Widow Allen, William P. McDermott

ATTEMPTS AT MINING IN PLEASANT VALLEY by Clifford M. Buck

In an issue of the Red Hook Journal Star in 1878, there appeared the following item: "Mr. Michael Hernon, a farmer residing 2 miles east of the village of Pleasant Valley, while digging for iron ore on his farm formerly owned by Jacob Rice, at the depth of 20 feet discovered a bed of coal which has the appearance of being very extensive. The coal has been tested by some of the neighbors, and pronounced to be of very good Quality." In deed Liber 188:471, July 25, 1877, Jacob Rice and Cordelia of Pleasant Valley for $16,000 sold to Rosanna Hernon of Rhinecliff 3 parcels of land in Pleasant Valley: Parcel 1. 88 acres, 1 rood, 21 perches. Parcel 2. 134 acres, except 4 acres sold to Philo Rice. Parcel 3. 37 acres, 37 roods. In deed Liber 188:485, July 25, 1877, Michael and Rosanna Hernon of Rhinecliff sold for $10,000 to Jacob Rice property in Rhinecliff. In deed Liber 199:415, March 1, 1880, Rosanna Hernon of Pleasant Valley leased to John H. Hebert of New York City the right to enter for searching for minerals and fossil substances and conducting mining and quarrying operations but not within 500 feet of buildings. Proceed at once on shaft number one 35 feet deep and shaft number two 40 feet deep. She gives right to purchase for $46,000 within one year. Will pay 50 a ton of 2240 pounds for metals or minerals except gold, silver, or copper, that to be 1/10 of profit. To be weighed in Pleasant Valley. Royalty to be paid quarterly. Rent to be $300 per year. Mortgage 173:485, August 26, 1879, Rosanna Hernon to Bridget Hernon of Saugerties $600 on land described in deed 188:471. Mortgage 175:96, February 25, 1880, Bridget Hernon assigns this mortgage of $600 to John H. Hebert. (Note that both of these mortgages are before above lease.) Deed 203:8, November 27, 1880, Benjamin Fowler, referee to Mary A. Sleight; court action October 7, 1880, of Mary. A. Sleight vs. Rosanna Hernon for debts owed which also involved rights of T. Van Wyck Brinckerhoff and Cordelia and Michael Hernon. Sold at auction November 22, 1880, and the highest bidder was Mary A. Sleight for $3700. There are no transactions to indicate how or why Rosanna Hernon became indebted to Mary Sleight. It is known that Mary A. Sleight was active in the Poughkeepsie Iron Company. Nothing further is heard of Mr. Hebert. Apparently the mining operation was not successful and it was realized in less than 8 months. Deed 219:300, November 17, 1884, Mary A. Sleight sold to william R. Van Keuren for $3200, 133 acres, 1 roods, 19 perches. Deed 235:394, March 26, 1888, William R. Van Keuren of San Francisco and Nellie of Pleasant Valley sold to James Hadden for $3900, 133a.-1r.-19p. Deed 295:190, February 26, 1898, James Hadden and Lucinda sold to Mary E. Goodsell of New York City, 133a.-1r.19p.

