Dutchess County Historical Society Yearbook Vol 067 1982 by D C H S

DUTCHESS COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY

YEAR BOOK (-so

1982

VOLUME 67

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

FELIX SCARDAPANE Ed.D. FRANKLIN A. BUTTS Ph.D. FRANK H. ANDREW EILEEN M. HAYDEN SHEILA NEWMAN WM. P. MC DERMOTT Ph.D.

President Past President Vice President Secretary Treasurer Editor

Term Ending 1983

Term Ending 1984

Tim Allred C. Colton Johnson Ph.D. Collin M. Strang Nelson Tyrrel

Mrs. Russel Aldrich Mrs. N. Edward Mitchell Mrs. Willa Skinner George N. Wilson

Term Ending 1985

Term Ending 1986

Edward Howard Nathaniel Rubin Frederick Stutz Frank Van Zanten

Radford Curdy Mrs. Clifford Smith Dr. Jean Stevenson Stanley Willig

Vice Presidents Representing Towns and Cities Mrs. Catherine Leigh Mrs. Ralph Van Voorhis Mrs. Robert Montgomery Kathleen Spross Mrs. Richard Reichenberg Elton V. V. Bailey Jr. William Wolfson Donald Mc Ternan Edwin Hunger Ph.D. Mrs. Clara Losee Chester Eisenhuth Mrs. Mae Greene Mrs. Harold Klare Mrs. Judy Moran Arthur Gellert Mrs. Lawrence Mc Ginnis Mrs. Richard Coons Mrs. Craig Vogle Willard Arbuco Mrs. Karel Stolarik Mrs. George Hemroth Louise Tompkins

Amenia Beacon City Beekman Clinton Dover East Fishkill Fishkill Hyde Park LaGrange Milan Northeast Pawling Pine Plains Pleasant Valley Poughkeepsie City Poughkeepsie Town Red Hook Rhinebeck Stanford Union Vale Wappinger Washington

7 17

col

Sc CI

) -MAL

1982

00K

Volume 67

Clinton House Museum ---Box 88 Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12602

William P. Mc Dermott Ph.D. Editor

The Dutchess County Historical Society Year Book has been published annually since 1915 by the Dutchess County Historical Society, Clinton House Museum - Box 88, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., 12602. It is distributed without charge to members of the Society. Individual copies may be purchased for $4.50, postage and shipping are included. Selected earlier Year Books are also available. Requests for copies should be sent to the above address. The Society encourages accuracy but cannot assume responsibility for statements of fact or opinion made by contributors. Manuscripts, books for review and other correspondence relevant to this publication should be addressed to: William P. Mc Dermott, Editor Dutchess County Historical Society Clinton House Museum - Box 88 Poughkeepsie, N. Y. 12602

The cover and title page were designed by S. Velma Pugsley. The view of the Clinton House Museum ca. 1765 on the title page is reproduced from a line drawing by A. S. Magargee, now in the possession of the Daughters of the American Revolution, Nahwenawasigh Chapter.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Dutchess County Farmer F. Kennon Moody

The Poughkeepsie Navy George N. Wilson

Sale of Loyalist Estates in Dutchess County: The Effect on Landholding Patterns John 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 Lassen Family 1659 - 1982: Dutchess County's First Settlers B. Buchanan

101

The Washington Hollow Fair Louise Tompkins

107

The Civil War Comes to Dutchess County David Lund

111

The Bardavon 1869 Opera House 1869 - 1979 Jesse Effron

121

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683 - 1733: Settlement or Speculation? William P. Mc Dermott

141

Annual Reports

173

List of Historians and Historical Societies

189

Index

199

FDR inspects timber on his estate with Prof. Nelson Brown, New York State College of Forestry, February 26, 1944. The timber was used in building ships during World War II. Photo courtesy of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, N.Y.

FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT: DUTCHESS COUNTY FARMER

F. Kennon Moody

FDR often identified his occupation as "farmer". This account details his dedication to farming. He expanded his ancestral farm more than twofold, in spite of his involvement in public affairs. F. Kennon Moody is Dean at Dutchess County Community College.

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 would appreciate receiving a couple of dozen eggs, for which I am enclosing a money order for $1.25. You may send me the difference in war stamps.1 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. wide and varied.

The perception others held of him were Was he the wartime farmer attempting to

sell eggs at $1.25 per two dozen from his Hyde Park 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 2 Had the chapRoosevelt "The Patrician as Opportunist." 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."

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 Poughkeepsie (New York Sunday Courier there appears a picture of Roosevelt speaking with H. Lawson of Hyde Park.

The caption reads: 3

"Farmer Roosevelt Chats With a Neighbor."

The perception of himself he most often shared with the public, and particularly with his neighbors in Dutchess County, was that of being a "farmer."

This self-

assumed public stance was evident soon after he began his first 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 concerning a Senate bill designed to regulate the price of milk in New York State: With the price of milk at 9 cents per quart...the formers can only keep about even.... Do all in your power to defeat such a measure. 4 On February 27, 1911, F D R. replied: I appreciate, as a farmer myself, that it is impossible for milk producers to accept a lower price than they are getting now.... 5 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 faLmer.

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 realize that the fault does not lie on one side, for I have heard many tales of methods used by some of our fellow farmers in packing apple barrels by means of stovepipes, etc.... 7 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—and 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 that "farmer" was not just another politically motivated designation, 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, 8 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 Roosevejt 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 father who instructed the boy in the ways of country life. It was with his father that he made the rounds of the farm, it was from his father that he learned the lore of weather and seasons and growing things.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 the 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 1880's and 1890's in his office in New York 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, provicled 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 10 J. Girvin Peters, and dated 1906. Surely a preadolescent boy whose best friend 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 Sunday Courier of October 1, 1905 carried an article which noted that Franklin D. Roosevelt had won a 1st prize in the class for "combination harness and saddle horses, [and] also 2nd and 3rd prizes for a 11 pony under 13 & 14. Another Sunday Courier story notes that this interest in competing with his neighbors still existed even after F.D.R. became President.

