 to 1731 in each of the southern counties. In contrast Dutchess grew in its share of

population.

Clearly this is different from the picture

which emerged from Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 4 clarifies the picture.

All of the counties north

of New York City except Ulster increased their share of population in the province. Therefore, it appears new settlers were more likely to settle north of New York City in any of four counties, Albany, Dutchess, Orange and Westchester. Ulster County did not share this pattern; its share of the population in the province on average remained the same. The conclusions which can be drawn from the evidence

presented above are as follows: 1. Dutchess County grew

from an unsettled territory in 1683 to one where settlement, once initiated, grew at a steady rate, 2. the rate of population growth in Dutchess County was no greater than in New York Province as a whole, and 3. Dutchess was

part of a general shift in the distribution of population in New York Province.

Specifically, as tbe proportion of

154

William P. Mc Dermott

population in the southern counties declined, there was a compensatory increase in the proportion of population settling in the counties north of New York City. Settlement in Dutchess County: the Patents The question examined in this paper is how successful was the land grant policy in the settlement of Dutchess County. A related inquiry focuses on the individual land grants. Were they merely speculative ventures or were they used for the purpose for which they were awarded-to encourage settlement? To begin, note Table 1 lists three wards, North, Middle and South Wards. These three are the civil divisions into which Dutchess County, which included Putnam County at the time, was divided during the years 1718 to 1738.

Two east-west lines from the Hudson River to

Connecticut divided the county into three approximately equal wards: the North, Middle, and .South Wards.

Th.-ese

three wards encompassed over one-half million acres of land, all of which had been granted between the years 1685 and 1706. Another tract along the Connecticut-New York border called the Oblong, part of which was joined to Dutchess County in 1731, added approximately fifty thousand acres. The attached map of Dutchess County shows all the patents granted and the present towns which grew from the early land grants. The heavy lines on both outer edges of the map represent the early divisions into .the three wards described above. The map also illustrates the size of the land grants in Dutchess. Eight of the fourteen patents (fifteen, if the 1,200 acre grant to Hendrick Kip adjoining the Aertson, Roosa and Elting patent is considered separately)

were substantial tracts of land. Of these eight, four were granted to individuals and four were granted to partnerships. Beekman and Rhinebeck Patents, as they came to be known, were granted to Henry Beekman. Peter Schuyler was granted the patent now known as the town of Red Hook.

155

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733

And Adolph Philipse received all of the land which is the present Putnam County. The large patents held in partnership were the Great Nine Partners, Little Nine Partners, Rombout and the Oblong (awarded 1731) .

The six smaller

patents, which together did not exceed thirty thousand acres, were held similarly. Three of these patents were granted to partnerships and three were granted to individuals ®

In 1733, fifty years after the first patent was awarded, 389 families were settled in Dutchess County. Table 3 tabulates the number of new families who settled during the periods specified. The number of years between

several periods listed in the table is unequal because information prior to 1718 was gathered from the few extant census records taken at irregular intervals. Information after 1718, obtained from the yearly assessment rolls, is recorded in the table for more regular periods. TABIE 3.

G]Chrth of settlenent during the period 1683-1733

Period

total # of # of Average # of families at families ARTerage # of families added families added each year, the end of added each patent each period eacin year each year 1.25

.16

4:J

4.2J:J

.53

134

13.40

i.68

1720-1724

195

12.20

I.53

1725-1729

280

17.00

2.13

1730-1733

389

109

27.25

3.41

1688-1703

1704-1714

1715-1719

Immediately apparent from Table 3 is the steady increase in the number of families settling in Dutchess County during the fifty year period. Also apparent from column 4 is the steady, although not particularly impressive, average growth each year. But the information

156

William P. Mc Dermott

listed in column 5 is disconcerting for it points to very slow progress in settlement. According to the agreement inherent in each land grant, each patent ownerwas required

to settle his land.

Therefore, a truer picture of popula-

tion growth is achieved by dividing the average number of new families settled each year by the number of patents. The dif ferences in size between the seven large patents (the Oblong was excluded because of the recency of its award) and the six smaller ones was taken into consideration by treating the six smaller patents as one. Therefore, eight patents divided into the number recorded in column 4 provides the average number of additional fainilies settled on £±±± patent s±±± year. While it is evident from Table 3 growth occurred over the f ifty year period, it is also apparent growth was quite slow. For example, during the period 1704-1714 on the average only one new family settled in each patent every two years. Although a great improvement is recorded for the period ending 1733, the average of 3.41 new families per patent per year is disappointing. While some patents grew at a faster rate than otbers there was almost no settlement at all in other patents. However, even taking these differences into consideration, the conclusion remains essentially the same. Settlement in Dutchess County, when the number of patents and the large expanse of land available are considered, was tediously slow during the first fifty year period.

Another signif icant factor is the extent to which population growth during the period under study was the result of natural increase from growing families.. Although an exhaustive search to determine the relationship between all individuals listed on the 1733 assessment roll with the same name was not undertaken, findings from a more

contained study indicate a significant number of individuals of resident families had grown into adulthood and established independent homes and farms by the year 173`3.

For example, from eighty-eigbt families listed on the 1718

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-.1733

157

assessment roll who continued to be listed in 1733 there were eighty-one male of f spring who were listed concurrently with their parents. This means that no fewer than 20% of the families listed on the 1733 assessment roll were sons who had grown to become independent taxpaying adults since

their f amilies appeared on the f irst assessment role in 1718. Furthermore, an additional estimate of 10% of those listed on the 1733 assessment roll were independent tax-

paying of f spring of families who arrived in Dutchess after 1718. These findings help distinguish between families who had come to Dutchess to settle from those families listed who were offspring of the original settlers. It appears 115 to 125 families listed on the 1733 assessment

roll were offspring. Therefore, of the total number of families listed in 1733 approximately 270 of the total 389 can be considered new or original settlers in the sense they came from another place to settle in Dutchess County. These f indings indicate the results of Table 3 are inf lated to the extent that offspring cannot be considered new set-

tlers. These results further strengthen the earlier conclusion-settlement in Dutchess County during the first fifty year period was indeed tediously slow. Visualizing the 389 families listed on the 1733 assessment roll living on that large expanse of land, containing well over one-half million acres, five decades after the f irst patent was awarded brings into sharp focus the sparseness of settlement in Dutchess County. An early historian, William Smith, in concluding his description of the limited settlement in Dutchess wrote in 1732, "The only villages in it [Dutchess] are Poughkeepsing aid the Fish-kill though they scarce deserve the name "25 The f inal purpose of this study is to determine where in the county settlement occurred. This information will disclose which of the patent grantees encouraged settlement, however sparse it was. The civil divisions of the county in 1733 cloud this issue. Patent lines and ward lines were not the same.

For example, the Middle Ward

William P. Mc Dermott

158

included the Fauconnier, Sanders and Harmense, and the Schuyler (Poughkeepsie) patents as well as parts of the Beekman, Great Nine Partners and Rombout patents. Fortunately, six years later in 1739, the three wards were

divided into smaller units and these precincts, as they were called, followed patent lines except in one instance. In order to deal with the settlement issue effectively, the 1733 and 1739 assessment rolls were compared.

One

important assumption which was necessary to proceed was that the place (precinct) where a family lived in 1739 was the same as it was six years earlier. This assumption in the main is probably safe but undoubtedly allowed for a few small errors to creep into the results. These un-

detected errors do not af f eat the principle issue+^7here settlement occurred in Dutchess County. The names of the 389 families listed in 1733 were compared to the names of the families listed in 1739 to determine which families remained in 1739b

As noted in Table 4, 293 of the 389

families remained. Ninety-six families had either left the county, died or in a few cases passed their land to children so they, although still residing in the county, had no taxable estate. TERN 4.

Assessment roll for 1733 separated into place of residence in 1739 NLHdber of residents

Precirrfu

not listed in 1739

EkFishkill

Nine PaRErthest Poughkeepsie

Rhin-

Southen

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733

Table 4 summarizes the results.

159

While some care

should be taken with the statistics, the pattern which emerges describes the relative strength of settlement in each patent. Immediately apparent is the large number of families residing in the Rhinebeck precinct and the small numbers in Northeast and Southern precincts. Identifying the patents from the precincts is especially easy because of the clear divisions. The Rhinebeck precinct was comprised of Beekman's upper patent, Schuyler's upper patent (Red Hook) , the 4,000 acre Pawling Patent and two

smaller patents incorporated into Beekman`s patent. North-

east precinct included only the Little Nine Partners Patent. Southern precinct included only the Philipse Highland Patent, now all of Putnam County. To complete the identifications, Beekman precinct was Beekman's inte-

rior patent. Fishkill included all of the Rombout Patent except for a small area near Poughkeepsie. Nine Partners precinct included the Great Nine Partners Patent and the approximately 6,000 acre Fauconnier Patent. Poughkeepsie precinct included Sanders and Harmense, Schuyler (Poughkeepsie) , the Cuyler gore and the small area east not included in the Rombout Patent. The Oblong Patent was divided between the Beekman, Nine Partners and Northeast precincts.

(See map on page 171.)

The f indings from Table 4 can be summarized as follows : 1. The Rhinebeck and Beekman Patents granted to Henry Beekman appear to have played a major role in the settlement of Dutchess County. The

number of families on these two patents account

for more than half of all the families living in Dutchess County in 1733.

A few families lived

in the other patents included in the Rhinebeck precinct but their numbers were too small to affect the conclusion significantly. Settlement on several major patents was insignificant. These were the Great Nine Partners, the

William P. Mc Dermott

160

Little Nine Partners, Philipse Highland and the Oblong patents.

Only about 10% of the popula-

tion in the county settled on those four major 3.

patents combined. Although accounting for only 18% of the popula-

tion, Poughkeepsie precinct, in spite of its small size compered to most of the otherpatents, contained a greater share of the population than .,

its size alone would command. 4.

Fishkill precinct, which included most of the Rombout Patent, accounted for 20% of the popula-

tion in the county-a moderate success in settlement . One general conclusion which can be drawn from these findings is that settlement, with the exception of Beekman's interior patent, appears to have clung to a narrow corridor along the Hudson River. And even that corridor was not settled evenly. Settlem;nt clustered near the villages of Fishkill, Poughkeepsie and Rhinebeck. Why 26 Rhinebeck was not mentioned by Smith is not evident Perhaps it was an oversight. More probably settlement in Beekma{n's land was less clustered so that it did not give the appearance of a village as did Fishkill and Poughkeepsie. Further confirmation of this narrow pattern of settlement is obtained from the description of Dutchess County roads extant in 1733.27 The principle north-south road, in places ba.rely more than a trail of blazened trees, hugged the Hudson River as it traversed the length of the county. From this there were several short roads to lan`dings on the Hudson. Additionally there were two roads from Bee.kman's interior patent. The road from Poughquag, in existence since 1722, brought settlers to the landing on the Hudson in Fishkill. Approved in 1732, a new road, only a footpath in some places, traveled from Dover near the Connecticut line to the landing on the Hudson in Poughkeepsie. A more specific conclusion which can be drawn from

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733

161

the findings is, Henry Beekman and son had developed a

successful method for attracting and retaining settlers. Providing land on which the Palatines, abandoned by the government in 1712, could settle provided a solid base of settlers. With this base the Beekmans continued to enlarge settlement on their two land grants thereby making a

signi.f icant contribution to the early settlement of Dutchess County. Colonel Peter Schuyler, awarded the patent which occupied tbe northern portion of the Rhinebeck precinct, appears to have had little more than speculative interest. He sold the northernmost one-third of his land grant one year after receiving it.28 While he held the remaining two-thirds for a longer period of time, settlement activity in the remaining portion seems to have been minimal or nil. Failure is the most succinct conclusion which can be made about the settlement activity of the owners of the three largest patents, the Great Nine Partners (Nine Partners precinct) , Little Nine Partners (Northeast precinct) and Philipse Highland (Southern precinct) . In fact none of these, except for a small portion on the Hudson River of the Great Nine Partners, had been subdivided in preparation for settlement by 1733.

Unlike Henry Beekman, none

of the owners of these patents appear to have made significant provision for tenant settlement by 1733. Settlement on the land within the Poughkeepsie precinct seems to have succeeded because of early rentals and sales to individuals with farming or mercantile interests. They seem to have come ±o Poughkeepsie Eo stay.