Deed 400:347, November 27, 1917, Mary A. Goodsell to Frederick H. Cleveland, 133a.-1r.-19p. Mortgage 379:429, December 10, 1930, Frederick H. Cleveland to Farmers and Manufacturers Bank - Deed 572:397, Walter A. Cronk referee to Farmers and Manufacturers Bank; action of Bank vs Cleveland. Deed 573:589,, May 5, 1939, Farmers and Manufacturers Bank to Rebecca Rosenblum, 133a.-1r.-19p., being same that William Allen and Amy sold to Abraham Fells, August 1, 1833. This farm is located on the North side of Dutchess Turnpike (Route 44) about opposite Clayton Haights Garage and west of the former Andrew Skidmore farm. It is now Pleasant View Road occupied by a number of homes. It is difficult to locate any former traces of mining or digging. Another transaction, deed 205:522, June 6, 1881, Milton A. Fowler referee to T. Van Wyck Brinckerhoff; court action April 17, 1880, of Brinckerhoff vs. Rosanna Hernon for debts owed. Sold at auction June 1, 1880 and the highest bidder was T. Van Wyck Brinckerhoff for $500. This consists of Parcel 1, 88a.-1r.-21p. which Edgar Thorn, executor of Henry Peters, sold to Jacob Rice, February 7, 1854, and Parcel 3 of 37a.-37r. which was made up of two deeds, December 27, 1852, James Burnet executor of Henry H. Ingraham to Jacob Rice, and Anna Ingraham to Jacob Rice. In the above action we find Brinckerhoff foreclosing on Rosanna Hernon within 3 months after she made a lease to Mr. Hebert, hardly giving her time to find out if the mining would be successful. One wonders what Rosanna Hernon's debts were for. Could it have been for mining equipment? Is it possible that Mary A. Sleight and T. Van Wyck Brinckerhoff thought this might become a profitable operation and this was their way of getting in on it? Who will ever know? Mary Sleight did not keep her property very long. The Brinckerhoffs kept their much longer. Our next deed: Deed 304:222, August 26, 1899, Cordelia B. Brinckerhoff and Julia H. B. Clapp, formerly Julia H. Brinckerhoff, to Albert Devine, 88a.-1r.-21p. and 37a.-37r. Deed 394:327, July 11, 1916, heirs of Albert Devine to Edgar A. Briggs for $1350, same 88a.-1r.-21p. and 37a.-37r. Deed 404:221, January 20, 1918, Edgar A. Briggs and Lelah to Arthur F. and Anna E. Roe, same 88a.-1r.-21p. and 37a.-37r. These were the parents of Harold F. Roe of Salt Point. This farm is directly west of the farm of 133a.-1r.-19p., the 88 acre piece being north of Dutchess Turnpike (Route 44) and the 37 acre piece directly north of the 88 acre piece. The parcels extend north from the road about 4000 feet and about 2500 feet along the road in width. There was an earlier attempt at mining in the Pleasant Valley area of which the following deed is an example. Deed Liber 56:365, May 21, 1830; Agreement: Daniel I. Ostrom and Mahala to Charles Cleveland: All coal, ores, fossils, minerals, rocks containing mineral substances, of whatever name or nature, situate and being under, in or upon my lands within Town of Pleasant Valley bounded: East: William Thorn and Daniel Brown North: Elijah Bright (Baright) and Joseph Lattin

West: Road separating Joseph A. Lattin and William I. Woolley South: Edgar Thorn and William Thorn, 164 acres. (In more recent years this was known as the Forman Farm and is the farm on which West Road is located.) Right of digging, blasting, mining, excavating, raising and carrying off such mining and excavating and erecting machinery and buildings. To pay 1/8th of proceeds. If in ten years no discovery, this agreement ceased. Signed by Daniel I. Ostrom and Charles Cleveland. Charles Cleveland had many other similar agreements, mostly in of them: Deed No. Pleasant Valley or nearby. Following is a list Date Acres 44:174 April 28, 1830 Martin, Isaac and Robert R. Hoffman, Town of Poughkeepsie, Bounds Hudson River 54:553 May 13, 1830 Mary Hoffman. Same as above 70

70

44:354 May 10, 1830 Edwin R. Janes and Louisa, and Sarah widow of James R., Town of Poughkeepsie, Bounds 90

Hudson River 46:384 May 18, 1830 Eli Angevine 200

50:588 June 8, 1831 Agreement between Peter Fish and Richard Weeks and Alexander H. Barnes. Wish to work lead mines in Northeast. Transfer to Charles Cleveland May 18, 1833 56:339 May 24, 1830 Daniel McFarlin Jr. and Mary 70 56:341 May 4, 1830 Henry Peters and Jane 132 56:342 May 24, 1830 Joseph G. Halsted and Hannah 80 56:344 May 26, 1830 Joseph Holmes and Mary 200 56:345 May 26, 1830 Isaac Travis and Elizabeth 190 56:346 May 21, 1830 Samuel M. Thurston and 50 Catherine 56:347 May 24, 1830 Daniel McFarlin and Elizabeth 72 56:349 May 1, 1830 Joseph A. Lattin and Mary 120 56:350 May 22, 1830 William Buckley and Alice in Pleasant Valley 50 in LaGrange 15 56:351 May 21, 1830 Sidney M. Livingston and 60 Joanna 56:352 May 22, 1830 Nathan Jones and Susan 30 56:353 May 28, 1830 Philip Burnet and Abigail 70 56:355 May 21, 1830 Elijah Baright and Amy 111 56:356 May 22, 1830 Sarah Davis, Exec. of 50 Benjamin 56:357 May 24, 1830 Isaac Forman Sr. and Sarah 100 56:358 May 21, 1830 Silas R. Haight and Lydia 97 56:359 May 21, 1830 Joshua DeLong and Seena 11 56:360 May 22, 1830 Enoch Lewis and Sarah 67 56:361 May 22, 1830 Samuel Stringham and 36 Elizabeth 56:363 May 26, 1830 Benjamin Van Keuren 67 56:364 May 21, 1830 John Humphrey 156 56:366 May 26, 1830 William Aulen 19