The Septem-

ber 3, 1933, edition of 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 confines 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 will be surprised to hear that I shall probably be home for Sunday next. There are several reasons for this...also I want to get home again before an the trees are bare. 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. After graduation from Harvard and matriculation at the Columbia University School of Law, 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 14 thousands of persons. 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 felt 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 have had many long and interesting talks with Mr. Ferguson on forestry and with Mr. Foljambe and Mr. Kaye on farming and cattle raising, and the plans for Hyde Park now include not only a new house but a new farm, cattle, trees, ete....15 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 find anyone commenting on whatever 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 to Emily Williams: He, Franklin, was a real traditionalist and loved his place and his trees and things like that.... I think Cousin Eleanor, maybe she liked it and maybe she didn't, but she didn't have the same feeling about it--the land.16 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 Post Road divided into various types of farm lots with letters

FDR: Dutchess County Farmer

17 and/or titles for identification purposes.

To each

separate lot is devoted a page upon which F.D.R. has noted in longhand the various forest and farm work done from 1911 to 1914. For the farm fields he noted the crops planted, the amount of fertilizer used, dates, amounts harvested, trees planted where applicable, and the general results of this work. 18 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 symbolic of the roots which F.D.R. had in his family and his lands. Other homes of 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 farm 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 his 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 20 It was also in 1911 that F.D.R. made recommendations. 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.) After

Land purchases continued from 1911 until 1938.

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 piece 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 tenant, whose name is Moses Smith, will really be a farmer. If he is, he is the first person we have been able to find for,the farm who comes under such a designation. 21 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 Johanson was for many years a

renter of the farm home on the Thompkins property.

Even

the president's famous "Top Cottage" had a caretakertenant--Chris Bie, a cabinetmaker at the Val-Kill Industries. Only three times during all his land purchasing activities did Roosevelt encounter opposition to his attempts to buy.

He was able to buy the Thompkins prop-

erty only after promising the owner guaranteed lifetime occupancy, followed by burial at her childhood home in the northern Dutchess County village of Tivoli.

F.D.R.encoun-

tered his second difficulty 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 posi-

tion to a reporter in 1940: Pete and Frank D.

[Roosevelt] dickered for I don't

FDR: Dutchess County Farmer

know how long and finally they came to terms three years ago. The price was $25,000. Frank wants to buy my 220 acres but he's going to have to wait until I die.22 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: Gerald and Mary are, as you and I know, funny people about making up their minds. For years I have wanted to buy Mr. Newbold's back farm east of the Fallkill Creek to develop in plantings. They don't use the land, are letting it go completely to pieces and keep telling me that some day they will make up their minds. 23 Although he finally purchased the land in 1935, it was not without some difficulty. The purchase of land was integrally 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 farming-type activity that was such a vital part of his life--the commercial growing of trees. A lot of words have been written about Franklin D. Roosevelt the statesman, Roosevelt the legislator, Roosevelt the stamp collector and ship model enthsiast, but very few about Roosevelt the farmer.... The President owns more than twice the acreage of his farm-famous rival, Wendell Wilkie.... Wilkie's acquired his 1,400 acres of rich black Indiana soil at an average price of $100 per acre. Roosevelt bought his 2,365 acres of Georgia red clay and his 851 acres of worn-out Hyde Park dirt for as little as $4 an acre.... Roosevelt cares nothing about the financial returns from his land but is deeply interested in using it to develop new ways of making money for his neighbors. In Hyde Park he has proved to other holders of depleted soil that they can make

F. Kennon Moody

a substantial long-term profit with little outlay and even less work by reforestation, both with Christmas trees and lumber.24 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 25 later as "tree-grower." 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 went yesterday to the sprayer people and saw the outfit. They will for $200 send the engine, tank, etc. all complete on a framework which is ready to belt on one of our wagons. In addition they will add free another spraying pole adapted for throwing a high stream into shade trees. It will be shipped as soon as the boats start running.... When at Hyde Park tomorrow I will go over the locations for the planting 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 remember to return the baskets.

Most of his seedlings were ordered

from the New York State Conservation Commission, 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 show that four willow baskets in which your tree order No. 1683 was packed, have not been returned to the Salamanca nursery. We would prefer that the baskets be returned, but if they have been destroyed, please remit 7.20, the cost of each basket being $1.80.... 2 His interest in forestry as an innovative means to help his farmer neighbors benefit 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 B. 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 object of the study will be to determine some method by which the farmer may be helped to get the most benefit from the land on which his timber grows, and also to can his attention to closer utilization of forest products, markets and better methods of management including forest planting.28 This seems to substantiate the comments of Warren Hall quoted earlier that F.D.R.'s main goal was "to 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 to outline his scheme.