Were

these early land transfers made by the original patent holders designed to encourage settlement or were they sales by land speculators? The two principle patents on which most of the settlement occurred in the Poughkeepsie precinct were Sanders-Harmense and Schuyler patents. Colonel Peter Schuyler, awarded his patent in 1688, had completely disposed of it by 1699, selling it in three large Portions as he had done in his upper patent.29 His

162

William P. Mc Dermott

interests appear to have been primarily speculative. The absence of settlement on the patent until after he sold it attests to his speculative interest. In contrast, Robert Sanders and Myndert Harmense Van Den Bogardt seemed to

have encouraged settlement through transfer of land prior to 1691 to tenants, one of whom was Sanders' brother-inlaw Baltus Barents Van Kleeck.30 Also, Harmense had built

a saw mill before 1699 further indicating settlement plans for himself and others.31 In fact, his widow and son appeared separately on the first census taken in 1714 as did Thomas Sanders, a mill owner and son of the patentee, Robert. It should also be noted that one of Schuyler's three sales was made to Robert Sanders and Myndert Harmense.32 These facts support the conclusion that settlement in Pougnkeepsie was encouraged by Harmense and

Sanders in contrast to the speculative interests of Peter Schuyler . The Rombout patent (Fishkill precinct) , awarded in 1685 to Francis Rombout (died 1691) , Gulian Verplanck (died 1684) and Stephanus Van Cortlandt (died 1700) , began

to settle after it was partitioned in 1708 by the heirs of the original patentees. The initial impetus for settlement came from Roger Brett and his wife, Catharine, daughter and heir of Francis Rombout. Roger's death in 1718

left Catharine in a result she could no lease land; instead, through sales in fee

financially difficult position. As a longer follow the initial plan to she distributed land primarily simple. While the heirs of the other

two patentees proceeded similarly, they seem to have made a much smaller contribution to the population growth of the Rombout patent than that of Catharine Brett.33 The death of the original patentees, who apparently planned to use the land for fur trade, does not permit categorizing

them as speculators or settlers. Limited settlement on the early large land grants is believed to be the result of a) the problems related to 34 joint ownership and b) the unavailability of settlers

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733

163

The problems of joint ownership were several. First, the prospective buyer had to obtain a release from all partners to be sure he had a secure clear title. Second, reaching agreement about dividing the patent for sale was

quite difficult after the death of the original patentees because heirs were so many or in some cases inaccessible. And finally, the law passed in 1708 permitting a simple

majority of patentees to decide to partition rather than requiring unanimous agreement was not renewed in 1718. 35

As a result joint owners wishing to divide before 1708 or after 1719 were required to obtain special permission from the Assembly or governor, a time consuming and expensive procedure . How did this affect the jointly owned Dutchess County patents, Rombout, Great Nine Partners and Little Nine Partners (Oblong excluded because of the recency of its award)? Of these, only tne Little Nine Partners had not been divided by the owners at least once. The Rombout was divided into three parcels in 1708 apparently without difficulty. The Great Nine Partners made a small division in 1699 before which time the number of partners had increased to nineteen.36 An attempt made by the Great Nine Partners in 1725 to have the Assembly pass an act permitting fur-

ther division failed. It might appear from this failure that conditions external to the partnership were responsible for retarding settlement on the patent. But five years later the one remaining original patentee, David damison, a prominent and very successful lawyer, discovered

a paragraph within the original deed for the first division in 1699 which read, "And that all further divisions to be done shall be ordered by tne parties, or so many of them at least as shall be owners of the greatest part of said land .... "37 Although it is difficult to ascribe intent because of the absence of personal notes from the shareholders in the Great Nine Partners company, it is equally

dif f icult to conclude there was great interest in division and settlement when the existence of such a significant

164

William P. Mc Dermott

paragraph, which essentially gave permission to divide, was overlooked for thirty years. Interestingly, Tamison was only one of two attorneys in the partnership; William. Huddleston was the other.38 Additionally, the fact there is no mention in their records of an intent to divide prior to 1725 casts considerable doubt on the interest of the Great Nine Partners to divide and settle the patent. And further, settlement on tbe first division was almost nil.

Two or three families may have lived there in 1733.

Finally, intent to settle the Little Nine Partners Patent appears to have been absent until 1734 when the Assembly

passed a separate act permitting the owners to divide the land 39 The remaining four large land grants in Dutchess were owned by individuals. One is clearly an example of speculation, Schuyler`s upper patent. The Philipse Highland Patent was not partitioned until 1751. The remaining two large patents were Beekman's Rhinebeck patent and his

interior patent, both of which were settled. It appears the nature of the ownership was not the deciding factor in settlement. Grants to individuals as well as to partnerships were settled. On the other hand grants to individuals or partnerships were treated as speculative ventures. Nor was partnership a limiting factor in the Minisink Patent in Orange County granted in 1704 to twenty-three partners, four of whom were partners, two each, in two Dutchess County patents. The Minisink patentees were able in 1711 to reach agreement to divide a 56,000 acre section of the grant. Over the next twenty t years six thousand acres were sold in parcel: from 350 acres to 1,320 acres.40 Although six thousand acres is a

small amount, the fact that partition and sales of land could occur within a complex partnership indicates partnership in and of itself was not necessarily a limiting factor in partitioning or settlement. The question of availability of settlers is also raised in defense of the large landowner apparently un-

165

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733

successful in settling his patent.

Often cited is Philip

Livingston's letter in 1741 to John De Witt in which he remarked "its no Easy matter to gett 17 families at once."4L Admittedly it may have been difficult to get 17

families at one time but the increase in population in the province as a whole as noted in Figures i, 2, 3 and 4, and the fact there was a changing settlement pattern in New

York in the first four decades, suggests other explanations. Table 2 shows population in the province had almost doubled in the first three decades of the 18th century. And even more important, population in the counties north of New York city increased almost fourfold.

It may

have been more the strategy of the patentees than availability of settlers. Certainly, Henry Beekman and son demonstrated an ability to draw settlement at a time when patents adjoining tneirs were less successful. Conclus ions

The manner in which the large land grants were used

by their owners in the early l8th century reflects the model proposed by Kin.42 Dutchess County's one commercial landlord fits Kim`s model-Henry Beekman and son. Although

not active in overseas trade, they enhanced their personal wealth through sales of agricultural products. As a result of this orientation Henry Beekman and son played a major role in the settlement of Dutchess County, accounting for half the settlement in the entire county during its earliest years.. |n the second category of Kim's model is the landowner who developed land Eo enhance personal

wealth by taking steps to increase its value.

Into this

category fall landowners such as Sanders and Harmense, Catharine Brett and perhaps the heirs of Stephanus Van Cortlandt and Gulian Verplanck. As a result of their orientation settlement was encouraged in the Poughkeepsie

and Fishkill areas, although at a rate much slower than observed in Beekman's Rhinebeck area.

The final category

of landowner is the purely speculative entrepreneur whose

166

William P. Mc Dermott

interest in the land itself was no greater than as a commodity for sale without further personal or economic

investment in it.

Into this category fell the majority of

patentees in Dutchess County. Land speculators such as Peter Schuyler, Adolph Philipse, the Great Nine Partners and the Little Nine Partners owned and controlled more than two-thirds of the land. As further evidence of their

purely speculative interest one has only to point to Schuyler's sales prior to 1700, the outright sale two years after receiving the patent of four of the Great Nine Partners and the failure of the speculators listed above to divide their patents. The land controlled by these speculators did not contribute to the settlement of Dutchess County until after 1740 in the Great Nine Partners Patent and after 1750 in the Little Nine Partners Patent and Philipse Highland Patent. Was Charles W. Spencer correct in his conclusion that the large landowner was primarily a speculator and as such "retarded the development and peopling of the province"?

By 1733 probably less than ten percent of the land in Dutchess County was settled. Two-thirds of it was controlled by speculators; the remainder was settled only sparsely. On the basis of this study one might conclude

in favor of Spencer's interpretation were it not for other factors. For example, the pool of potential settlers in New York, although growing at a significant rate, nevertheless, was finite. Competition among landowners interested in settling f amilies from that pool must have existed. Note of the northern counties, Albany and West-

chester initially received the larger share of the available pool. Was this the result of successful inducements from some landowners? While this may have been a factor, other conditions, some fortuitous, such as the effect on Beekman's patent of the government's failure Eo continue to support the PalaEines, may have had an equal or more critical impact. One important possibility which may have accounted for the. earlier increase in settlement in Albany

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733

167

and Westchester as compared to Dutchess and Ulster was the

more cosmopolitan character of the culture in the former counties. Dutchess and Ulster greatly reflected the Dutch influence and as a result may not have of fered an appealing atmosphere for the newer settlers whose background was English. N.ote the apparent ease with which the Palatines resettled into Dutchess County. The common bond in the Dutch-German background must have f acilitated integration and cooperation. Nevertheless, Spencer's judgement as it relates to Dutchess County and other parts of New York can

not be overlooked. It applies in some instances but it must be integrated with the more recent understanding of the early land grants. Cadwallader Golden, the harshest contemporary critic of the land system, commented in 1726 "that some men in this Province own above two hundred thousand Acres of Land

each which neither they nor their Great Grand Children can hope to Improve .... " Surely this describes some landowners.43 Recently Kim's conclusion, "in spite of the land system of colonial New York, or rather because of it, the great landowners were promoters of settlement, not its obstructors", describes others.44 The truth, as it applies to Dutchess County and perhaps most of New York, lies somewhere between those two observations.

ENDNOTES

LSpencer, Charles W. New York 1691-1719

2Kim, Sung Bok

Phases of Royal Government

(Columbus, Ohio,1905), 7-8

"A New Look at the Great Landlords of

the Eighteenth Century, " William and Mary Quarterly, XXVII (1970),

595-598.

3Kim, Sung Bok

Landlord and Tenant in Colonial New York: Manorial Society, 1664-1775 (Chapel Hill, North Carolina,1978),

22-24.

4olca||aghan, E. a.,

ed. Documents Relative Eo the

Colonial History of the State of New York (Albany, N. Y 1856-87),Ill, 397 (hereafter cited as N.Y Col. Docs.)

William P. Mc Dermott

168

5N.I.

Col.

Docs.,Ill,

397.

6N.¥.

col.

Docs.,Ill,

625-

7N.¥.

Col.

Docs.,

480.

8o'ca|1aghan, E. a., ed. Documentary History of the 384 State of New York, 4 volumes, (Albany, 1849-51) , I,

(hereafter cited as Doc. Hist. N.Y.) 9Bonomi, Patricia, ''New ¥ork's Land System", chap. 6 in A Factious People: Politics and Society in Colonial New York (New York, 1971) , 179-228 Kin, "A New Look at EEEEt Landlords", 613-4; Higgins, Ruth L.,Expansion in New York with Es ecial Reference to the Ei hteenth Centur (Columbus, Ohio, 1931) , 24-5; Mark, Irving, Agrarian flicts in Colonial New York 1711-1775 "The (NewIjand York,1940, System of 65-6, 72-75,195 Spencer, Charles W. ,

Coloriial Nedr York,"-New York State Historical Association, Proceedings, XVI (1917) ,162-63; Turner, Frederick J., E±± Frontier in Alnerican History (New York, 1920) , 82-3 L°Bonomi, "New York's Land System",195; Kim, "A New

Look at the Great Landlords", 613. LLE||is, David .M„ "The Yankee Invasion of New York 1783-1850," New York History, XXXII

(1951), 4; Fox, Dixon

R. , Yankees and Yorkers (New York, 1940),

X,182-83,191-

93.

L2New York Colonial Manuscripts, Land Papers, 1642(here1803, 63 volumes, NewYork State Library, 11, 14.

after cited as Land Papers)

L3Land papers, 11, 31.

L4Land papers, IIIt 30.

L5Land papers,Ill,

71.

L6Land papers,Ill,15. L7Land papers,Ill,175. LBLand papers,Ill,

93.

L9Land papers, IV, 135-

2°|]and papers,

IV,135.

2["Governor .Montgomerie's Instructions , 20th October 1727, Instruction #38 & #36, The Letters and Papers of

Cadwallader Golden in New York Historical Society, Collections, 1711-29 (New York,1918-1923), I

(1917),

211.

Ear-

1ier similar conditions and the threat of forfeiture had

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733

169

been included in the Board of Trade's instructions to Governor John Lovelace in 1708, N.Y. Col. Docs., V, 54. 22Doc. Hist. N.¥.,I, 384-385.

23Estimate based on data from Greene, Evarts a. and Harrington, Virginia D American Population Before the Federal Census of 1790 (New York,1932) , XXIII. 24Doc. Hist. N.Y.i

368-69.

25smith, William The History of the Province of New York .to 1762, 2 volumes, (London, 1757; reprint Cambridge, Mass.,1972, .Michael Kammen, ed.) , 211.

26Ibid.

27o|d Miscellaneous Records of Dutchess County, 17221747 (Vassar Brothers Institute, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.1909) ,

H 160.