Deed No. Date 56:367 May 21, 1830 56:368 Oct. 6, 1834 56:615 Nov. 16, 1830

Acres Isaac Van Keuren and 30a & 5 Gertrude John Thorn (in Washington) 22 Jacob U. Haight (in Washington) 210 Nothing further was ever heard of Charles Cleveland.

From Poughkeepsie Eagle July 31, 1852

Discovery of a Valuable Marble Quarry

We have been shown, within a few days, specimens of marble taken from a quarry discovered on the premises of Mr. Thomas N. Allen of Pleasant Valley, in this county. It is of four qualities, the first black, with an Egyptian yellow and white vein; the second dark blue, with light blue veins and clouds; the third pink; and the fourth black without veins, constituting the principal part. Although none of it has been properly wrought, it has been found to take as handsome a polish and be susceptible of as fine a finish as the best Irish marble. The quarry has been tested at various points and there is no reason left for doubt that it is very extensive and probably inexhaustible. Of the value of such a quarry and of such marble so near the river, and the best facilities of communication, we need not speak. We hope soon to see it manufactured in such a manner as to show forth its properties to the right advantage.

Location of the Thomas N. Allen Farm

Deed Liber 90 page 168, May 1, 1849 Daniel Grant and Perlina to Thomas N. Allen

This is a parcel of 106 acres located on the west bank of the Wappingers Creek, irregular in shape but approximately 10 chains wide and 55 chains long. Deed Liber 112 page 527, March 2, 1859, Thomas N. Allen and Cordelia sold same to Jacob Allen. Same 106 acres. On the large wall map which gives census for 1845 but not for 1850 there is a dot for Thomas N. Allen on Hurley Road a short distance west of the bridge over the Wappingers Creek, where Hurley Road makes a sharp turn to go south. In the 1867 Atlas - just west of this location is written MARBLE HILL, J. J. Allen. Directly west of this location is a farm called MARBLE PLACE. This is part of the present day Carlton Rymph farm formerly Jacob Allen, father of Thomas N. One corner of this farm starts at a marble stone set in the earth marked "A".

The present day (1979) owner of the Thomas N. Allen farm is: Joseph Lupino, 54 St. John's Avenue, Yonkers, N.Y. It is west of the Wappingers Creek and east of the farm of Bart Oakes.

by Wm. P. McDermott*

Three marriages before the age of thirty-six did not shield Elizabeth Allen from the title of widow. Three weddings did not provide the enduring comfort of marriage to accompany her through periods of personal struggle. Not one of her eight children received the warm congratulations of his father on a ninth birthday. Widow Allen was the single parent to her children for the greater part of their childhood. Although penniless, widowed and in a foreign land on a distant continent in her 22nd year, she became a woman of means and played a part in the early settlement of Dutchess County. Her children from both husbands achieved successes of their own contributing to the growth of Dutchess throughout the eighteenth century. The contributions made in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by her descendants are known well beyond the narrow confines of the historical community. Who was the woman who survived so many personal tragedies and yet managed to fill her life and the lives of her children with personal successes? At present the details of her early life and her later years remain in the shadows of unrecorded history. Her early years were as obscure as those years of so many others who left their homeland in 17091 to stop briefly in England before arriving in New York in 1710. Widow Elizabetha Schultzin as she was known in 17102, was among the group of Palatines who remained in New York after others had been sent up the Hudson. In her new land as a 22 year old widow, she had already survived several personal tragedies. She, like so many Palatines, had witnessed and experienced first hand the ravages of lengthy war. The Palatinate had suffered through Tany years of continuous warfare in the seventeenth century. Further suffering came to the Palatines in 1708 in the form of one of the severest winters in European history. Four cruel months of winter killed the fruit trees and vines on wilic4 many of the Palatines relied for their economic support.' Additionally, taxation imposed by many petty rulers attempting to match the splendor of life of King Louis XIV became too oppressive for the Palatines to pay. Many Palatines were forced to give up the rich farmland on the Rhine they had tilled successfully for many years because of the killing frosts and taxes. After fleeing their homeland to assure survival, they were warmly received in England.5 Elizabeth's experience in England is not known. Was she among the Palatines who live g in tents or was she one of the 20 or 30 "pakt" in one room?' Did she beg for food as did so many of her fellow Palatines? Employment opportunities were

*This is the first of a two part article.