I want you to think over the possibility of the following plan: 1. The organization of a company to purchase a tract of land within say 100 miles of New York.... 2. The development of this tract through a gradual annual planting of such portion of it as is now cleared or on which useful timber is not growing...making a total capital required of say $500,000 ...no dividend would be paid for at least 25 years... providing an investment in which the capital would be safe and in which dividends would undoubtedly accrue to their children. 29

F. Kennon Moody

By the following year, 1923, F.D.R. had resumed 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 post-

Campobello period F.D.R. seemed to be re-vitalizing his farming 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 is one of the greatest experts in our section of the country on the development of agriculture and general farm efficiency and in addition is the kind of man who really has the interest of the community at heart.... Some day I want to chat with you in regard to improving agricultural methods through r, cooperation among the farmers of Dutchess County. 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 31 trees an increase in the value of the farm results." He continued to take his own advice and by 1928 had planted a total of 65,000 trees on his property—eventually the total planted would reach more than 300,000 trees planted.32 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 am a firm believer in reforestation as a profitable means of utilizing idle, non-agricultural land and have planted from 8,000 to 10,000 trees a year since 1912 on my farm in Hyde Park. 33 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 with 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 in this section [who] would like to manage their woodlands either for profit or their aesthetic values, or perhaps both, should join together and employ a trained forester who could handle our wood properties to our financial or pleasurable advantage. ...It is proposed to have Professor Nelson C. Brown of the College of Forestry at Syracuse call upon you to discuss the plan if you feel you would be interested. 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 chestnut trees are to go as fill-ins among the trees which did not do so well just east of the gravel bank in the field southeast of Linaka's house. I shall be delighted to have a few pear trees if Dr. Baruch has them. I will be back tomorrow.... Will you let Dr. Baruch's people 35 know about the trees? Even visitors to the presidential estate felt free to offer 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 II 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...took a motor trip along the Hudson River with the objective in view of seeing the summer house of the President of the United States...it was a keen disappointment that we rode up to your home through fields of ragweed and along drives bordered with weeds...we could have wept with disappointment.... Please understand that we criticize not from a derogatory standpoint, but you know one seldom sees his own place through as critical eyes as those of his neighbors...they [the neighbors] might suddenly decide that your place should be deviated to "Crummy Elbow".... Of course if you were just an ordinary farmer you could let the ragweed grow on your front lawn as tall as your hay favor would let you. J6 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 that

F.D.R.'s interest in his forests remained, no matter how many new things were added to his agenda: "He cared about trees and woods and 'lumber in general' all through his 37

life.

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 politi-

cian 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 Electrification Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The life-long interest in conservation and

forests would produce the Civilian Conservatior.1 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 from the Breeders' Gazette: In his farmer heart I am convinced that President Roosevelt proposes to give Agriculture the bidding hand in the New Deal. 38 So the patrician became a farmer, and the farmer was able to become the neighbor that the patrician could not. To the neighbors of Dutchess County who accepted Roosevelt'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--even though those values often seemed to be rooted in the agrarian myth so prevalent in the nineteenth century. neighbors could understand.

This his

His role as a "farmer"

allowed him to see the larger world in terms of a neighborhood and those who inhabited it as his neighbors for whom he could and should assume responsibility.

ENDNOTES

1 FDR from David Bolingers, Jr., Painesville, Ohio, July 23, 1943, President's Personal File (hereafter PPF), 1-G, Box 4, Franklin Delano Roosevelt Library (hereafter FDRL). 2 Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition, pp. 314-352. 3 Poughkeepsie Sunday Courier, 7 November 1937, p. 1. 4 Dudley Culver to FDR, February 24, 1911, NYSG, Box 20, FDRL. 5 Ibid.

F. Kennon Moody

6 A1fred B. Rollins, Jr., "Young Franklin D. Roosevelt As the Farmers' Friend," New York State History, Vol. 43, No. 2 (April, 1962), pp. 185-186. 7 Ibid., quoting FDR to C. R. Van de Carr, 19 November 1912. 8 Poughkeepsie Sunday Courier, 10 April 1938, p. 8. 9 Johnson, Roosevelt: Dictator or Democrat?, p. 46. 10 The Rogers Crumwold Hall Papers 1818-1924, Group 7, Hudson Valley Manuscripts, FDRL. 11 Poughkeepsie Sunday Courier, 1 October 1905. 12 Poughkeepsie Sunday Courier, 3 September 1931. 13 F.D.R., Transferring of Deed to U. S. Government, 23 July 1939, PPF #1820, FDRL: "In the background of this picture you will see 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." 14 The 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. 15 FDR to Sara, 7 September 1905, Elliott Roosevelt, ed., FDR: His Personal Letters 1905-1928, p. 85. 16 Typed manuscript of interview with Honoria Livingston McVitty by Emily Williams, 16 October 1978, Eleanor Roosevelt Oral History Project, FDRL. 17 Charles 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 FDRL 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. 18 Ibid., p. 5. 1 9Elliott Roosevelt, ed., FDR: His Personal Letters 1905-1928, p. 96. Steeholm, The House at Hyde Park, p. 94.

FDR: Dutchess County Farmer

20 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 years. 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.' 21 FDR to John Hackett, 12 January 1920, FBPP, Box 73. 22 FDR to John Hackett, 12 January 1920, FBPP, Box 73. 23 FDW to Edmund Morgan, 30 January 1934, PPF #1281, FDRL. 24 Poughkeepsie Sunday Courier, 13 October 1940, p.72., 25 Poughkeepsie Eagle News, 7 November 1944, p. 4. 2 6Elliott Roosevelt, ed., FDR: His Personal Letters 1905-1928, p. 179. 27 George Latta Barrus to FDR, 27 January 1914, ASN, Box 85, FDRL. 28 Poughkeepsie Sunday Courier, 2 August 1914, p. 2. 29 FDR to George Pratt, 25 November 1922, Group 14, Hyde Park: Forestry 1912-1933, Box 7, FDRL. 30 FDR to Vincent Astor, 18 February 1913, PPF #92, FDRL. 31 Snell, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and Forestry at Hyde Park, New York," p. 78. 32 Alexander MacDonald, NYS Conservation Department, to FDR, 27 June 1928, quoted by Snell, P. 36.