28Dutchess County Clerk's Office, Liber 2:398; Robert Livingston Papers, Series 11, Reel 28, item #26, Schuyler sale to C-ansevoort, 6/18/1689,.New York Historical Society. 29Reyno|ds, Helen W. Poughkeepsie: The Origin and Meaning of the Word, Dutchess County Historical Society,

Collections (Poughkeepsie, N.Y.,1924),I, 29-31. 30Ibid.'

77.

3LDutchess County Clerk's Office, Liber.i:278. 32Reyno|ds, Pot±g_P]:eepsie: The Origin and Meaning of the Word, 29.

pitch:::e:::::;,_E±:E9E=e:6mb:::h::::::c:e::=L±;:;_:_E:_:' inal Town of Fishkill, Dutchess County Historical Society, Collections (Poughkeepsie, N.Y.,1938) , collected by Wil1iam W. Reese, VI, 44

(deed #2), 46 (deed #11) suggests

Roger BreEE died June 1718; Ibid.,i-6; map made in 1728

by Robert Crooke, Deputy Surveyor "Land in Verplanck Portion of Rombout Patent", copy in Adriance Memorial Library, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. , original in New York Public Library.

Kin points out Philip Van Cortlandt, heir of one of the owners of the Rombout Patent, had only six tenants on his share of the Cortlandt Manor in 1746. This suggests his lack of interest or effort to settle his land. Kim, Landlord and Tenant in Colonial New York, 151. 34Kim, "A New Look at the Great Landlords," 593-94, 601; Bonomi, "New York`s Land System," 197; La Potin,

Armand "The Minisink Grant: Partnerships, Patents, and Processing Fees in Eighteenth Century New York" New York History" I.VI (1975) , 36-41.

William P. Mc Dermott

170

35co|onia| Laws of New York, I, 633, 882, 1006; N.Y. Col.

Docs.,

527,

529-30..

36"proceedings of the Nine Partners 1730-1749", transcribed by Clifford Buck and William P. Mc Dermott in Mc Dermott, William P. ed. Eighteenth Century Documents of

the Nine Partners Patent, Dutchess Count (Poughkeepsie, 37Ibid.' 4.

N.Y.,1979) ,

RTew York

3-4.

38Ham|in, paul M. and Baker, Charles E-eds.i g±±P=S±S

Court of Judicature of the Province of New York, 1691-1704 in New York Historical Society, Collections, 1945-1947, 3 volumes,

(New York,1952-1959),Ill,104-107.

39passed by the New York Assembly, November 28, 1734. Colonial Laws of New York,11, 868-70.

4°La potin, "The Minisink Grant", 43-46. 4LKim, "A New Look at the Great Landlords," 601; Bonomi, "New York's Land System," 197.

42Kim, "A |¢ew Look at the Great Landlords,'` 595-98. 43 "The

Second part of the Interest of the County in Laying Duties", The Letters and Papers of Cadwallader

Golden in New York Historical Society, Collections, 19341935

(New York,1935-1937),11

(1935),

268.

44Kim, "A New Look at the Great Landlords," 614.

Map of Dutchess County On Decend3er 16, 1737 the county

was divided into seven precincts Precinct lines mere draVli along the early patent lines. Listed below are the precincts and the patents which were included jn ~each precinct.

Precinct South Rcfroout

Patents Philipse Bchout excluding land west of the Waapingers Creek

Beelman

Northeast

Crum

Elbow

Bee]rman

Poughkeepsie Sanders & Harmanse

Schnyler Ckyler Rcrfeout west of the Wappingers Creek Cnm Elbow Great Nine partners Faucconnier RIinebeck REinebedc Schuyler Aertson, Pawling

No]±heast Note:

Beekman

Little Nine p

Precinct lines were edended into the Oblong on Decehoer 17, 1743.

South

ANNUAL REPORTS of the Dutchess County Historical Society

Annual Reports

174

The President's Message:

It's been a little over a year since I took office as your president. Since that time the Society has been making progress in several areas. Many new items have been added to the DCHS acces-

sions and our collections are growing each month. Many of these artifacts and paper ephemera would have been lost or taken out of the county. Thanks to our members and friends they are now part of the materials which are owned by the Society, These now can be studied, enjoyed and viewed by all interested in our Dutchess County History. More students and researchers are using the reference materials now housed at Clinton House each month. Programs of interest have been shown by some of the local societies this spring and more

are planned for the fall. These give the local historical groups an opportunity to show and explain the many interesting projects that they are working on. I hope more of the local units will use this wonderful opportunity in coming years . The fund raising drive has been on for several months.

The response from some of our members and

the industrial community has been good. I hope all those of you who still plan to make a pledge will do so soon so that our hard working committees will have been able to meet our projected goal of $250,000. With the opportunity for government grants now out of the question we must turn to the "grass roots", the members and the community, to help meet our needs. There are many other ways in which you as members can help us. I, for example, have need

for workers to help with such things as planning

Annual Reports

175

and building displays so that we may properly show our collections at Clinton House. Besides being a

history resource center we are also listed as a Museum.

As a former museum director I am well

aware of the amount of work that goes into each exhibit. With your help we can have some displays that we can all be proud of . I also need workers to help catalog items in our collections. Our library also needs the help from anyone who has had some experience in this area. I also have need for workers to help with our programs and

socials. It is true that our Board of Directors have lent their talents to many of our projects but we need the support and help of the membership too. Please let me know what you would like to do to help us. If we are going to grow as a group and fit in with these times we must have as many members as possible working with us. The plans for the Tercentenary are under way. The year 1983 will be a big one here in Dutchess County. We will also be closing down the Bicentennial era of the American Revolution. We hope to show our love for history in these two events. I believe the DCHS has a bright future. I know where we are now and with you behind me I know we will meet all our goals.

(signed) Felix A. Scardapane Tr. Ed.D.

Annual Reports

176

Annual Meeting - Bellefield, Hyde Park Tune

19,1982

President Scardapane called the meeting to order at i:30 PM.

He introduced Mr. Jonah Sherman and Mr. George

Mcclellan as guests of the Society and thanked them for their efforts in the fund raising campaign. A moment of silence was observed to honor deceased members.

The

President thanked the of f icers and trustees for their time and ef forts of the past year and he praised their fine work .

Secretary ' s report: Minutes of the 1981 annual meeting were read by the Secretary. A motion Eo accept theminutes as read was made/passed.

Treasurer's report: The Treasurer reported that the balance on hand as of June 19,1982 was $192,857..00.

TheTreasurer

brief ly highlighted the progress of the Capital Fund Drive to date. Solicitation of members is proceeding in stages. A motion to accept the report was made/passed. President Scardapane called on Vice-President Frank Andrew and praised him for the fine arrangements and the grand buffet lunch. Mr. Andrew called for applause for the caterer, Mrs. Marie Orion. He also introduced Mr. Don Mc Ternan, who welcomed the Society on behalf of the National Park Service. Yearbook:

Yearbook editor Dr. William Mc Dermott reported

that an issue of the Yearbook had come out during the previous winter. Deadline for the next issue is August 1, 1982. Dr. Mc Dermott also reported that a reprint of Marriages/Deaths is under way. Glebe House report: Mrs. Tina Allen reported a very successful year-the total number of guests was 3,916. Of this number, i,236 were students. A permanent exhibit on

Annual Reports

177

display is "Herbs and Spices of Medieval and Colonial Times". Highlights of the year include an open house, the Arbor Day tree planting and the two-day Spring F€stival. There were nine private uses of the Glebe House.

Director`s report:

The Director, Mrs. Kaltz, pointed out

that the goals of the Society include the preservation and dissemination of information relating to the history of the County. collection at loo gifts and used. Such

To that end, it has been a fine year. The the Clinton House has been increased by over has grown in volume and depth and is well a collection requires security and New York State has installed a new electrical system in Clinton House. Such modernization of the system helps to keep insurance costs down. During the year, a major exhibit, Indians of the MidHudson Valley was sponsored by the Mid-Hudson Chapter of the New York State Archaeological Association. A Winter

slide series was successfully run and attracted many members and non-members to Clinton House.

This program

will resume in the Fall. Improvements have been made on Clinton House and its

grounds. Fencing has been replaced and a multiflora rose hedge planted. The front and back porches are soon to be replaced. A groundskeeper has been hired to maintain improvements. A tree was planted on Arbor Day to upgrade the appearance of the yard. Also at Clinton House, a

part-time secretary has been hired to give additional service to members and the public. A highlight of the year was the Quaker Conference held in the Spring. For the first time, the Society was funded to sponsor a major effort in the field of public education. By all accounts, the three-day event was extraordinarily successful and most certainly advanced our visibility and credibility as a Society. It was a year of achievement and growth and we shall continue to build on that growth.

Directors:

The President praised the out-going directors

178

Annual Reports

for their efforts on behalf of the Society.

They are

Ms. Velma Pugsley, Mrs. Robert Kendall and Dr. William Mc Dermott.

Nominating committee: Chairman Radford Curdy introduced the 1982 nominating committee members as Frank Andrew, Alice Hemroth and Radford Curdy. He then presented the

following slate of nominees to positions on the Board: Mr. Nathaniel Rubin, Esq., Dr. ream Stevenson, Mr. Stanley Willig and Mr. Allen Schoonmaker,. For town Vice-presidents: Mr. Elton V. V. Bailey, East Fishkill, and Mrs. Clara Losee, Milan. There were no nominations from the floor.

A motion was made/seconded requesting the Secretary to cast one (1) vote for the proposed slate. Motion was passed. The Nominating committee also proposed Dr. Franklin Butts and Dr. William Mc DermoEt for honorary membership in the

Society. Mrs. Kaltz spoke words of tribute to Dr. Butts and Mr. Frank Andrew thanked Dr. Mc Dermott for his fine work. Both were presented with cards commemorating this honor . The President welcomed newly elected members of the Board. Their first meeting will be on June 28,1982.

There was no further business.

A motion to adjourn was

made/passed at 2:00 PM.

Following the meeting President Scardapane introduced the guest speaker, Dr. William Emerson, Director of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, N.Y.

Respectfully submitted , Eileen M. Hayden, Secretary

Annual Reports

179 ACCESSIONS OF THE SOCIETY

Melodye Kaltz

During the past year, the Society has been the reciplent of numerous donations that have increased both the volume and depth of our collections. From Septelhoer 1981 through August 1982 there have been 129 gifts accessioned

into the Society's collections. New materials include almanacs, City Directories, historic costumes, genealogical materials, manuscripts, photographs, resource volumes, engravings, needlework, periodical publications, title searches, newspapers, museum objects, census records and tax lists, school district records, minute books, and miscellaneous city and town ephemera. The Society is grateful for any and all gifts. Everything contributes to our knowledge of Dutchess County and

its past. On behalf of the Board of Trustees, I would like to thank the following individuals and organizations who have

contributed to the Society: Tim Allred Edward Anderson Arlington High School Mrs. Fred Earth Ezra Benton Barbara T. Elair Clif ford Buck

Mrs. Spraker Francke Edna Freer LTC Gayle D. Hix

Melodye Kaltz Mrs. Betty Klare Mr. & Mrs. R. T. Lane

Catherine Leigh

Little Nine Partners Historical Society

Lenora Buck

Mrs. Charles Butts Art Carver

Clara Losee

Mrs. John Cavo Radford Curdy

Charles Meredith DeLavergne Detroit Historical Commission Dutchess County Planning Dept.

Mahwenawasigh Chapter - DAB Lawrence Mamiya

Dutchess Philatelic Society

Maumee Valley Historical Society Stephanie Mauri

Lee Eaton Jesse Ef from

Mrs. S. A. Moore

Donald Mc Ternan

cont , d .

Annual Reports

180

Sheila Newman

Herbert Salt ford Joseph Siepietoski

Helene Norris Joseph F. Papalia

Michael Skok Lena Stephens

Thomas E. Parker William I. Powers dr. Mrs. Kenneth D. Quick

Collin Strang Wallace Van Benschoten

John K. Rinaldi

Mr.

Mrs. Francis Morrill

Norma Van Kleeck & Mrs. H. R.