Special appreciation is extended to Lemma

McGinnes for the genealogical guidance she gave during the preparation of this article.

few and begging on the streets was commonplace. Competition for employment between the British worker and the Palatines became intense especially in view of the Palatines' willingness to work for considerably smaller wages. Furthermore the British poor were angered by the government's support of the Palatines while refusing to offer the same sustenance to the British citizen. Within a few months the climate among the people had changed sharply and in fact grew ugly toward the Palatines.' These conditions forced the British government to consider several plans designed to cope with the burgeoning Palatine problem. Finally in December 1709, only a few months after the Palatines arrival in England, a plan to send the Palatines to America emerged.8 The Palatines were sent to New York under contract to work for the British government for a period of time, almost as indentured servants, to pay for their passage to America.9 England saw this plan as solving three problems: 1. relieving England of the economic, social and political pressure which the Palatine presence had created, 2. initiating the manufacture of much needed naval stores such as tar and pitch and 3. establishing a buffer on the New York frontier between the French and British colonies to inhibit the French from launching a military invasion.10 The plan to manufacture naval stores in America was not a new one. Caleb Heathcote, of the Nine Partners Patent in Dutchess, had proposed such a plan in 1705 as part of his scheme to develop a shipbuilding industry in New York.11 Although required to leave England, many Palatines looked forward to the ocean voyage to promised opportunity in a new land - America. Anna Elizabetha Schultzin was among them. Did she know of the hardships ahead of her? Would she have believed that many of her friends would embark on one of the several ships in harbor but would not feel the gentle breezes of the sea? Palatine fever, as it was called, was to lead many of her friends to their death during the four month period in 4Kbor before the ships sailed from England in April 1710." Could she have known how many would die on the voyage? Did she suspect her husband George Schultz would not be with her when the ship which carried her to America discharged its passengers in New York? Could she have predicted that she would again be threatened with the loss of her home and land thirty years after she had left the Palatinate? Lets follow Elizabeth through the forty year period after her arrival in New York. The trail of personal and business activities she left behind, although difficult to follow initially because of several name changes, reveals an energetic individual capable of more than simple survival in the face of adversity. Raising two families alone, pioneering unsettled Dutchess, conducting business, unafraid to negotiate a contract or protect herself legally undoubtedly were beyond her expectations when she heard the first sounds of New York harbor on the summer day in June 1710 and raised her skirt to step off the newly arrived ship. Assuming the accuracy of her age as recorded upon her arrival in New York,13 Elizabeth was born in 1688, the same year as another Dutchess County widow of note - Catheryna Brett or Madame Brett as she is better known to some.14

How long after her arrival she remained in New York is not known. She appears on the New York Subsistence List - July 1710 as a single adult with no children.15 Her absence on the 1712 Subsistence List is understandable for she married her second husband on March 12, 1711.16 She married a fellow Palatine, Zacharias Flagler, who had experienced the very same kind of personal tragedy before he arrived in New York in the same year and perhaps on the same ship. Zacharias Flagler of Wertheim in Franconia had arrived in New York with one son Philip Solomon (b. 8/15/1701)-17. His wife and two of his three children appear to have died before his arrival in New York. In fact the death of his wife probably occurred even earlier. When Zacharias arrived at Walworth, England on May 27, 1709 he is listed as a 36 year old carpenter with two sons, ages 8 and 4 years and a daughter. No wife is listed suggesting she may have died before arriving in England.18 Zacharias married again less than two months after he arrived in New York. But his marriage to Anna Gertrude Huen on August 15, 1710 was not to last six months before she too succumbed to the dying which followed the Palatines from the ships on which they trayelled.19 Zacharias probably left New York in October 1710 with other Palatines bound for one of the settlements on either side of the Hudson.2° His talents as a carpenter were needed in both camps. On June 24, 1711 the report filed by Secretary of the Province George Clarke to the British Lords of Trade indicated there were 527 families of Palatines totaling 1874 individuals in seven settlements on both sides of the Hudson.21 The size of the Palatine settlement is rarely appreciated. Census information from the early eighteenth century provides the needed perspective. In 1712 the population of New York City was only 5840 people. In the counties closest to the Palatine settlements, the following population statistics were recorded in 1714: a) Ulster County - 2120 people including 433 slaves and b) Dutchess County - 447 people including 29 slaves.22 There were four times more people living in the seven Palatine settlements than lived in all of Dutchess County. Conditions in the Palatine settlements were poor in many ways. The morale of the Palatines and therefore their willingness to carry out their contractual agreement with Queen Anne was in serious jeopardy. They believed that each person was to receive 40 acres of land and at the end of seven years Queen Anne would be repaid in tar, pitch, masts and hemp.23 The 40 by 50 feet plot they were given for home and garden was a far cry from the 40 acres they were promised.24 As a result a Palatine rebellion arose in May 1711 but was immediately crushed by military force. Once again Elizabeth, who had married two months earlier, witnessed armed men forcing her people into servitude. Other conditions prevailed which were quite similar to those which existed in the Palatinate. Food was in short supply and of an inferior grade. Also the Palatines became fair game for the practice of short weighting. For example, the marked weight of a barrel of flour assumed the weight of the empty barrel to be standard. In actuality, the barrel was purposely heavier and thereby contained less flour. The difference in flour weight lined the pockets of the greedy food suppliers.25