F. Kennon Moody

33 Franklin D. Roosevelt, Public Papers and Addresses of FDR, Vol. I, p. 522. 34 The 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 Johnston 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 35 Snell, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and Forestry at Hyde Park, New York," p. 79. 36 . Lucie W. Ferris, Shelton, Connecticut, to FDR, 6 September 1938, PPF, #1-G, FDRL. 37 Carmichael, FDR: Columnist, Foreword by Eleanor Roosevelt. In writing to John Bentley, 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." PPF #65, FDRL. 38 8Editor, Editor, Breeders' Gazette, (April 1935), no page number, PPF, #1-G, FDRL.

I c.oy

- -

• _

--JO -NM

- —-

_15s÷ a. w

'1,2/11V3D

_._.1

The Phoenix and the Rose in the enaagement with the fire ships on August 16, 1776. Sketch by Sir John Wallace of an engraving of the painting by D. Serres. From S. Jenkins, The Story of the Bronx(1912)

THE POUGHKEEPSIE NAVY George N. Wilson

Did the fire ships sent from Poughkeepsie during the American Revolution force General Howe to take the Long Island Sound route instead of his preferred route? The delay caused by the fire ships allowed the American army to escape the British following a few engagements. George N. Wilson is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Dutchess County Historical Society. The importance of naval events in American history has often been overlooked by historians.

Seldom is men-

tioned 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 is to get Possession of New York and Albany, to fill both of these Cities with very strong Garrisons; to command the Hudson's and East Rivers with a Number of small Men of War and Cutters stationed in different Parts of it, so as to cut off all Communications by water between New York and the Provinces to the Northward, the Provinces to the Eastward Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire and the Provinces of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and those Southward of them, and so distract and divide the Provincial Forces. Also in January of 1776 General Howe, still fighting at Boston, had the same 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 immediately 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 18th 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 Long Island Sound to New York City.

On April 4th

Washington set out from Cambridge for New York.

He was

greeted en route with 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. Gen. Sir William Howe. hounds arrived.

On board one of the ships was On June 29th forty-five more grey-

Four days later the number had increased

to one hundred and thirty sails. Halifax.

This was the fleet from

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 commanded 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 fire from 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, encourage 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 enemy 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 Frize".

The object of the Chevaux de Frize

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

28 man Robert Yates.

John Hazelwood, 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 Committee in charge of construction of the Continental frigates at Poughkeepsie to equip a number of fire rafts and vessels. The handling and equipping of the fire boats also came under the Secret Committee headquartered at Poughkeepsie. A letter from Gen. George Clinton reads, Fort Constitution July 14, 1776. I approve much of your plans for making Fire Rafts and doubt not you will carry the same into Execution with the utmost Expedition. I think it advisable to purchase two other old Sloops or more if necessary for the Purpose but let it be done in the cheapest Manner, the oldest and worst Sloops will do. A letter from the Secret Committee dated July 16, 1776 reads, As you were pleased to forward us General Washington Orders to complete a Number of Fire .Rafts, we have the Pleasure to inform you that four Fire Rafts will be launched this evening. Tomorrow we propose to fix them in the best Manner we can with dry wood, Tar and such other combustibles as we can procure at this Place. Two or three old vessels we shall fix as fast as possible for the same Purpose. We shall send the Fire Rafts down to Gen. Clinton as soon as completed. In the minutes of the Secret Committee July 25, 1776 is found the following, Building and Fitting out of the Fire Rafts and sending them down to Gen. Clinton at Fort Constitution. Fire Grappling Irons, Fire Arrows, light wood and pine knots, pitch, tar, turpentine, tar tubs, barrels, oakum, junks of rope. Mr. G. Livingston to get about 12 Grappling Irons. To get 1,000 Fire Arrows made send down to Poughkeepsie. Sent up to Poughkeepsie by Capt. Hazelwood. 2 BrZ of spirits of turpentine, 6 gal of Spirits of Wine, 60 hand grenade shells complete, 12 strong Port fires, 10 as slow matches, 10 as cotton. The plans evidently were to send these fire rafts with a

The Poughkeepsie Navy

favorable tide against the enemy.

The fire arrows were

intended to be discharged in such a manner as to communicate fire 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 fire vessel into a whale boat that was lashed to the side. Let's go back to Tappan Zee Bay, just south of Haverstraw Bay, and 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. observed taking careful soundings of the river.

They were They also

landed small parties here and there committing minor depredations.

On the 26th of July the ships were said to

have dropped down to the mouth of the Croton River.

Sun-

day 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 1st 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, they 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 Benschoten. On the afternoon of August 3rd these galleys bearing the names of Washington, Lady Washington, Spitfire, Whiting, Independence-, Crane, and one whaleboat boldly

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 the 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. Grimes) I killed, 3 wounded; the Crane (Capt. Tinker) 1 wounded. were wounded.

On board the whaleboat two men

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 Rose 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 directions of the firevessels requested me to be a spectator on the banks of the river, of an attempt intended to be made on that night, to burn the ships. Attended by Gen. Clinton and several other officers, we waited on the bank until about midnight but no attempt on the ships was made and we returned disappointed. Again on the night of the 16th we were again requested to be a spectator with the most positive assurance that he should not be again disappointed. I accordingly went attended as on the preceding time and took proper position on the bank. The night was pretty dark, they soon found the firevessels were silently moving up with the tide. Capt. Joseph Bass, commander of one of the fire vessels, narrates,

At the time of the occurrence I was attached to the Water service, under Command of Commodore B. Tupper, who was directed to man the Fire ships designed for the Service. The Commodore selected me to take charge of one and put the other under Command of Capt. Thomas. I commanded a sloop named Polly of about one hundred tons burthen. That commanded by Thomas was a smaller size. [The frigates lay about 8 miles above