Mrs. Mae Rodenburg

Van Vliet

Rutgers University Library

Alson Van Wagner

Ruth Varian Robert Watsky

FUND RAISING

Edward Van A. Howard

On November 21, 1981 at Vassar Institute, Dr. John

Connoll¥ presented his report on the fund raising recommendation for historic Clinton House. In addition to capital cost estimates for Clinton House modifications, including a vault, grounds, equipment, research materials, and acquisition of property, an Endownment Fund is suggested to provide the Society a base of operating funds. It was a delightful evening and well attended by many members and others of our Society. On Sunday; March 21, 1982, the Dutchess County Histor-

ical Society hosted a wine and cheese reception at the Clinton House to mark the kick of f of their fund raising campaign. Dr. John Connolly, past president of Dutchesst Community College, is directing the Society's fund raising effort. Dr. Connolly presented the financial needs for improvements which will create a safe and secure repository for the Society`s Dutchess County materials at the Clinton HOuse ®

County Executive Lucille Pattison gave a message on behalf of Dutchess County. Thomas Aposporos, as mayor, spoke on behalf of the City of Poughkeepsie. Mr. Wallace

Annual Reports

181

F. Workmaster, Regional Historic Preservation Supervisor for New York State Parks and Recreation, summed up what this fund raising effort can mean to our area. Trish Adams had prepared an excellent descriptive brochure with pictures and a message from Dr. John Connolly outlining the needs of the Dutchess County Historical Society. This brochure was given to members and invited guests

attending the reception. Contacts are being made and follow-ups are continuing with large, major, and small businesses. The process of contacting all of our membership has begun and to date there has+been a 12% membership response. Further contacts among our melnbers is scheduled for early September 1982.

The efforts of those calling on small businesses, particularly, has been appreciated and the response has been gratifying. A three-year pledge is being sought. A further report and the successes of our ef forts will be made as results are obtained. The following are deserving of special note and thanks for their ef forts in connection with the fund raising to date: Dr. rohn Connolly, Richard Hawkins, Herbert Roig, Allen Schoonmaker, Jonah Sherman, Fred Stutz, Frank Van Zanten, Glenn Mac Clelland, George Mc Clellan, Margaret Mc Clellan, Richard Wager, Stephen Becker, .ohn Mc Enroe, John Mack, Richard O`Shea, Judy Moran, Marilyn Hoe, Felix Scardapane, Frank Andrew, Peter Van Kleeck, Trish Adams, Melodye Kaltz, Thomas Wade, and others.

CLINTON HOUSE DIRECTOR'S REPORT

Melodye Kaltz

As the Dutchess County Historical Society begins its third year of occupancy at the Clinton House, I am pleased to report that signif icant progress has been made toward

its establishment as an outstanding local history center and repository. The major exhibit during the past year was Indians of the Mid-Hudson Valley which was sponsored by the Mid-Hudson

Annual Reports

182

Chapter of the New York State Archaeological Association.

This attracted school groups and the general public. A winter slide series focusing on different towns in the county was successfully run and attracted many members and non-members to Clinton House.

The highlight of the program year was a conference sponsored by the Society and funded in part by The NewYork Council For The Humanities.

Quaker Life in The Hudson

Valley, A Regional Perspe_ctive was the Society's first

major effort in the field of public education of this type and by all accounts the spring event was extraordinarily successful. Over 200 people were in attendance and another 50 assisted in the planning and implementation of the three-day conference. Special thanks goes to the Friends Meetings of the area, especially Poughkeepsie and Bulls Head/Oswego Friends who gave so generously of their time

and talents. The Society, in cooperation with Taconic Region of The New York State,Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, has made several notable capital improvements at the house. Fencing has been replaced along the south side of the property and a multiflora rose hedge has been planted. Work progresses on replacement of the front and back porches. Electricians from the Taconic Region have

installed a new electrical system in the Clinton House. Not only does this af ford the building and the collections greater security, it also helps to keep insurance costs doun .

A secretary and a groundsman have been added to the staff at the Clinton House. They have both beenenormously

helpful in increasing the efficiency of the organization. The Board of Trustees of the Society has been diligent in addressing the needs of the Clinton House as both a local history center and as the Society's headquarters. There is the promise of continued growth and success and all who are involved with the Society are dedicated Eo

that end.

Zinnual Reports

183

YEARBOOK

Win. P. Mc Dermott, Editor

The 1981 Yearbook reflected well the philosophy Oof the

current editor.

Articles accepted for publication covered

Dutchess County history from the 17th through the 20th centuries. Some authors presented work which discussed

historical events relevant to a single town while other authors discussed events which were broader in scope.

The

editor continues to encourage authors to present research for publication which reflects both of these approaches to the history of Dutchess County. In the 1980, 1981 and 1982 Yearbooks, a previously un-

covered period of history, the Civil War years, was covered effectively in the work of several capable writers. The editor believes there are many other uncovered topics in Dutchess County history which deserve attention similar to the attention received in the research on the Civil War. For example, ethnic history is an important part of the county's history which deserves more research. Carleton Mabee's article on the education of Blacks published in the 1980 Yearbook and Lee Eaton's article on the Beekman Irish in the 1981 Yearbook are two fine examples of ethnic his-

tory. But these are only a beginning. Aside from several articles on the Palatines and a few articles with slavery as a primary focus and some introductory work on local Indians, the rich history of ethnic groups in Dutchess County awaits further research. Most noticeable by its absence is the history of the 19th and 20th century immigration to Dutchess County. This is just one example of an untapped area of research. Also please note the 20th century will be eighty-three years old by the time you read the present Yearbook. Articles on tbe early period of the 20th century are long overdue. Jack Lippman's article on the depression of the 1930's in the 1981 Yearbook was a

good beginning but it is no more than a beginning. The feedback f rom a number of elementary school teachers regarding the 1981 Yearbook was quite favorable. The

Annual Reports

184

new mandate from the New York State Education Department

requires local History to be taught at the elementary school level. Teachers around the county were pleased to be made aware, through Nancy I.ogan's subject index in the 1981 Yearbook, of the rich scope of information in the Yearbooks since they were first published in 1915. Work on the 1983 Yearbook is already in progress.

Authors are encouraged to prepare their articles early so they may fall well within the July 31, 1983 deadline for submis s ions . PUBLICATIONS

Win. P. Mc D`ermott

During the past year several proposals for publication were reviewed by the committee. The result of the committee's work was a decision to reprint an important work of Helen W. Reynolds, long out of print. Therefore, Marriages and Deaths -1778-1825, volulne IV of the Collections of

the Dutchess County Historical Society was prepared for reprinting. It is a compilation of the names of couples who married and individuals who died a€ the end of the l8th century and during the early years of the 19th century. Its 6500 names (2500 marriages and 1500 deaths). are a

valuable resource for members of the Society, historical researchers and genealogists. The reprinted volume, which is available once again, conforms to the format of the recent works published by the Society. The committee also reviewed the feasibility of reprinting some of the earlier Yearbooks which have not been available for some time. Vthile there are some requests for these Yearbooks from time to time, it was apparentthat the cost of reprinting could not be recovered for many years. Although the Society believes in the value of producing works which in some instances may not be fully successful economically, the decision to take such action is dependent on the size of the demand. In the case of the

Annual Reports

185

earlier Yearbooks the demand does not warrant reprinting. The committee also reviewed a manuscript from a local author. The work was quite well done and appeared to have a potentially broad readership. The committee believed it was useful to support this author's attempt to obtain a foundation grant to publish his work. After a number of contacts with the author, it became apparent the Society was not able to of fer the kind of support preferred by the author. Additionally, there were legal and fund raising ramifications which inhibited the Society from pursuing

this particular publication. Nevertheless, the Society's interest in reviewing works on Dutchess County history for publication which are economically feasible continues. For example, the feasibility of publishing the proceedings of the conference sponsored by the Society, entitled "Quaker Life in the Hudson Valley, A Regional Perspective" is being studied at present. The most recent publication of the Society entitled Eighteenth Century Documents of the Nine Partners Patent and the most recent reprint Old Gravestones of Dutchess County, N.Y., volumes X and I of Collections, continue to

be successful publication ventures. At present the sales of both volumes have exceeded their publication costs and are now providing income Eo the Society.

Annual Reports

186

ANNUAI. TREASURER'S REPORT 1981

Balance -December 31, 1980

2'145.72

Receipts Dues

Landmarks

Donations Wells Fund .

10'017.89 1'466.38 i.753.76 1,632.11 310.75 1'464.00 I,637.15

Reynolds Fund Adams Fund

Publication Sales Yearbook

Pilgrimages Meetings Quaker Grant Misc. Sales

Insurance

Glebe House

4,103.00 600.00 2,046.78

1,600.00 353.35 67.50 83.12 27,135.79

27,1.35.79

$29'281.51

Disbursements Salaries (net) IRS - FICA and Withholding Federal Employment Insurance NYS - Withholding NYS - Unemployment Insurance Buildings & Grounds Housekeeping Telephone

4,974.49 1,857.47 35.54 215 . 22 431.70 I,267.02 580.00 905.58

Glebe House

376.64 2 , 0 0 0 .. 0 0

Postage

Preservation Newsletter Of f ice Supplies Pilgrimages Meetings Accessions Quaker Grant Capital Improvement

Art Restoration

Director's Fund

Membership

Board Secretarial Expenses

Publications

Yearbook

Insurance

Misc. Sales Taxes Accounting

Technical Training & Studies Research Capital Fund Drive

Legal Monies Post Office Box Rental (continued)

i,061.66 577.13 456.82

i,833.06 i,278.16 390.41 525.89 623.99 575.00 800.00 393-09 178.64 278.72 917.02 1'088.00 233.98 545.00 2'400.00 230.00 67.50 108.50 18.02 26.00

187

Annual Reports

Disbursements , continued)

$29,281.52

Fees

loo . 00

Affiliation

50.00

Bank Charges

30.75 22.75 40.00 51.17 27.544.92

Employment Advertisement Education

Exhibits

Balance - December 31, 1981

GENERAI] FUND

27.,544.92

1,736.59

(Savings)

Balance - December 31, 1980

Receipts - Interest

74.59 4.30

Balance -December 31, 1981

78.89

HELEN WILKINSON REYNOLDS FUND

(Publications) Balance - December 31, 1980

$2.6 ,777 .2.3

(Savings & Interest Bearing Accounts)

Receipts - Interest

2,131.37

2,131.37 28'908.60

Disbursements

Transfers to Treasurer's Account Transfers to Wells Fund

1,466.38

1'199.23 2,665.61

Balance -December 31, 1981

2,665.61 $26,242.99

WILLIAM PLATT ADAMS FUND

(Interest for Glebe House Support) Balance -December 31, 1980

$25,022.18

(Bonds at Investment Value)

Receipts

1,753.76

Disbursements

1,753.76

1,753.76 26,755.94

Balance -December 31, 1981

$25'022.18

Annual Reports

188

CAROLINE T. WELLS FUND

(General Purposes) Balance -December 31, 1980

(Bonds, stocks at Investment Value; Savings and Interest Bearing

S129 , 641. 42

Accounts)

Receipts Interest & Dividends Transfer from Reynolds

S|0'526.4| i,199.23 11'725.64

11 ' 7 2.5 . 6 4 141,367.06

Disbursements Transfer to Checking Balance -December 31, 1981

10,017.89

S13| , 349 .17

pREslDENrs OF HlsroRICAL saclHIEs IN HE TENs OF DtmclHss cOuNTy

JENIA George E. Phillips 317 Folan Road AHnda, N.I. 12501 BEACEN

Joan K. Van Voorhis 82 North Walnut St. Beacon, N.Y. 12508 BEEEHEN

Mrs. mrothy ilfontgontery Walter ltoad IIapevell Junction, N.Y. 12533

C-

William S. Benson Tr. Hollcw Fbad Salt point, N.¥. 12578

H€. Caroline Reichehoerg RE Carthy Road cover Plains, N.Y. 12522

189

NOFtt-I Mrs. William Warren Fieservoir Itoad rfullerton, N.¥. 12546 plEASAnFT VAIIEy

ELs. Judy M)ran 21 Arbor Arms Apts. Pleasant Valley, N.Y. 12569 PCxpCHKRESIE (Bch7dofn Park

IIistorical Association) itrs. John wcod 4 Mesier Avenue, South Wappingers Falls, N.Y. 12590 POUCEIKEH?SIE CITY

Tfrothy AIlred 3 Eastman Terrace Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12601

QtJArm HIIL & vlclNIT¥

ltrs. N. Edward iMitchell Wi]Jcjmson HollChr ltoad Pavling, N.Y. 12564

FasT FlsHKIEL

Joseph 8. Walls

Vulcrest Drive Hopevell Junction, N.Y. 12533

FISE-

Carl Frts 19 Bred St.

Fishkill, N.Y. 12524 HIDE PARIC ASSCX=IAIION

Icon FToats 3 Watson Place Hyde Park, N.¥. 12538 HYDE PARK SCX=IFHY

Kathng Stea-

HollcRT Rldge Itoad

Staatsburg, N.Y. 12580 IiA CENGE

Dr. Ffroin Hunger Didell Fbad, RI) #2 Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12603

RE HcOK (Egbert Benson Historical

society oE E± E±)

Arty o'Neiii fox 1776

Red Hcok, N.Y. 12571

IREltrilyn Hatch FD 2, fox 150A Ehinebeck, N.Y. 12572

ST-FD M]s. W. J. Arbuoo Box 154, South Anson ltoad

Stanfordville, N.Y. 12581

tJNICIN iMrs. Helen Manson P.O. Box 100' Verbark, N.Y. 12585

vueplNGEp`

Mrs. Katherine Ijyons 15 W. AIadeny St.