Exactly when Elizabeth left New York is not clear. The Kocherthal Records show the marriage of Anna Elizabetha Schultz, widow of the late George Schultz of Darmstadt to Zacharias Flagler on March 12, 1711 but the records do not indicate where the marriage took place.26 Elizabeth's maiden name was not recorded when she married but later records refer to her as Elizabeth Hoofd27 or some variation such as Hoeven.28 The 23 year old Elizabeth became the wife of 38 year old Zacharias and stepmother to his 10 year old son Philip Solomon. The birth of Elizabeth's first child (the records available do not refer to any pregnancies or births with her first husband), Anna Magdelena Elizabeth on September 19, 171229 must have brightened her life and that of her husband, Zacharias. But they had suffered so many tragedies, rejoicing must have been tentative. Had they received news of their status yet? On September 6, 1712, just two weeks prior to the birth of the first Flagler daughter, Governor Hunter informed Jean Cast, assistant commissary for the Palatines, that subsistence money was exhausted and the Palatines would have to fend for themselves.30 In that letter, the Palatines were given permission to find employment any place in New York or New Jersey. However, they were required to inform Governor Hunter of their new residence in case funds became available to continue the naval stores venture. The final day of government subsistence was September 12, 1712, just a week before Elizabeth delivered her daughter. The pattern seemed to be consistent with that of the recent several years. Bad news followed by a ray of hope followed by yet another round of bad news. Just two years after arriving in America, Elizabeth and her new family had to launch yet another effort to survive. Life may have taken on a more settled character with the birth of their son, Simon (b. 2/16/1714). 31 By that time, one can surmise that the Flaglers had found a source of income and a place to live. Perhaps Zacharias hired himself out as a carpenter. Where they settled after their governmental subsistence stopped is not clearly evident. The Simmendinger Register indicates their presence in Heesber5, one of the settlements on the east side of the Hudson.34 In any case, Simon's arrival contributed to the sense of family and stability. With two children under two years and a 13 year old stepson, Elizabeth had less time for dwelling on earlier losses. Demands of active children requiring lots of care were considerable. The Flaglers seem to have lived in Heesberg for a brief period of time. The Simmendinger Register published in Germany indicates their presence there with two children.33 Although the publication date of the Simmendinger Register was 1717, there is no clear record which indicates when Ulrich Simmendinger compiled the register. Was he on his way back to Germany when he appeared at a baptism in New Jersey on June 17, 1716?34 He probably returned to Germany late in 1716 or early 1717. Therefore, it seems likely he was reporting about the Palatine settlements as they were constituted in early 1716. It appears the Flaglers left Heesberg sometime before 1717. Their next child Gertrude (b. 3/18/1716) was born in