The Poughkeepsie Navy

Kingsbridge more to the center of the river.] We started from Spuyten Duyvel Creek about Dark, with a south wind and a favorable tide. The night was Cloudy and Dark, with occasionally a little Rain. I had nine men on board, three I stationed in the Whaleboat, four had charge of the Grappling Irons and one acted as pilot, while I stationed myself in the Cabin to fire the materials. Besides the two British Frigates there was a Bomb Ketch and two tenders, which was moored near them. They were anchored in a Line about North and South, first the Phoenix of about 44 Guns, next the Rose of 36 Guns, then the Bomb Ketch and above it the tenders. As the night was Dark and the Fire Ships kept near the Middle of the River, we were not aware that we were near the British Vessels until we heard immediately on our Left, the striking of the Bells and the Cry of the Sentinels 'all's well.' It was twelve o'clock and little did those who were slumbering there imagine the Destruction that hung over them. The shore was bold and rose above the Masts and in it dark Shadows we could not distinguish the Situation of the Vessels, neither could we ascertain their Size, or which of them were Frigates. I was a considerable Distance in advance of Thomas and upon hearing the Cry of the Sentinels, I immediately bore down upon the Line of the British Fleet. I was already near the Bomb Ketch before I was discovered by the enemy and soon struck her. The Grappling Irons were made fast in an Instant, the Whaleboat was ready to cast off—the match was applied and both vessels were almost immediately in a Blaze. Me and my Crew made our way to the Shore while the Panic struck Crew of the Ketch were seen pouring from their quarters in the utmost Consternation. Several of them perished in the Flames, others jumped in the Water and were rescued by the other Vessels of the Fleet and the Ketch soon burned so as to part from her moorings, when she drifted on Shore and was consumed to the Water's Edge. Capt. Thomas was not so fortunate. He was far in the Rear and the Light from my ship showed his position to the Enemy, who opened a vigorous cannonade and prepared themselves to meet the attack. But nothing daunted by being discovered, he bore down on the Phoenix

George N. Wilson

and became grappled with her. He then applied the Match to the Combustibles but in such a way that his retreat to the Boat was cut off and he was oblidged to leap overboard to escape the Flames. Five of his men were compelled to follow his Example and not being able to reach the Boat all perished in the Water. The Phoenix was on fire in several places, she was saved from Destruction by cutting away portions of her Riggings and slipping her Cables. In the attack the Enemy lost nearly seventy men, besides Women and Children who were on board 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 night of the 16th two of our Fire Vessels attempted to burn the Ships of War up the River. One of these boarded the Phoenix of forty-four Guns and was Grappled with her for some Minutes but unluckily she cleared herself. The only damage the Enemy sustained was the Destruction of one Tender. One of the Captain, Thomas it is to be feared perished in the attempt or in making his Escape by Swimming as he has not been heard of. Though this Enterprise did not succeed to our Wishes I'm incline to think it alarmed the Enemy greatly for this morning the Phoenix and the Rose with their two remaining tenders taking advantage of a brisk and prosperous Gale and favorable Tide quitted their station and have returned and joined the rest of that Fleet. General Washington and the N. Y. Convention did not realize the successful role our fire ships played.

They

did 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. damaged the largest frigate.

They also badly

According to the British

report, "The Phoenix narrowly escaped destruction."

Much

more, they instilled fear in General Howe and the rest of the British Ministry.

As a result the British plans

described above were abandoned.

Two hundred years earlier

the British had executed a similar plan in their defeat of

The Poughkeepsie Navy

the Spanish Armada in 1588.

33 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 experienced 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 Frize represented the last American stronghold against the British.

William

Duer, a member 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, You observe that if the Passage of the Hudson River is sufficiently obstructed that our lines will keep the Enemy from making any Progress. I expect that Vessells which the Convention of this state have ordered to Fort Washington will arrive before this 'letter. No time I dare say will be lost in sinking them in the proper Channell, since the Success of our Army depends so much on this Measure. Tilghman wrote to the Committee of Correspondence at Fishkill October 9th, About 8 o'clock this morning the Roebuck and Phoenix of 44 Guns each and a Frigate of about 20 Guns got under way from Bloomingdale, where they have been laying some time, and stood on with an easy southerly Breeze toward our Chevaux de Frise,.which we hoped would have given them some Interruption while our Batteries played upon them. But to our surprise and

George N. Wilson

mortification they all ran through without the least difficulty and without receiving any apparent damage from our Forts, which kept playing on them from both sides of the River. How far they intend up I don't know but His Excellency thought to give you the earliest Information, that you may put Gen. Clinton upon his Guard at the Highlands, for they may have troops concealed on Board with intent to surprise those Forts. General Heath has this to say about the event, Early this morning three ships with two or three tenders stood up the North River. They were briskly cannonaded from Fort Washington and Fort Constitution. They however passed our works and the chevaux de frise; the American galleys, small crafts and two large ships standing on before them. The two ships were run on shore near Philipse mill [Yonkers], and two of the Galleys near Dobbs Ferry. The enemy took possession of the two Galleys. A boat landed a number of men, who plundered a store, stove the casks, and then set the store on fire. The enemy took a schooner loaded with rum, sugar, wine and sunk a sloop which had on board the machine invented by Mr. Bushnell. 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 finally 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 favorable 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 Frize, Howe put his Army 12,000 strong into motion. First he landed on Throggs Neck where he was finally repulsed by the Americans. Pells Point.

Then on the 18th he landed at

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 Gen-

eral 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 final 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 Committee, 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 few row galleys that proved useless against the British.