LITTLE NINE PARTNERS

ltr. Ech7ard Sctweikardt FErviev Avenue Pine Plains, N.Y. 12567

Wapeingers Falls, N.¥. 12590 VzzffilNGI0N Charles TriExp P.O. Box 592

rfulThrcok, N.¥. 12545

APPOINTED HISTOEENS OF

190

DtHCEIESS COUNIY

cOuNIy HsroRIAN

Jeyce Ghee Cbunty Office Building Poughkeepsie, New York 12601

clTy HlsroRlz±Drs

POUG-SIE

BFFbcEN

Ale2rmder D. Rngers

Elizabeth I. Carter

12 W. Willcw Beacon, N.Y. 12508

40 Endolph Ah7enue foughkeepsie, N.Y. 12603

TchlIN IHsroRIANs AlflEVA

Catherine IIeigh

LE-

Flint Hill toad

Mrs. mnald 8. Dedrick Nellie Hill Road

AmEnia, N.Y. 12501

hover Plains, N.Y. 12522

RILe FHton

Clove Valley Red

Hopen7ell Junction, N.Y. 12533

CL-N

H. Richard Van Vliet Fiddler's Bridge Rc)ad Staatchurgh, N.Y. 12580

EasT FlsHHm Henry Ctssidy Fdshlrore Feed Sto]rmdlle, N.Y. 12582

PISWilla Skiner Cfiarlotte RJad Fishkill, N.Y. 12524

Toot HISTORIANS (Cbntinued)

FISREEL (Village)

RE HcOK

rmgaret Samers Rapalje toad

John "inthrop Aldrich

Fi5hkill, N.Y. 12524

Barrytcam, N.Y. 12508

HYDE PZRI

rmialne trace Mill Rc)ad, P.O. Box 554 I]yde Park, N.Y. 12538

IA CENGE

Erily Johnson ifere ltoad Pleasant Valley, N.Y. 12569

I-

Clara W. ifeee RE #2, fox 171 Red Hdek, N.y. 12571

NOFHTusT

Chester Eisenhuth Sinmns St., Box 64 rfullefron, N.¥. 12546

P2hi-

Fbnald Peck South Quaker Hill ltoad Pavling,. N.¥. 12564

PRE P-S Dr. Pyme R. D. Fbne Mt. Fbss Fbad Pine Pla:ius, N.I. 12567 PIEASAnIT VAIIEy

"Ftokdy„

Fun HcOK (Village)

Fbserrny E. cous 34 Garden Street Red Hcx)k, N.Y. 12571

FE-Fffi

ENitt -ell

38 Muutry Street

Ithinebeck, N.Y. 12572

ST-EO

ltrs. Elfror Beckwith Stissing ltoad Stanfordville, N.Y. 12581

¥kvB)

2 FTiendship Street

Tivoli, N.Y. 12582 tjNICIN VRE

Irena Stolarik

N. Srrith Road I.aGrangeville, N.Y. 12540

vuepINGR Mrs. Cbnstance Smith RE #3, Itoute 376 . WaExpingers Falls, N.¥. 12590

emppINCHRS FAILS (Village)

Gail Cfotty

Miss Caroline P. Wixson

Quaker Hill Ebad Pleasant Valley, N.Y. 12569

Wappingers Falls, N.Y. 12590

pouGIKEEpSIE uchunT

lds. Virginia Ferris

86 Fast Min st. VREINcON

6 Kingsway Circle

Iouise H. Ttrykins Dutchess Cbunty Infirmary

Carrelot Village

rfulThrcok, N.¥. 12545

Pou9hkeepsie, N.Y. 12601

191

DUT]cIEss corjNTy HlsroRICAL saclFTy

193

Mefroership - Septend3e±. 1982

Honorary

beyo, Je-

Buck, Clifford M. Butts, Dr. FTardclin A. Carter, Atrs. E. Sterling

Mc DermDtt, Dr. W-illiam P. Pch7ers, Mrs. A]beri

Ttrykins , IOLdse

Adriance Mchorial Library Ahlhack, ltr. & Mrs. Iouis

Alquist, fey T.

•Aldeborgh, Mrs. David Alden Elernentary School

Bell, ntrs. Claude R. Berrson, William Benton, Mr. & Mrs. Ezra R. Bergmann, Mr. & ltrs. Fric

Aldrich, John Winthrop Aldrich, Mrs. R]ssell Aldridge, Iouise R.

Berry, June Beast, Charles E. Biercre, fro E. Birch, Bicthard

Allen, Mr. & Dtrs. Edward C.

Biszick, prrs. Barr

Allen, Theodora D.

Blakley, ftys. Eha

Alired, Tim Amenia Historical Society Alerson, Edgar A.

Blcxner, Dtrs. F. Irving Boos, Mrs. Cfiarles

Bawidoin Park Historical Assoc. Bchman, Mr. & Mrs. donald

Anderson, Dtrs. Raper± W. Andrew, Fifank & Marie

Braig, Mrs. Iouis I.

Zdson, Shirley V.

Breed, prHs. Jalres R.

Armstrong, Mr. & Mrs. Thomas I. Armold, ltr. & Mrs. Dermis R.

Breed, ltrs. R. Huntington

*A-|d, Elting

*Asher, lfrs. Rcheri W. Auser, Dr. Cbrtland P. AR7erill , Welter

"gley, George A.

Bailey, Elton, V. V., Tr.

Ecker, Murell

Balch, Dr. fosooe A.

Baltuch, ro-

Banta, Mr. & Mrs. George

Breed, Atr. & Dtrs. Rc>ber± 8.

Bresee, I.aurence & Elizabeth

*Briggs, prlf. & ltrs. Kenneth R. Brinkerhoff , Da:vid W. BrChzn, prlf. & Mrs. Edward G.

Brcrmell, Mrs. Daphne M.

Buchanar„ Beatrice S. ELck, Ijerrore V.

Buglion, Juliaine

*Bulleckap, Ciface Bushnell, Dtrs. Elizabeth

Banta, fyb=. & Mrs. J. Edward

Buthmann, Eleanor

Bard College Library Bartholf , Elizabeth 8.

Butts, Alfred M. Butts, Mr. & ntrs. Cfiarles A.

Bastian, Dr. & Ivbs. Edward H.

Butts, ltrs. F±arkljn A.

ELtgrLan, Petty 8. Ek33dfr, Lionel F.

BLrys, EELrbara Srfuth

Beacon IIistorical Society Beck, Mf. & Mrs. William C.

Ca±l, Harlan R.

Cantor, IIea Etia Capers, .Mrs. Ellison

Beelrman IIistorical Society

Carl, AHrold G. Carman, Dtrs. William Carroll, Mr. & Mrs. William

Behrens, Mr. & }trs. Manley 1].

Carter, Mrs. Dtorman

Becker, Mr. Stephen P. Bedkwith, Mr. & Mrs. Asa T.

-, Betty M. *Life Dferrdr

Ca]±er, lds. George 0.

194

Ctryer, ZThur H. Case, Edrbea A.

nyk-, Nathan

Case, Mr. Itobe]± R.

Eastirood, Robert S. Eaton, Mrs. Raylrond

East Fishkill IIistorical Soc.

Cassidy, Mrs. Joseph A. Cavalier, Mrs. roroth:y H.

Ech7ards, Mrs. Georgia S. Effron, Mr. & Mrs. David

Chaput, Jaques

Chiaramonte, Mrs. Arlene Ciolko, Mr. & Mrs. William

Clark, Dr. Jonathan Clark Cb. Genealogical Society

Clinton IIistorical Society Clinton Iijbrary Center

Effron, |esse Eggert, ltrs. Betty Blair Eidle, Dtrs. M. Kenneth

Eiserfuth, Chester F.

Eisrur, tester

*Ellis, Mrs. Waiter I.

cole, Helen C.

Elting drfrorial Library

cormin, John R.

Finsley, rms. TOsem Ensley, Joseph W. & Beverly

Cbnnelly, Rayrrond J. Cbnnevey, Dtr. & Mrs. Charles II.

F±ickson, Mr. & Mrs. Newton

Cbnnolly, Dr. & .uns. John conrad, Mrs. Anne D.

Fal±baim, Mrs. Helen L.

cot)k, Dtr. & fytrs. Itobert H.

Ftrmer, Leah P.

Gookinghan, George E.

Fink, Mrs. Ifapledormn

Fairbanks, Mr. & Mrs. John M.

*Chok, ife. TLmer

Fetler, Daniel

Fishkill Historical Society Fishkill Plains Library Fitchett, Mrs. Bemice Fitchett, Carlton 8.

Ctokingham, Dtrs. Virginia Goons, Dtrs. Roseniary Coote, Mrs. James W. Gorming, Mrs. Edwin

Cbstello, Mrs. Hazel M. Gc)cert, Mrs. A]bert C. Crapser, Kay M. Criswell, Cbl. Howard D.

Flowers, George S.

*Floyd, REth Van Vqyck Fogg, Oflchael

Critesifoore, per. & lrfrs. Ibnald

Fone, Eyme R. S.

Fbrster, James V.

Ctoss, Raxpnd G.

Fouhy, Dtr. & ltrs. Rc]beri C.

Cr`m, Mrs. Raylrond P. a]nningham, Mrs. Edward V. K.

FTaleigh, Cinarles H.

Curdy, REdford

CLrds , REgaret D'Avanzo, Dtr. & prlfs. Ai]relio Davies, rm=s. Hugh R.

F±ancke, Iouis I.

*FTancke, Mrs. Spraker FTazer, Mr. & Mrs. Silas FTeer, Marguerite R. Fkencin, Dds. FTank J. FTiedland, Dr. & Mrs. S. L.

Davis, ltr. & Ifty; s. Putnan

*Frincke, M]riel E.

Dean, Mr. & M]s. G. V.

Debold, Cbnstance R.

Ftoats, Itr. & M]rs. Iean A.

DecEcer, Mrs. Harry

Ftost, Ba±bara V. Furlong, Mr. & lds. Joseph

de Cbrdova, Dtoel Tr.

tryan, Gall

De Graff , fyn:. & Mrs. John De I]a Vergne, Dtr. & Mrs. Charles Pe PaLIV, Dferlin M.

betnff , Rapend

Gariland, Mr. & Mrs. J. I. Tr. Gay, Mr. & Dtrs. Rbbe]± C.

Dickson, Mr. Cthauney

Geisler, Mr. & ltrs. John

Diddell, Mildred D. REge, Bernice F.` coty, Olive H.

Gdie, William F. Gelleft, Dtr. & Mrs. Arthur L. Genel, EL. & Mrs. Alton

hover Historical Society

Genealogical Society-Salt I.ake

*±, Stephen olin

George, prlf. & ltrs. Glenn

Dunkelbarger, Mrs. Janet Ii.

Ge]rmc>nd, rtrs. Hcmer

DLmton, Jha try

thee, deyce C.

*Durocher, Mrs. Linus F.

Dutchess crmmii]r cbllege

CELlo, Paul A. Gardner, Mr. & Mrs. James E. Gardner, .vy. & Mrs. John R.

Dutchess Cc). Genealogical Society

*Gill, George M. Gloves, Jermy H.

Clover, Maria A.

195

Grant, Mr. & Mrs. Henry G.

IIciyt, Mrs. William V. HLifeard, ltr. &Mrs. E. S.,Ill

eetz, Diane M. Ciraytrd, Panala S.

Hubbard, ltr. & ltrs. E. Stuaife,Jr.

Green, Mrs. J. Sam Greene, I./.ff,. & lvrirs. F. coleman

Hunger, Dr. & ltrs. Edwin L. Hunt, Mrs. A. Seaman

Griffeth, Ma]]r & Jonathan

Hunter, Mtry alice Hyde Park Historical Assoc. Ilyde Park Historical Society Hyde Park Library Association Ingersoll, n.ts. Iona Varton

Grey, ftys. Etrd

G=irmell Iiibrary Association

Guernsey, Mr. & btrs. H. Wilson

Cinell, Iie Witt

Gurmano, Mr. & lfrs. Joseph

Gustafson, Its. Julia 8.

Hunter, Eha R.

Jacob, Mrs. Thchnas F. JamE=s, Ptr. Spencer C. Jr.

Eager, William D.

Jatjmet, Mrs. Ioretta T.

Hahn, Mr. & Mrs. Thcmas, Sr.

•aycDx, Her± L.

Halght, Ijysdon A. Halpin, Talres H. Halstead, Mrs. Purdy A. Ham, Mrs. T. Frederick Halrbleton, Mrs. Williari H.