Dutchess County35 and was baptized at Peter Lossing's (south of Poughkeepsie) on May 8, 1717.36 Based on this information, it appears the Flaglers left Heesberg no later than March 1716. In fact it is more likely they arrived in Dutchess before then and may have arrived as early as the fall or winter of 1715. Moving from one place to another must have seemed like a way of life to Elizabeth and her husband. Leaving their homeland in 1709 was the first of four or more changes in their residence before arriving in Dutchess County. Nevertheless Elizabeth and Zacharias probably began to feel the stability of marriage and family. Where they would finally settle must have been a concern but by the time their third child arrived, they could draw on renewed personal resources brought to them from the strength of a six year marriage. Before the year 1717 closed, Elizabeth and Zacharias realized their dream - to have their own place, to farm for themselves again and perhaps to return to the carpenter's craft. Of course, as noted above, this dream may have become a reality as early as 1715. Somehow the Flaglers gained the financial resources to purchase or perhaps rent at first, a small farm in Poughkeepsie east of the Kings Road and slightly northeast of the Rust Plaets (near. the Rural Cemetery). Several deeds and the tax lists attest to the Flagler presence on this farm for a period of seven years beginning 1717.37 Twenty-two acres was small by any standard, but it was theirs.38 Finally a place of their own. The long trek from the home farms they fled almost a decade earlier had finally closed on a 22 acre parcel of land 3000 miles west of the Palatinate. A feeling of relief must have welled up within Elizabeth and Zacharias as they looked out on land which would feed them, shelter them and provide security for their children. The year 1719 brought Elizabeth another daughter. Margrieta (b. 2/12/1719) was born to "Zacharias Flagelaar and Anna Elizabeth Hoofd"39 Four children, the oldest nearing seven years, a 17 year old stepson, Philip, and another pregnancy before the year closed suggests a scene of family tranquility far removed from the earlier tragedies. One can almost picture Elizabeth and Zacharias wishing for a boy to name him after the father. The joy of a full life and the expected child must have warmed the Flagler household as they approached the coming winter. And then as if the refreshing tranquility of the past three or four years was only a dream, tragedy visited Elizabeth again. Her husband's death was noted on the March 23, 1720 tax roll when their property was listed "De Wedne Van Zacharias Flegelar".40 Success was beginning to come to the Flagler family in 1720 as indicated by the increase in their property assessment from L2 to L5. But this success meant little to Elizabeth. Alone again and a pregnancy to carry without a husband's support crowded out any thoughts of success. The infant Zacharias (b. 7/6/1720) was the final reminder of the few years of stability, security and success Elizabeth and Zacharias had achieved.41 Elizabeth was left to manage a family and farm while caring for a new baby. Five children, ages 8, 6, 4, 1-1/2 and the infant, left

little time for mourning another loss. "What to do now?" must have been a constant thought between feeding the infant, caring for the other children and determining how she was to plant the following spring. Her choice was as before - find the strength to go on. And go on she did. She apparently succeeded in maintaining the farm for in the following year her assessment continued at L5 under the name "Widow of Zacharias" .42 Little of Elizabeth's life is known during the period between her second husband's death in 1720 and 1724. However, it appears she managed through the difficult period. Her name remained on the tax roll in the exact position and with the same assessment as in the first year of her second widowhood. One can conclude from this that she continued to maintain her home and property as it was in 1720. Others who were apparently poor did not pay their taxes. These individuals were listed on the tax roll with the statement "unable to pay" following their name. Obviously Elizabeth was considered able to pay her taxes. Where was Elizabeth's stepson Philip Solomon Flagler? When his father died, Philip was 18 years old. Was he helping on the farm before his father died? Was he away? Did he return home when his stepmother needed help? The tax rolls indicate even if he were on the farm he didn't stay long. He is listed on the January 1724 tax roll as living in the North. Ward.43 This suggests he left Elizabeth's home sometime in 1723 or earlier, assuming he was there at all. Two years later Philip moved to the South Ward.44 A new period in Elizabeth Flagler's life began with the appearance of John Allen. Nothing of John Allen's early history is available at present. His first appearance is on the tax roll of February 1725 when his name replaces that of Widow Flagler.45 Initially, it appeared that this change might simply have reflected the sale of the property by Elizabeth to John Allen. However, the continued association between Elizabeth Allen and the Flaglers over a twenty year period aroused the speculation that the link between the two families was more than a simple friendship or business association. The assumption that John Allen and Widow Elizabeth Flagler married sometime in 1724 became increasingly compelling with each new piece of information which linked the families together. The reason this assumption evolved will become apparent as the history of John Allen and his wife Elizabeth unfolds below. Remember for the present, Elizabeth Allen is assumed to be Elizabeth Flagler formerly Widow Schultz whose maiden name may have been Hoofd.46 The March 1726 tax roll reveals no positional or assessment change indicating the Allens probably remained on the property formerly owned by Zacharias Flagler.47 By this time, Wiljem (bap. 2/6/1726) had been born to John and "Elizabeth Hoeven" .48 Is the name Hoeven similar enough to the name Hoofd to consider Elizabeth Hoeven Allen to be the same person as Anna Elizabeth Hoofd Flagler? A few months later, on 7/9/1726 "Annaatje" [Elizabeth] "and her husband John Elyn" were Godparents to the baptism of William, son of "John Hessy an Englishman" and Margrete.49 The impression left by the reference to "her husband" is that John Allen was new to the community while Elizabeth was more well known and established.