The

Chevaux de Frize, 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-

ery and the Congress, were still under construction. Could it have been our small fleet of fire 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 Wm. Heath, 1904 The American Revolution in N. Y., prepared by Division of Archives and History, 1926

SALE OF LOYALIST ESTATES IN DUTCHESS COUNTY: The Effect on Landholding Patterns John T. Reilly About 120,000 acres of loyalist land in Dutchess County was confiscated by the Americans during the Revolution. This land was redistributed in smaller parcels to individuals of lesser means. The result was a more democratic distribution of land. Contrary to earlier beliefs, neither the wealthy nor speculators were the beneficiaries. John Reilly is professor of history at Mount St. Mary College. 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 this 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 considerable interest in the disposition of the estates confiscated from those Americans who remained loyal to England.

J. Franklin Jameson, 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 ulti1 mately leading to greater political democracy. Other historians, such as Thomas Cochrane, Frederick Tolles, and Harry B. Yoshpe, have questioned these results by citing the participation 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 regard 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

1789s had an effect on the purchasers.

Many had borrowed

to pay for their lands, and, when unable to meet mortgage 2 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. answered.

A need which only a few historians have

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 the democ-

ratizing 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 numerous small farms, has been a 3 fruitful area of study for historians of this question. This article studies the effect 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 4 opened to extensive settlement. A majority of its settlers came from New England, although a few did filter up 5 from New York and Long Island. The muster roll of a militia company in Fishkill in 1790 contained forty-eight men of whom only fourteen were natives of Dutchess County, 6 the rest came predominately from New England. The region they came to was one dominated by large landowners, the Philipse family in the south and the Livingston family 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, 7 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.

typical farm in the late 1700's was between 150 and 300 acres, with the average for New York being just under 200 8 Economically, he was as well off as any other acres. small farmer throughout the state.

Tenant status seems to

have incurred little in the way of hardship for its holder. Recent studies have found the position of the tenant in New York to have been better than it has generally been He could obtain good leases and in some instances 9 his economic condition rivaled that of his landlord. assumed.

Despite these benign conditions, Dutchess County in the 1760's was the scene of violent tenant rebellions. Both the Livingston and Philipse holdings experienced outbreaks 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 10 In one area where teneconomic or social conditions. ants complained of being exploited, the area of rents, an examination of the rent rolls of the two major Loyalist landlords of the region shows that their tenants paid rents, which averaged from five to seven pounds per year, that were somewhat 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 an

Philipsburg Manor of Frederick

John T. Reilly

Philipse, rents were close to those of Morris and Robinson. In general there does not seem to have been an econom11 ically oppressed tenantry. Thus there is little evidence of any connection between the tenant rebellions of the 1760's and the confiscation and sale of the Loyalist lands.

In fact, the opposite may be true.

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 13 Association supporting the Continental Congress refused. Throughout the war there were continued reports of various dissident bands scattered throughout the county that 14 needed to be suppressed. While there are no exact data available on the extent of Loyalist sentiment in southern Dutchess County, where the large Loyalist estates lay, it seems to have been slightly more than in other areas of 15 the county. The number of Loyalists, however, who had their property 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, 16 and Sequestration. 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 17 the state.

Sale of Loyalist Estates

Hampton's Map of the Upper Patent of Philipseburgh, 1757 divided among the heirs of Frderick Philipse II. Courtesy of New York State Library, Albany, N.Y. Manuscript 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 Mary 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 Philipse were not touched because after his death in 1768 his widow married Rev. John Ogilvie and they remained on the Whig side during tbe 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 French 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 briefly 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 18 in 1783 with his family.

TABU'. 1 LOYALISTS WHO FILED CLAIMS ON LAND OWNED IN DUTCHESS COUNTY Loyalist* John & Peter Angevine Thomas Barker Bartholomew Crannell Tertullus Dickerson Stephen Dodge George Fblliott Joshua Gidney Daniel Hamill Charles Inglis John Kane Eleanor & Peter Maybee Roger & Mary Morris Amos Partellow Caleb Powell Beverly Robinson John Shaw Thomas Spragg Joseph Tobias Thomas Ruble Charles Vincent John Watts

Occupation Farmers Farmer Merchant Farmer Farmer Merchant Farmer Farmer Minister Merchant Farmers Esquire Farmer Farmer Esquire Farmer Farmer Farmer Farmer Farmer Merchant Total:

Acres

Tenants

158 200 259 26.5 3,546 225 74 2,739 1,927.5 150 51,040 54 300 57,908 186 200 160 150 46 119,323

No No No No No No No No No 13 No 156 No No 146 No No No No No Yes 315

*All were residents of Dutchess County except Folliott, Inglis, and Watts who lived in New York City. SOURCE: American Loyalist Transcripts, XVII, 359-63; XVIII, 605-22; XXIX, 273, 285, 361; XLI, 515, 541, 605; XLIV, 225-56; XLV, 495-555; XLVI, 432-43; LXXVII, 213, 287-88, NYPL; Ontario, Bureau of Archives, United Empire Loyalists, 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 both the local political and economic life of Dutchess County.

served as First Judge of the Dutchess County Court of Common Pleas, Sheriff and Supervisor.

During the War, Robin-

Sale of Loyalist 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 family also left for England at the end of the war.19 The property of these two men and their wives was extensive.

Morris, in his report to the British Commis-

sion on Loyalist claims, listed 53,102 acres in Dutchess County on which he had 156 tenants, and 100 acres and a 20 large mansion in New York City. The holdings of the Robinsons were similar to Morris's, 59,954 acres with 146 21 tenants plus a house and land in New York City. In 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, 22 let alone examine them. Robinson, as mentioned previously, was more involved in the area.

It was here that

he built "Beverly House," a mansion located on a mountainside 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 law24 the Reverend Charles Inglis, yers of Dutchess County, 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 Gen26 eral stationed in New York at the time. 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 store-

keepers, Kane in Pawling and Rombout Precincts and Morrison in Fredericksburg. with 13 tenants.