Teanneney, Dr. & Mrs. dchn

Haggerty, Th€

Halrersley, Mr. & Mrs. L. Cordon

Hane, prHs. Milton J. Hansen, Mrs. 8. G.

Harden, Miss Helen Hare, Carolee

*Harmelink, Rev. & Mrs. H. H.,Ill HarmDn, Mr. & Mrs. Vermon C.

Hart, ltrs. Herbert F. Hasbrouck , Alfred Hasbrouck, Mrs. Martha HaslarL, ltrs. Peter Haugh, Mr. & Mrs. conner F. Hauser, Mr. & Mrs. Arthur E. Hawicins, William & Agatha W.

IIa:yden, Dr. & res. Benjamin, Ill Hayden, Mrs. Catherine V. Heaton, Mr. & Mrs. I.Enurence A. Hedges, Mr. & Mrs. James, 11

Heddgerd , William Henroth, Mrs. George Hevenor, Ftobert 8.

Janson, Mrs. William H.

Teffries, prlfs. John F.

J-er, John M.

dchnson, Dr. & ®trs. C. Cblton

*Johnson, Mr. & ltrs. I. Edrard Jones, Henry Kaltz, Mr. & ltrs. Dieter Kane, Mr. & Dtrs. John V.,Ill Kane, Mrs. I[inda L.

Kelly, Arthur C. M. Kendall, Mr. & ltrs. Rbbert Kermedy, Helen I. Kerin, ltrs. Edward 8.

Kester, Charlotte T. Key, James W. & Mary C.

Kinkead, Miss Elsie H.

Kirdy, Helen Cornell Klare, urs. Harold V. REuss, Mr. & Mrs. Hctrard C.

Krickerbocker, Mrs. WilliarL Koloski, Dr. & Mrs. Ra:prond Kranz, Mrs. Mary M.

Thn]lelwich, E. Peter IIa Cirange Historical Society I.ana, ).tr. & ltrs. Walmo W.

I.are, Miss lfargaret L.

Hicks, Mary C. Hill, prlf. & Mrs. Grant 8.

rae, Margaret T. I.aHabee, Pfarshall, Ill

Hill, Mrs. Harry H.

I]attin, Mr. & rms. C. M., Sr. Iiawlor, Demise M.

Hinkley, Mr. & Mrs. David R. Hirst, Mrs. H. Sherman

#Hoag, Mrs. F. Ihilip

Hoe, Mr. & Mrs. Edward Ij. *Hoe, Mr. & Mrs. Fbberi

Hdecker, Alice & Anita Hoff, Mr. & Mrs. Frederick Hoffmann, Dds. Edith Holden, rm=. & Mrs. Arthur E. Hoskins, Mr. & Mrs. Itouglas Howard, Mr. & Mrs. Edward Van

Hcwley, John Hoyt, hiss Ruth M.

-n, - V.

Ijeigh, Mrs. Catherine Flint IIermox, Gail M. IIerc)y, Mrs. HCh7ard J.

Iievy, Mrs. Ijpr

*I.eIvis, Mr. & ltrs. Iou

I.indsley, Rev. James Elliot liREnan, Dr. I. Jack Litt, Mr. & Mrs. Solcron

Little Nine Partners Hist.Soc. Livingston, Marian A. tockwcod, Mr. & Mrs. IIansing

196

rtyan, Nany A.

Ichardi, Joseph I.

*Iosee, Byron Vincen± Iosee, rms. Toha

tossing, Margaret tossing, Mary S. Iove, Mr. & M]=. donald LHcas, Atr. & ltrs. Iiucas J.

Ijudwig,. charlotte E. Ijunb, Mrs. James L.

Ijut, Mr. & Mrs. Stephen P. Lurid, David & Iinda

*Ijpr, rms. c. L. Ijyon, Lucinda S.

MacGuirmess, Mrs. Rc)ber+ 8. Madsen, Mr. & ltrs. Alfred M.

mguire, J. Itober+ Mansfield, Mrs. G. Stuart Maranto, Darlyne & Fbank

Maroonette , Marguerite Marist College Library Dfarshall, Joseph W. Mastmann, Dtr. & Mrs. Herbert

rather , Cbastancre Mauri, Atrs. Stephanie

*Mavadones, Zinas M. Ma3twell, Clarence W. MC€abe, Mrs. Joseph

NIalley, Dtrs. Adrienne A. IfeGarfo, Mr. & Dtrs. Arthur 8.

Mcoullough, Dtrs. David G. MCDonald, Mrs. Charles F. IfoH]roe, Mr. JacHc A. MeGinnis, ltr. & Mrs. I.an7rence MCGinnis, Dtr. & Mrs. Peter

Dfflrik, Ms. Patricia H. ifeKee, Mrs. Jean MCKinnon, Mrs. Sandra Tchor Dunerman, Donald H. Mead, Mr. & ltrs. Ricinard T. Meadcws, Elizabeth M. Meads, Mrs. Manson Dfeagher, Mr. Ra:prond E., Jr. Mesler, Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth 8. Meyer, Mr. & Dds. Ricfrond F.

Meyes, Esther G. Millbrcok Central School Mil]brook Free Library

tiller, Elliot

Miller, Mr. & Mrs. John *rfuller, Rev. A. J.

Millett, Dtr. Stephen C. Dfllls, Dtrs. Harold S.

Millspaugh, Itr. & Mrs. Stanley Mintu]m, Mrs. Gerald

Mitchell, ntrs. tharies A. Th4itchell, Grayson 8. Mitchell, Mrs. N. Edrrard

Dfoerschell, Mr. & Mrs. G. E.

Mbger, Rny & Elizabeth Mjngoven, Dtr. & Dds. Ech7ard R. AfontgcHnery, Mr. & Mrs. R. J. *Dfoore, Atrs. Sarmrel A.

toran, ELs. Judy M3rey, C. AIlerton Oforrissey, ltr. & Dds. James

ltbser, Dtrs. Clifford M. Dfosher, Mr. & Mrs. Cfiarles ifetes, Mr. & Mrs. I. H. Mimd, Dr. & Mrs. Andrew rmmderback, }tr. & Mrs. C. R.

Murpky, Brian M]rtaugh, Dtr. Edward J. ftylod, prlf. & Mrs. Charles I. Nalle, rm=s. John M.

Naralrore, Bruoe E. Navims, Mrs. Charles J. Nelson, D. Peter

ENestler, Harold R. Netter, prFTs. E. M. Nevers, Dds.. George A.

Nalfourgh Free Library Ne`man, rm. & Mrs. Edward

Neyer, Wiha J. 8. Nichols, Mr. & Dtrs. Williani

ltorris, Mr. & Mrs. Stanley I.

Dtortheast Historical Society NDrton, Mrs. Itonald E. Noxon Rc>ad Elerteuta]ey School

CELey, Edith H. O'Brien, Itoris J. O'honoghue, George

Olivett, F±ark J. ollivett, Zmdrey O`Neill, Ellen Marie Cmerman, ltr. & Mrs. Martin Outon, prlfs. Horace V. O`Shea, E. Richard

Ostrander, Collfn E. Ouimette, Rcher± A. Ouilnette, Dtr. & Dtrs. W. T.

Pantridge, Dtr. & Mrs. R. A. Parker, prlfs. Thomas E.

Peters, Mrs. Bardara E. Petz, Mr. & ltrs. Joseph I,. Picard, prHs. Irving

Pierce, lthdeline E.

Pierce, Ro± Pimscka, REth

Pleasant Valley Epee Library Pleasant Valley Hist. Society Podmaniczlry, Dtr. C. 8. Po]herms, Mrs. Dtorman H. Pcmerqy, Mr. & Dds. R. Watson Potter, .fry. & Mrs. Qren W.

*Pouciner, John L.

197

Poughkeepsie Historical Society

Pugsley, ltrs. S.. Ve]ma

Sinnott, rm=. & Atrs. Joseph

Pultz, ltrs. Frank H. Pulver, Mr. & lds. a. JQrdan

Skinner, .Mrs. "illa

Psaltis, Peter

Quaker Hill Historical Society Rack, Mrs.. Marita L. Radovski, Mr. David A.

Fndoiph schcoi

Rawson, Mr. & Dds. Edrmd G. Reed, Mr. & Dtrs. Pay, Tr. . *Reese, Dtr. & Mrs. Willis L. M. Reese, Dtrs. James E.

Reichenberg, Mrs. Richard Jr. Reicheft, Dtr. Henry C: Reifler, itr; . & Mrs. Aaron

Reigle, enald L.

Reilly, Mr. & Mrs. Edward R. Renshaw, ltrs. RQberi E.

RIinebeck Country School

REinebeck IIistorical Society Roberts , Richard `

*fodenburg, Mrs. Carl A.

*Roig, Mr. & Mrs. Herbert S. Roosevelt, F. D. , High Scinool

Rcosevelt, Franklin D. rfbrary F!osenblatt, Mrs. A]ber± Rothwell, Dtr. William F. , Jr. REin, Mr. & Mrs., Nathaniel . RIesch, Miss Alida E.

RE, IJudig

FLrme, E±

*Rprq}h, Mr. & Mrs. Carltc>n *ftylxph, Mr. & Mrs. Ernest *F3apngph, Mr. & Mrs. IIarvey T.

Sadlier, Mrs. William J.

Saltford, Her±

Salvat=o, Mr. & Dds. donald Sanmis, C. Theodora

*Salrmis, Gertn]de C.

sarfus, urs. Hcryd Sanford, Mr. & Mrs. David N.

Satterthwaite, Mrs. J. Sheafe Saye, Mrs. Marian V. A. Scardapane, Dr. & Atrs. F. A. dr. Scineniman, Beatrice E. ScErmidt, Mr. & Mrs. C. 8.,11

Sdidt, Mabel S.

Sch©tag, David C. Schoo]rmaker, Mr. & Mrs. Allen,Ill Schoonmaker, ltrs. Heleri H. *ScDtt, Henry L. Seeger, Mr. & Mrs. Peter

Seymour Smith Elenentary Schcol Shelby, th=s. Cfiarlotte

Skidlrore, Hazel Slocurn, Dr. & Mrs.Jonathan

Smith, Constance 0. Smii±i, Mr. & Mrs. Clifford

Srith, rms. Earl Smith, M:s. Edwin A.

Smith, Elizabeth M.

srith, Ehice H.

smith, prlf=. mcoin Smithers, Mr. & Mrs. John A. SQmers, .Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Sonrmers, Mrs. Virginia

*South, Paul Spece, Maparet N.

Sping-, Errs. Tcel apingler , Pfrgaret

Spratt, Mr. & Mrs. Falres, Jr.

*Spross, I.tr. & Dffs. Cfias.G. ,Ill Spross, Mr. & Dtrs. Hul3ert C.

Stache, ZThur P. Stairs, htr.. & rm=s. David S.

Stanford Historical Society Stearms, Robert E. Steeho]m, Dtrs. Hardy

Steiinaus , William R. Stenberg, Frances W. Stappacher, Mrs. Margery Stevens, Dtrs. Waiter W. Stevenson, Dr. Jean K.

Stolarik, Mts. Karel Strain, _ds. Cha]mer L. Strain, prig. a. Mrs. Richard C.

*Strang, collin

Strang, Mr. & Mrs. Rc)ber±

Stringhan, Mrs. Varick V. , Sr.

*Stringham, Mr. & ltrs. V., Jr. Stutz, Mr. & rm=s. Frederick Suckley, Margaret 1]. Supple, .Mrs. Iconard I. Swenson, Ms. christine M.

Swift, ltrs. Georgia E. Swift, Fdrth P.

Tabu, ltr. David S. Takacs, Mr. & Mrs. Daniel

Taylor, Atrs. corm Taylor, Robin Pelfer, Mrs. Florine D. Thayer, Ms. Tag

Thornton, Mrs. Archie Thornton, Mr. & ntrs. J. Stanley Thystr`Jp, Miss Marion E.

Sherman, Mr. & ltrs. Jonah

Tirm, Miss ruth

Shields, David S. Siepietoski, Joseph & Sandra

THakel, Nevell 8.

Ttole, K-eth R.

198

Traver, Mr. & Dtrs. Theodore H. TSchudin, Mr. & Mrs. Enil Tuceling, Mr. & Mrs. Williani

Tfrold, Mndorie S. Tynan, John F. Tyrrel, .tar. & Mrs. Nelson M.

Ulrich, Eta A.

Thion VAle Historical Society Valente, Miss Edith Van Benschoten, Dtr.. & Mrs. John Van Benschoten, Mr. & Mrs. W.

Van Kleeck, Dtrs. Baltus 8. Van KleecEc, Baltus 8. , Jr. ftyan Kleeck, Peter Van Kleeck, Mrs. Ralph E. Van Kleeck, Cbl. R. Thomas

Voorhees, Dr. Earle W.