The fortunes of Elizabeth began to improve again following her marriage to John Allen. Now at the age of thirtyeight she was a mother again, not an unusual experience at that time. Big families and late pregnancies were not so unusual in the eighteenth century. Elizabeth's stepson, Philip, now age 25 years, was married and had a second child, Zacharias (bap. 5/30/1726).50 Does this make Elizabeth's one year old son Wiljim a step-uncle to the new baby, Zacharias? Elizabeth's children from her marriage to Zacharias Flagler had reached the ages of 13, 12, 10, 7 and 5. Five Flaglers and one Allen rounded out the family of six children. Elizabeth had plenty of domestic responsibilities to fill her time. The girls certainly had arrived at the age where further household responsibilities were being added to their spinning and other chores. The following year, 1727, was a full year and seems to have been the year when Elizabeth's financial condition began to take on the successful picture which would continue for the rest of her life. A second child Jan (John) was born to "Jan Ellins and Liesabeth" in April and baptized at Peter Lossing's on 8/20/1727.51 He was the first child born in their new home. The Allens had moved from Poughkeepsie. The move was reflected on the 1727 tax roll when their position on the list changed significantly. The Allen name appeared near the end of the tax roll where new taxpayers are usually listed. In the case of the Allens, the change undoubtedly indicated a change in the location of their home. There was also a dramatic increase in the assessed value of their property in the years 1727 and 1728. During the next ten years, the Allen's assessment was to reflect additional increases. In 1728, the value of their new property was three times the value of the former property in Poughkeepsie. The increase in assessment from E5 to El5 placed the Allens in the upper third of all taxpayers in the Middle Ward.52 There are no records which describe a purchase of land by the Allens during the 1720's. In fact they had moved to an area of Dutchess County, now Pleasant Valley, which had not yet been surveyed or divided. (See the following area map.) The survey map made in 1740 of the final division of the Nine Partners Patent shows the Allen farm in the Third Division Lott 15 on the east side of Wappingers Creek. In current terms this places it in Pleasant Valley on the west side of South Road approximately one half mile south of the bridge which crosses the Wappingers Creek. At the time the Nine Partners map was made the Allens seem to have resided there more than a decade. Widow Allen and the Nine Partners had been corresponding about the land on which she resided in 1737, three years before the final division.53 When the Allens moved to Pleasant Valley the Nine Partners were still negotiating with Governor William Burnet and the New York Assembly for a license to divide their land holdings.54 One can assume there must have been some understanding between the Nine Partners and the Allens which permitted the Aliens to settle in Pleasant Valley.55 The part of the patent on which the Aliens lived was finally divided in 1740 but there seems to be no evidence of a parcel of land set aside or previously sold to the Allens.56