Kane possessed about 1,927 acres

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 27 Albany County. Dutchess itself suffered little during the Revolution. 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 28 York centered most of its governmental officers. 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 29 leaseholds had predominated before the Revolution. Some of these historians, however, have seen evidence of a degree of speculative activity and engrossment both during 30 and after the initial sales. 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 thereby lost effective control over their freeholds.

The result, Lynd

Sale of Loyalist Estates

felt, was a threat that tenancy might return. As evidence, he cited the high number of sheriff sales and mortgage foreclosures in the 1780's, and the struggles between the Livingstons and several of the people to whom they had 31 loaned money. These losses, combined 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 engrossment which would negate the democratizing effect of the initial 32 sales. In order to arrive at an overall conclusion as to what were the long term effects of these sales, it is necessary to summarize, as Lynd and others have done, the immediate results of these sales, but also, to examine the subsequent history of the lands involved. Under the confiscation Act three Commissioners of Forfeiture were appointed for the Middle District, Samuel Dodge, Daniel Graham and John Hathorn.

In addition, Jon-

athan Lawrence and John H. Sleight were appointed Commissioners of Specie for both the Middle and Southern 33 Districts. The Commissioners of Forfeiture began the first 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 before the Surveyor General took over. Under the auspices of these state agencies Dutchess 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 alone amounted to over 100,000 acres,

John T. Reilly

and the total acreage claimed by Dutchess County Loyalists was 119,323, a difference of about 23,941 acres. only speculate what happened to the rest.

We can

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 37 disposition.

TABLE 2 LOYALIST LANDS IN DUTCHESS COUNTY SOLD BY NEW YORK STATE Sold by Commissioners of Forfeiture and Specie Loyalist

Sales

Buyers

Acres

Rober Mbrris

151

136

38,694

Beverly Robinson

229 17* 246

202 17 219

38,372.75 735 39,107.75

Roger Mbrris and Beverly Robinson

4,397.50

165

109

11,183

591

493

93,382.25

Others Total:

*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 it increasingly difficult to dispose of the consid38 Therefore, between erable amount of land remaining. 20,000 and 25,000 acres of land remain as a blank spot to the historian.

The evidence of their exact disposition is

presently unavailable because of inadequate local rec39 ords. From the initial sales it is evident that there was extensive democratization in landholding.

Almost 100,000

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 cor-

relation between the number of sales, the number of purchasers 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 41 conclusion. Eighteenth century deeds often indicated the socioeconomic status of both the seller and the purchaser of a particular piece of property. practice to some extent.

Dutchess followed this

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 42 yeomen-farmers. 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 economically tied to agrarian pursuits either 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 influx 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 Dutchess 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 43 socio-economic ladder. 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 failing to exercise their pre-emptive rights. To what extent did members of the upper social strata participate in these sales?

Is there any evidence ofspec-

ulators' 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 a correla-

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 possible, will be used as the line of demarkation between those purchasers who may be considered as tending towards land engrossment and those who bought for the purpose of establishing their own homestead. There were 26 individuals who purchased 22,692 1/2 acres in amounts varying from 500 to 3,394 acres. 25 percent of the total acres sold.

This represents

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

Denning, a New York merchant, lawyer, member of the Provin44 who bought 3,394 acres cial Congress and State Senator, 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 45 Comfort Sands and William Smith, New York merchants York; 46 Little is known of the others. The and speculators. sales in Dutchess also produced a moderate interest among men who can clearly be identified as speculators.

Men such

as William Duer, John Lamb, John Morin Scott and Melancton Smith, all prominent merchants and politicians who speculated in land in other parts of the state, bought land in 47 Two, amounts under 500 acres from the Commissioners. Duer and the Revolutionary financier Robert Morris, were

John T. Reilly

50 48 definitely interested in speculation.

Duer wrote to

Morris in 1780 recommending ". . .a judicious purchase of forfeited land in the improved part of this State is by far the most eligible mode I know of improving a fortune in a secure way. . . ."

He went on to relate how he had pur-

chased two farms from Beverly Robinson's estate inDutchess 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 49 pickings for men such as these. 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, investors 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 50 Only 142 out of the 302 tenants on the Morris elsewhere. and Robinson estates in 1779 exercised their rights, and 51 While none on the estate of John Kane exercised theirs. the Morris and Robinson totals are slightly less than half, 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. answers.

There are no clear cut

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 the Loy52 alist ranks. 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 fol-

lowing him they had the Crown to fall back on if worse came 53 to worse, as it did. 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 off 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 purchasers only bought the equity of the redemption when the lease expired.

The tenant lost only the value of his

There were a few 54 recorded instances of this happening in Dutchess County.

improvements up until the date of sale.

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 55 century. 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 immediate family did purchase the farm of a deceased rel56 This, however, was more the exception than the ative. rule.

Financial difficulty also could have kept some from

John T. Reilly

52 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 57 involved. 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 find58 ings. 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 59 found. 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 Commissioners would not carry much historical significance if tenancy had been widely re-established within a few years, if speculators had obtained a commanding share of the estate, or if a large number of the new owners had lost 60 their farms through foreclosures of mortgages. 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 influence on the landholding pattern in Dutchess County.

Only 15 percent, 13,621 acres,

belonging to 80 purchasers were sold to 87 buyers, al-to-1 ratio.

Almost half of the new owners were county res-

idents, 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, and none 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 after 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 61 one single sale. The largest single holding sold in Dutchess within this period contained 512 acres.