Voorhees, hiss Valere S. Wife, William a.

Wager, H-d C.

Wappingers Falls Hist. Society Wachburn, Mrs. 01In G. Washburn, Dtr. & Mrs. William F.

ifeshington Historical Society "cher, Dtrs. Donald

"chster, Mrs. Allen Werck, FTancis H.

Werder, ELss Catherine VELen, Olive white, Mr. & Mrs. Williarn R.

Willialrs , torothy

Willies, Fha 8.

Van KleecHc, William T.

Tthlliamson, Dtr. & ltrs. Geo. D.

Van Vliet, Dtr. & Its. H. Richard Van Voorhis, Mrs. Ralth 8.

willig, I.tr. & Dtrs. Stanley 8. Wilson, Gtorge N. Wilson, IIcona V. Wch]back, ltrs. Jernes

Van Wagner, Alson D.

Van Wagoner Genealogical Iiferary Van Zanten, Mr. & ltrs. Frank

Varian, ruth W. 8. Vassar Cbllege Library Vassar, John A.

Velletri, Mrs. Iouis J.

tolfson, WilliarL & ruth frollenhai]pt, lds. Arthur tood, Mr. & lths. Th. RQbert

torkmaster , "allace

Verven, Dtr. & ELs. Angelo

"mderly, ltr. & Dtrs. Rcheri Yallen, .urs. Lola

Vinall, Mrs. Harry E.

Young, Fir. & Mrs. Paul M.

Vinci, A-

Vogel, rms. C±aig

Zuccarello, Dr. Iouis

Index

Adriance, Platt and Co. , Bardavon, (continued) 121

Aertson patent, 154

agriculture; anrfus, log;

25' 26

Barxpres, the, 128;

du Chaillu, Paul 8. ,

Fairbarke , Itouglas ,

"Bakers Falls", 79; Garmiencke, Johann, 71; Church, FTederic, 79; Fh7as, Jim, 77; "Factory on the Hudson",

7|j

Beardsley, Tthllian, 132 Bech, Edrard, 71 Bech`s Furnace, 7lf Beeklrm, Henry, 102, 154, 159, 161, 165; patent, 154f Bellorront, Gov. ,146

Bowdoin Park, 92f , 103, 104; farm, 93, 98;

127;

Angevine, John, 42;

art & artists;

Bauer, Harold, 130

Bennett farm, 11, 12 Berkeley, Iord, 142 Bie, Chris, 12 black:s, Civil War, 112f 128; Denishain7n Dancers , 132; BlocHrer, Gilbert, 54 Drew, John, 128; Bouton, Jdciel, 54 E]man, hischa, 128;

Armold, Azariah, 108

Barmcin, Dr. ,17

Altschuler, Mtodest, 129;Boss, Capt. Joseph, 30

Amsterdam (Holland) , 101

Peter' 42 archaeology, 91f

Barmegat, 101 i

Adams, Maude,128;

Bauer, Harold, 130 ; Rc)osevelt, F. D., 58; Ben Greet Players, 129; Wadigton Hollow Bernhardt, Sarah, 128; Fdr' 107f Etoth, Efiwh, 128; Albany (city) , 25, 27, 75,Boston Srfuony, 128; 86,101,14lf; co.,166 Brooks, louise, 132; Altarront Stoctc Farm, 109 Bulver-Ijytton, 127 ; Amenia Precinct, 39 cdrillo, fro, 132; American Revolution, 25f , Damrosch, Walter, 128; 37f; battles, 33, 35; de Pachman, Vladimer,

Crmissioners of Forfeiture, 37f ; Confiscation Act, 37f ; loyalists, 37f , minutenen,

199

Historical Assoc. , 104; Historical Soc. , 92

132;

Boyd, Ebenezer, 49, 56

Fish, Hamilton Sr. ,134;Brett, Catharine,162, Gabrilcwitsch, Osip, 128; 165; Roger, 162 Gilbert & Sullivan, 129;Briggs, Miss Sarah, 117 Graham, Martha, 132; British, 25f, 27, 32, 34, Gran Ffench Cpera, 127;

41, 48; Alnada, 27;

Heifetz, Jascha,128; Held, Anna, 128;

goveHmrmt,146; ministry, 25, 32; Rpyal

. iferber±, Victor, 129;

AHrE7, 41; squadron, 34;

Ferguson, Henry, 79; "Glerrs Falls, RE", 79;

Itofmann, Josef, 128; vessels, 25f Horst, Iouis, 132; Brocfrolls, Governor, 145 refferson, Joseph, 128; Broughton, Saxpson, 146

Hcmer, Winslcw, 79;

Johnson-Ketchel fight ,

"torning Belle", 79; '`Poughkeepsie Iron forks", 71;

129; Keene, I.aura, 127; Klaw & Erlanger,129; lfac cracken, Henry N. ,

Wall, William, 79

Mansfield, Richard,128; Carmiencke, Tohann Herlnann,

"in. Ktaadn`', 79; "Poughkeepsie, NY", 77;

Astor, Vincent, 16 Zbetin, ton, 87 Ayrault, George, 108

Calrpbell, George D. ,132 Calxpobello Island, 11, 16 "Canpto`m Races" (song) , 108

134;

Canada,11

rick, Karl,128; 7lf Paderevski, Ignace,128; Carteret, Iord,142 RI]ssell, Iillian, 128; Caspar Kill, 91, 101, 102, Russian Sprphony,129;

103

Bangall; village of, lil, St. Denis, RIth, 129, 117

±von Theatre, "Concerned Citizens for",136;

perfoHners and

prfo-ces:

"Black Chook" ,129;

"Genevieve of Brabant" , 127; "Hindcx] Dances", 129;

"Iady' of Lyons", 127;

"hids€ Night ' s Dream", 129;

"ifee Angelo", 132; "Rc>bin lied", 132

"The Tgrpet", 129;

oerneteries, I.assen family,

132j

Schumann-Heirk,

Einestine,128; Sherm, Ted,132; Sncxrden, Dtrs. Philip, 129 ;

Census (1790) , 54

Cflarlotte Precinct, 39 "Chevaux de Frize," 27f, 33f churches :

Sousa, John Philip, 128; @prphony soc. of N.Y. ,

i28; Thibaud, Jacques, 130;

Pleasant Valley Preskyterian,116;

Trinity, NIc, 43 Church, FTederic, 79

Thorrpson, Derman, 128; ci+Jes, Albany (Fort Van AmLm & Everitt Co., George) , 25, 27, 75, 127;

Weichan, Charles, 132; Zjhalist, Efren,128. Barker, Thomas, 42

86,101; Hudson, 86, 88;

Kingston, 44; Plattsburgh, 49, 54; Thite Plairrs, 34, 35

Index

200

Civil War, 90,lllf; nemra±k,101 Evans, Jim, painter, 77 & black ccrmJn±Er,.112f; rmning, william, 49, 54 Draft,111f; "Hone De Witt, John, 56,165 Factory on the ELldson Guard", 115; riotst lllf Dickenson, George E. , (oil) ' 71 113; I. P.,112 fairs, Dutchess county Dickerson, Tertullus, 42 (REinebedk) , 9; Wash-

Clark, "Cirid", 85

Clark, Kate, 85

Clay, Henry,108 Ix]ho's Ferry, 34 ington Hollow, 107 Clinton, George, 28, 30t codge, Sarmel, 45; Fallkill Creedc (see creeks) 34; Henry, 43, 44 Stephen, 42 Fall Kill Iron forks, 79 colden, Cadmallader, 143i Dongan, Gov. ThcHus, 142, Fauaonnier Patent, 146 , 147,167

144,145,147

158, 159

Cole, Robert,138 Cblenan's Station, 88, 89 Cbllingwood, James, 12lf; Opera House,121f; Theatre,130

hover,160 Ferguson, Henry augustus , Drake, -, 92 79; in.,10 Duer, William, 33, 49, 50 Field, Stephen, 56; William, 56 Dufour, Paul,145 Duke of York,142 Finch, Tin, 83f ; store, CbluTbia Cb. ,115 83f cbnfederate Any,lllf EEgivheyiyifardii:: 137; Fishkill, 33, 38, 44, Cbnfiscation Act of 1779i Stephen,137 157f , 162 38, 40, 45 Dusenbury, M)ses, 56 Fletcher, Gov. Benjamin,

cormectiout, state of, 26r Dutchess Cb. , 5f, 25f, 141, 145, 146 53, 142, 154 37f , 83f , 91f , 10lf , Flora Terrple, 108 Cbntinental Arny, 44 Fblliott, George, 40, 42, 107f , 111f , 14lf ; Cbntinental Cbngress, 40 43, 45 Agricultural Society ,

Cbpperheads, 116, 117 Cbrmbury, Governor, 145 0c)rtlandt Marior, 39

107f;

archaeology, 91f;

Cburt of C-n Pleas,

Cbssayuna Hills , 135f Cbttam Hill Fbad, 102

42;

fair, 9' 107;

falgrods, 107;

forts , Cbnstitution, 28,

34, 36; George (see A]bany) ; Washington, 27, 33,

34,

Fox, -, 144

Francisoo, Cflarley, 88 FTedericksburg, 44 land distribution, 37f ; French and Indian War, 41,

Cbttormrood Inn, 107 corn:ties: A]ban:y, 149f, 166; Cblunbia, 115;

Farm Bureau, 15;

Dutchess, 5f, 25f , 37f, land grants, 37f , 14lf;

147

leaseholders , oc)1onial , FTicker, Kenneth, 135 iiif, i4if; Kings, i49f; 37f; Friesland, Neth. ,101 83f , 91f , 101f , 107f ,

tybntgcmery, 40; New Ieyalists, 37f; York, 149f; Cn=ange, 26, pepulation, 148f ; 38, 54, 145,

149f, 164;

FTisby, catch, 56

roads, Colonial, 160; galleys (see also "ships"), 29' 30 settle¥rent, 37f , 92f ,

Putnam, 55, 154, 155f;

Germania Society, 127 Queens, 149f; Ridmnd, |0|f ' 14|f ; 149; Sutfolt, 149f; Gichey, Jochus, 42 Sheriff , 42; Ulster, 26, 38, 148f; Hi-Municipal TTeatrmenE Glower, Col. .ohm, 35

Westchester, 26, 34, 35, Plant Site, 91f 40, 52, 143f, 149f, 166

Graham, Daniel, 45, 46 Gravesend, L.I., 33

C±arv, Cbtharine s., 37

ELgland,log

Cr=ife¥L¥3¥:#2;E:;u:#J89

(of the Wa.FT pingers cheek) , 102

Great Nine Partners Patent, 155f

Greene, Brig. Gen., 26 Greenspan, Iouis, 136, 137 11, 12; Beverly house, Grirres, Capt., 30

Dnyvel, 31; Wappingers,estates: Bennett faHn, 101

43; Chm7old Farm`s, 8, Cmm7old farm, 8, 9 Cnyler, -, 102; gore, 159 9; DLxphy farm, 12; Hackett, John, 12

Davenport, Thomas, 52 Da:vidson, G. Harard, 16, 109

Deacon, Wchster, 86

de Chastelleaux, -, 43

±er, Tolm, 83f ; Iouis, 90; Ted, 90

Hcwlands, Meridith, 93; Hale, ltr. & rm;>. W. D., Hughson, 12; Jones, 12; 109 Ne`Ihold, 12, 13; Pleas- Halrmill, Daniel, 42 ant Hill, 93; Rchan Hand, Lt. Cc)1., 26 farm, 12; Springwcod, Harmiense, lqapdert, 145, 8f; "top Cottage", 12; 158, 162, 165 Tharrpkins farm, 12; Harlem, Railroad, 90 Thornedale, 1o8; Wright' ii=EE6-i;ii,--i;in-a-5" -12 Haverstraw Bay, 27, 29,30

Index Hazelwcod, John, 28 Heath, Brig. Gen., 26, 29' 30, 34

I.ady Thornedale, 108

201

Mt. Alvernia, 103

fa Cirange,. 108

Inn, Toha, 49

NEuror7s, 26

Hell Gate, 35 land grants (see National Guard, 115 Hickock's bookstore, 114 ents) , 37f , 141f Navy, the Poughkeepsie, Hill, Capt., 30 25f Hoag, Dr., 88 I.assen (see also I,assing,Netherlalds , 101 Hchrer, "irslcw, 79 I.awson, Iossing) , 91, New Fhgland, 38, 128, Iforton, rms., 89 101f; Isaac, 103; Marie 143, 144

-g Place, 93

hotels, see "inns"

Howard, Iord Charles, 33 Hciwe, General, 25f; Iord Richard, 26f ; Sir Wil-

liar, 26f , 43 Hcwlards estate, rifeedith, 93

(I.assen) Tansen, 102;