Selling land in the undivided tract was a permissible business practice of the Nine Partners,57 nevertheless there is no existing record of a sale to the Allens. As a result, the nature of any agreement between them is an unknown. Interestingly, the Allens were among the first four or five families who settled on the Nine Partners land beyond the Water Lotts along the Hudson River. When the year 1728 opened, the newest Allen was making his presence known crawling from one room to another, but Elizabeth had help now with the new baby. Her oldest daughter, Anna Magdelena Elizabetha, 16 years old, must have begun to see herself in a mother's role to the five Flagler and two Allen children. The new baby needed a good deal of care and Elizabeth, beginning to feel her 40 years, welcomed her daughter's help. John Allen, of whom little is known at present, also had help from his 14 year old stepson, Simon. Neither 1728 or 1729 seemed particularly eventful. The baptismal records are silent as they apply to the Allen family. But Elizabeth's stepson, Philip Solomon Flagler, had another child in 1727. His new daughter, Catherine, was about the same age as Elizabeth's son, John.58 The continuing good fortunes of the Allens are reflected in the tax roll of the Middle Ward. Their assessment increased slightly to E16.59 Life must have settled into a fairly comfortable and predictable course as the 1720's came to a close. Perhaps the coming decade would provide the kind of settled predictability which would allow Elizabeth to feel secure as she looked to the future. Not one of the previous three decades had been free of tragedy. It seemed Elizabeth's strength and courage always had to be ready to receive another major disappointment. But life began to look more settled by the year 1729. Before the summer was over, Elizabeth announced she was expecting her eighth child. The new decade opened with promise of a brighter future for Elizabeth. James Allen, born March 11, 1730 to "Jan Ellins and Liesabeth", was sponsored by Hannes Schneider and his wife Liesabeth.60 The Schneiders were the inlaws of Elizabeth's oldest child Magdelena who married Johann Jost Snider (Schneider) sometime in 1729 or 1730. She bore her first child, Hannes, Elizabeth's first grandchild, in May 1731.61 Two years later Elizabeth sponsored Magdelena's second child, Simon.62 Raising babies together must have provided a special new bond between Elizabeth and Magdelena. But Elizabeth's childbearing days were over. Henceforth any new infant in Elizabeth's home would be a grandchild. The events of the early 1730's must have convinced Elizabeth that good fortune was finally going to come to her. This would be a better decade, she must have mused. The year following the birth of John, her last child, the Allens completed an important business transaction which doubled the assessed value of their property. This change was reflected on the March 28, 1732 tax roll when their assessment increased from f16 to f30.63 Formerly, their assessed value placed them in the upper third of all the taxpayers in the Middle Ward. However, with the change in 1732 their value placed them in the upper 10% of this group. Of the 127

taxpayers in the Middle Ward, only seven were assessed at a higher level and six of these were only slightly higher than the Aliens. The Aliens had become part of a small group of economically successful property owners. Only such well known taxpayers as Thomas Sanders, Henry Van der Burgh, Marckus Van Pommel and four Van Kleeck families (Parent, Johannis, Lawrence and Peter) were assessed higher. Other historically well-known individuals, who were assessed at the same level as the Aliens were Col. Leonard Lewis' widow, Jan De Graaf, Johannis Van den Bogart and Elias Van Bunschoten. There were important differences between the Aliens and most of the others. Most of these families had preceeded the Aliens to Dutchess and in fact some of them had already arrived at the time Elizabeth was fleeing her homeland. It is also worth noting that most of these families were in a significantly better financial condition when they arrived in Dutchess or very soon thereafter. And further, all of these families settled near Poughkeepsie where business opportunities were greater for a number of reasons, not the least of which was proximity to the Hudson and the number of people who lived quite near Poughkeepsie. How did. Elizabeth and John Allen attain this success? One can only speculate at this point. Perhaps John Allen came to the marriage with some money. Perhaps it was the joint industriousness of this couple which helped them attain in such a short period of time their advanced economic position in the community. These particular footprints of the Allen's history are too faint now to draw a conclusion. Also unclear, is the reason their assessment changed. There is no evidence to suggest it was newly acquired acreage which accounted for the significant increase in assessed value. It seems more likely they had built some kind of business. Perhaps they built a mill. They lived on the Wappingers where a mill site was quite feasible.64 In the same year, 1731, the Allens acquired an indentured servant or an apprentice. This conclusion is based on the baptism on June 20, 1731 of Yzaack (Isaac) Nemes, the 20 year old son of Jan Nemes of Westchester who was "examined... through an interpreter". He was sponsored at the baptism by "his master, Jan Ellins and wife, Liesabeth".65 Note the reference to "master". Perhaps Yzaack was needed in connection with a new business the Aliens were developing. Was this 20 year old man trained in some specialty? Could he have been a miller? Perhaps he was simply additional help and had no special training. An interesting other speculation about the Aliens is related to their religious attitudes. Did they insist on Yzaack's baptism because of their commitment to religion? Or was it Yzaack who asked to be baptized? In either case, it appears religion was important in the Allen household. The gradual progress in the development of Dutchess County affected the Aliens and in fact they were part of it. Earlier it was noted that Elizabeth had moved to an unsettled area of Dutchess County with her husband John. It was an area without a road. There was no need for a road. No settlements of any size existed easterly beyond Poughkeepsie.