Near Hackensack, 103

Pieter, 91f; Pieter Jr.,New Hafrourg, 102 102f; Pieter Pietersen, New Jersey, 25, 26, 27,

101f; Pieter Ill, 102, 35' 142 103; William, 102, 103 New Ftocinelle, 35 Iiassenberg, the, 103 New York, 11, 25f , 33,

IIassing (see also Iiassen, Hnddleston, William, 164 Iiawson, tossing) , 92, Hlrdson diver, 71, 77, 91, 102; (I-anon) , Peter 93; American RevoluljEurenc£, 92 tion, 25f; "Factory on I.awrence, Jonathan, 45 the Htldson" (oil) , 71; I.awson (see also Iassen,

37f, 41,

43, 75,

78,

86, 88, lllf; Asserrbly, 163, 164; Ccrmissioners

of Forfeiture, Specie & Sequestration, 40f ; Crm. of Cbrrespondence,

families on the, 7, 17; I.assing, Iossing) , 91f , 33; Conservation Gcrm. ,

Highlands, 26, 27, 34, 102f; family, 104; .Fan 44; "the Hoecck", 101, ily Burial Ground, 91f ; 160; Valley, 11, 25f , H., 5; Johanne,103; 57, 58, 75

Hudson Valley Phi]ha]rmon-

ic Society, 135 Hughson, -, 12; Teremiah' 56

HLmeston ' s meat market, 88

HLmter, Gc)vernor, 143

Husted, Harp, 90 ftyde Park, 5f

14; Cbnvention, 27, 32,

35; Cbuncil of the Cblony of NI, 25f, 33, 37f;

draft riots, 1llf; For-

Peter, 9lf ; Peter I.awrence, 92; Pieter, 91f

ester, 15; Cbvernor, 14, 16, 17; Grand Central

frocry, -, 93

Little falls (of Wapr pingers creek) , 101

Ilttle Nine Partners ,

Depot, 86, 88; Grange,

16, Province, 142f

nEuspeprs :

"Breeder's Gazette", 19;

146,155,159f

"Farm Tournal", 10, 14;

Liwhgston, family, 38f ;

M|11erton Telegram, 86, 87; Poughkeepsie Daily 165; robert R., 27,142 Eagle, lllf ; PoughkeepIndian, 142, 145; deed, Iong Island Sound, 25, 26, sie Journal, 136; Bough101

.Mjanor, 142, 143; _futr. G., 28; Philip,

34,

35,

36,

keepsie Sunday courier,

Inglis, Charles, 40, 42,Iorrain, Claude, 123 43' 45

inns, Brick Block, 89;

!fllerton, 89

6, 7, 9' 14

tossing (see also lassen, Nine Partner's Patent (see I.assing, I.almson) , 9lf , also "Great" and "Iittie") , 159

102; Eierrson, 102

touds, Perry, 89

Nine Partners Precinct,

Jamison, David, 163, 164 loyalist estates, 37f 158 Jam Caspr's Kill, 101, Indington, Oc>1onel Henry, ltortheast Precinct (see 102

also "Little Nine Part-

Jansen, Maria (IIassen) , Ijyceun series, 127

hers") , 158

102

Jay, John, 27

Mac Cracken, Henry N. ,134Oblong, the, 154, 155, 156' 159f Jds, Horace, 87 83f; Cornet Band, 90; Ogilvie, Dds. 44; Rev. Johnson, Sir William, 39 Hotel, 85, 90; Im, 89; John, 41 Jones' -' 12 Post office, 83, Tele- Orange Cb., 26, 54,145, i49, 153, 164; Mirisjck gram, 86, 87 Kane, John, 42, 44, 50 MiTniTickPatent,164 Patent, 164

Jaycx)ks, -, 92

Millerton, village of ,

King, Israel, 55

Ifontgcmfrie, covernor, 147

Kingshorough, 39 Kingchridge, 31 Kings Ferry, 34, 35 Kip, Hendrick, 154

M)ran, -, 89 ltorgan, Gerald, 13;

Kisselbrack , Conductor

rrorae, 85

Palatines, 161, 166, 167

Parker, Capt., 27

Partellow, Amos, 42 Mary, 13 Dforris, -, 40; Mary, 40,Patents, 154f; Aertson, Rc>osa & Elting, 41, 42; Roger, 40f 154; Peeknrm, 159; lforrison, Malco]m, 44

Index

202

Patents (continued) ,

Poughkeepsie (continued) , Rafroout Patent, 101; 155f i 162 71f; Journal, 136; Navy, 25f; Phoenix Hose Rarfoout Precinct, 39, 41 roosevelt, Anna Eleanor, Great Nine Partners , Volunteer Fire Cb. , 10f; Franklin D., 5f; 155; Kip, 154; I.as125 ; Poughkeepsie and "Farm Journal", 10, sen's, 101f; I[ittle Eastern Railroad, 128; "foughkeepsie Iron 14; farms, 1lf; FOR Nine Partners, 155; Cblulst, 18; Minisilk, 164; oblong, frorks" (oil, 71; Cnyler, 102, 159; Fauoonnier, 146, 158;

155; Pavling, 159;

Philipse, 37f, 155;

RIincheck, 154; Fir bout, 155; Sanders & Harmense, 158, Sch:nyL

ler, 101, 158

Paulding, rm. , 27 Pawl.ing, 44; Patent, 159; WidcIV, 146

Pelham ~r, 35 Pells toint, 35

Permey, W. E., 87

Perrfugton, Ahia, 114; J. W. C.,114

Peters, I. Girvin, 9 Philipse, Adolph, 155, 166; family, 38f; F±ederick, 40, 41;

"Poughkeepsie , New York" (oil) , 77;

98, 102; Transportation Conpal|y, 77 Poughkeepsing, 157

foughqng, 16o Pcwell, Catch, 42 Pratt, George D. , 15 Propean, Benjalrin, 56

Provincial Cbngress , 35' 49

Putnan County, 55, 154, 155' 159

Putnam, prrajor Gen. , 26

(Highland) Patent,

43, 159f, 16lf; Manor, railroads

, Harlen

143; ELgaret, 39;

express, 88, 90; Nen7

rfull, 34 (see Yockers) Philip, 41, 51, 52;

York Cfutral, 11;

Philipsburg Manor, 39 ,

Poughkeepsie and Eastern, 128

53; p±inc*, 44

P.H. & 8. R.R., 89;

Pine Plains, 89

Red Hcok, 154, 159

Platt, Edrmmd, 77, 79; Zehaniah, 49, 54

Regnier, Jacob, 146

Plattchurgh, 49, 54 Pleasant Valley, 111f ; Presdy. CThurch, 116 PICxp, Mr.,11,17

pc)pulation, 18th cen-

tny' 148f

Post, Jamfs, 125, 127, 132

Postal service robbery , 83f

Poughkeepsie, 44, 47, 86, 111f,121f;

forestry, llf ;

James, 7, 8; Sarah ELalro, 7, 8, 9 precinct, 38; 158; Roosevelt ltome Clto, 12 Poughkeepsie Savings Royster, Harry, 134, 135 Bardc, 136; Scrtyler patent, 159f; to`m of , REle, Thonus, 42'

St. John, Abraham, 55 Sanders, Rchert, 145, 162, 165; Thcmas, 162

Ssanders and Harmense Patent, 158, 159, 161 Sands, Ocmfort, 49, 54

S± HCxck, 26 scfrols , colleges , uni-

-ities=

Oolirfeia School of I.aw, 10; Cornell School of Agric.,15; CbrrEL School of Forestry, 15; Groton, 8, 9; Harvand, 9; Spraa]se School of

Forestry, 17; Vassar, 121, 134; Yale, 71

Schnyler, Peter, 154, 161, 164' 166

Schnyler Patent, 101, 158,

Fasselaer, 145

159, 161, 164

rivers, Caspar Kill,

30, 35

Scott, Johri iferin, 49 Rhincheck, 89; Fair, 9; patent, 154, 159f, scrfu, ddr, 89 Secret Gcrmittee, 27, 28, 164; precinct, 158

setElenent, 37f , 92f , 91; Croton, 29; |01f , 141f East, 25; Hudson, 71, Shav, Jbha, 42 77, 91, 93, "the

IICxat" 101, 160;

torth' 34 roads, colonial, 160; cottan Hill Road, 102;

ships, (see also "gal-

LE;":ric¥-,P#'

Rochuck, 33; Rose, 27f;

Spanish Jtrnadai¥

Bech`s Flmace, 7lf;

Sinmns, E. W., 89, 90

black papulation ,

De IIa Vergne Avenue, 103; Post toad, 10; Fbute 9, 103; Itoutes

112; "hoat=nan of", 93;

82 & 44, 107f

Sleigh±, Jlchn H. , 45

bridge, 122, 128; Buckeye Works, 79;

"Cblored Scincx]1" , 114;

"Factory on the Hndson" (oil) , 71; Fall Kill Iron Works, 79;

fire ships of, 36; Home for the Friend-

Rc)binson, -, 40; Bev-

erly 40f; Susanna, 40, 41

Rochfort, Iord, 25

Slattery, Richard, 54

srith, L±, 89;

Melancton, 49; fybses, 12; William, 49, 56, 157' 160

Rogers, Archjbald, 8, 9; Smith Brothers, 121 Cbl., 9; Edmmd P., 9, Snyder, Gecnge, 87 South Hills Mall, 103 13; Mrs., 9

Itohan, Dick, 12; Pete,12 Southern Precinc± (see Philipeehighland) F`crmbout, FTancis, 145 , less, 127; Iron Crmr Pany, 71f; Iron lforks, 162

Sp-, en., 26

Index

203

Spragg, Thonus, 42

springwrd, 8f

Van Kleeck, Baltus Barents, 162

Spnyten Di]yvel Creek,

Van Ness, Cbl., 26

Staats, Abraham, 146

Van Rensselar's, 58 Vassar Cfollege, 121, 134

Staten Island, 27, 149 Velie, Washington, 108 states, Conn., 26, 53, Verplanck, Gulian, 145, 162, 165

142, 147, 160; Ken-

tudy,108; ifes., 76; N ..., 26f, 35, 142; N.Y., 37f; Pa., 143

Viele, Amout, 101 Vincent, Charles, 42

Virginia, state of , 26

Stephenson, Capt. , 26

Wall, Wilfian G., 79

Stil]]man, Dr., 88, 89

Wallace, Cfapt. , 27

Stirling, Cth. , 33

Wappingers Creek, 101f

Stissing MJuntain, 89 Sullivan, Brig. Gen. , 26' 33

Wappingers Falls , village Of ' 103 Ward, Major Gen., 26

Warwick, Arthur, 90 Sfrrartrout, col. , 26 Street, Ben, 138; Egberi Wafrogton, Cfueral George, 25f, 44, 107

a.' 127

Sylvan rme, 71

Washington Hollcw Fair,

107f Watts, John, 40, 42, 43; John Sr., 55; Rchert, 55 topher, 27 Tappan Zee Bay, 27, 29, Weidran, Chas.,132 Westchester Co., 26, 34, 30

Tappr, major Chris-

teller, William, 145 T]expleton, John H. , 83, 87

Tierhos, Daniel, 56

35, 166

52, 143,

149, 153,

West Point, 44

Vbeler place, 88

theatre, names of per-

Thig, 40, 41, 50, 51, 55, 57' 58 Thcrmas, Capt., 30, 31, 32 VKHrrm's Suffrage,129

sondities, 121f

Ttrykinis f-, i2

Thcxpson, John A., 89

frome, E±, 108

Vitxxhif, "ill, 85

Yates, Fb±, 28

Thornedale, estate, 108; Yonkers (Philipse ]tlll) , horse, 108

Ttrygs Neck, 35 Tilghman, Lt. Cbl. Tench, 33' 34

Ticker, Capt. , 30 Tbbias, Joseph, 42

tolles, Frederick, 37 "topey", 109

Trcry, NI, 127

Thrfuell, cov., 32 T`xper, CnHTndore 8. , 30

Ulster co., 26, 56,149, 153, 167

Vat-Kill Industries, 12 Van Benschoten, Elias, 29 Van Gortlandt, -, 102; Stephanus, 162, 165 Van Dan, Rip, 146, 147

Van Den Bogardt, lqprderi

H-e' 162

Vanderburgh, Dirck, 146

DUTCHESS COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Clinton House Museum Box 88 Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12602

Please accept my application for membership in the Dutchess County Historical Society:

Name

Address

Enclosed is my check for enrollment in the following membership category. The membership year is from January i through December 31.

Individual

15.00

Joint

20.00

Historical Society

15.00 i

Library Life

Date

Signed

Further information is found on the right.

15.00

250.00