This was

part of the extensive holdings of William Denning in South 62 These were Dutchess, and they were sold to two farmers. the only sales made by Denning, who remained in possession of the bulk of his 3,000 acre estate well into the nine63 teenth century. 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 64 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 65 lands them to his sons to help them get a start in life; belonging to John Meeks and Jekiel Bouton were broken up 66 Burnett and sold by their families after their death; Miller sold his estate to finance his move to Plattsburgh where he hoped to join in Zephaniah Platt's speculative 67 This small turnover in efforts in northern New York. 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 68 offered for sale. 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 Loyalist 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. eighteen were found outside the county.

Only

The continued

residency in the county of a large number of the pur69 chasers, 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 70 deaths. The purchaser of a Loyalist estate was under no obligation to take possession of his lands or to sell them. He could, especially if he was an absentee landlord, lease his newly acquired land.

Leases were not recorded, as a

result it is difficult to say how many new owners leased land to others.

In Dutchess County, John and Robert Watts

leased the lands of their father, John Watts, Sr., for 71 several years before attempting to sell them. In several instances Whig tenants chose to remain as tenants under new owners. only be surmized.

Why they chose to do so can

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 72 Although leases were made and convicted of Loyalism. honored, the practice does not seem to have been widespread.

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 73 distress sales. Although the records are not complete, the situation in Dutchess was not too dismal.

The county

seems to have been affected only marginally by the economic conditions.

There were eleven purchasers of confiscated

estates who mortgaged their lands, including two speculators, Ebenezer Boyd and William Smith, and all discharged 74 their debt. 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 75 1790's. 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 confiscated 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 76 who were paying on time. 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.

Eight 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 77 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 financial hardship?

As mentioned above, Lynd 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 men-

tioned by Lynd belong to the pre-sale period, involve the Commissioners of Seauestration, concern persons who did not purchase confiscated land, or concern areas outside of 78 Dutchess County. 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.

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 findings indicate that the trend in the Hudson River Valley was toward a society of freehold farms.

The fact

John T. Reilly 58 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 sev-

eral 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.

Although 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 effect 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 IJ. Franklin Jameson, The American Revolution considered as a Social Movement. (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1926), 27-36, 41; Alexander C. Flick, The American Revolution in New York (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, 1933) III, 353; Catherine Snell Crary, "Forfeited Loyalist Lands in the Western District of New York--Albany and Tryon Counties," New York History XXXV (1954) 254-256, 247-248, 256; Staughton Lynd, "Revolution and the Common Man," (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of History, Columbia University, 1966) 125; "Who should rule at home? Dutchess County in the American Revolution," William & Mary Quarterly 3rd Series, XVII (1961), 330, 334; Anti-Federalism in Dutchess County, New York (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1962), Chapter IV, passim; Beatrice C. Reubens, "Pre-Emptive Rights in the Disposi-

Sale of Loyalist Estates

tion of a Confiscated Estate: Philipsburg Manor, New York" William & Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, XXII(1965) 437, 453. 2 Thomas Cochrane, New York in the Confederation (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1932) 64; Harry B. Yoshpe, The Disposition of Loyalist Estates in the Southern District of New York (New York: Columbia University Press, 1939) 114-117; Frederick B. Tolles, "The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement: A revaluation," American Historical Review, LIX (1954) 7-9. 3 Jackson Turner Main, Social Structure of Revolutionary America (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965) 24. 4 Henry 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. Reynolds, ed., 18th Century Records of Dutchess County, New York in the Collection of Dutchess County Historical Society, VI (1938) 7; James Smith, History of Dutchess County (Syracuse, N.Y.: D. Mason & Company, 1882) 59-62. 5 William S. Pelletreau--History of Putnam County, New York (Philadelphia: W. W. Preston 1886) 110-120; 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. A. Matthiew, 1907) 52-54. 6 T. Van 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. 7 McCracken, Old Dutchess Forever, 40; Lynd, AntiFederalism, 39; E. Wilder Spalding, New York in the Critical Period: 1783-1789 (New York): Columbia University Press, 1932) 277-282; Colonel Henry Ludington, a militia officer from southern Dutchess County, wrote to Governor George Clinton that every officer 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) II, 784-85. 8 Spau1ding, New York in the Critical Period, 51-53, 57; Jackson 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 Northern United States: 1620-1860 (Washington: Carnegie Institute, 1925) 115. 9 A1fred 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 Kim, Landlord and Tenant in Colonial New York (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1978), passim. 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 Illinois University Press, 1976) 37-70. 10 The older interpretations are found in: Lynd, "Revolution and the Common 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 century New York," William & Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, XXVII, 583-584, 599, 611, 614; Bonomi, A Factious People, 181-193, 200, 215, 226. 11 Rent Roll of Roger Morris, Great Britain, Exchequer and Audit Office, 13-16, Public Record Office, London; 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 County, 286287, 634-635, 547; Kim, William & Mary Qtiarterly, 3rd Series, XXVII, 583-589, 597, 614, generally' found that the tenants received good leases. Lease of Beverly Robinson to Elijah Oakey of Fredericksburg, June 25, 1773, Miscel. MSS., Fredericksburg, New York, NYHS; Bonomi, A Factious People, 196-200. 12 Lynd, 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, NYSL; Pelletreau, Putnam County, 119, 120, 283, 418-419; American Loyalist Transcripts, LXIII, 225, NYPL; Wallace Brown, "American Farmer During the Revolution: Rebel or Loyalist?", Agricultural History, XLII (1968) 327-339; Mark commented that the evidence connecting the 1776 rioters to Loyalism was insufficient, Mark, Agrarian Conflicts, 201.

Sale of Loyalist Estates

1 3Flick, Loyalism, 133-134; Brinkerhoff, Fishkill, 82; Philip Smith, Dutchess County, 53; N.Y., Journals of the Provincial Congress, 466-467; Hasbrouck, Dutchess County, 90; Peter Force, comp., American Archives (9 Vols. Washington: 1837-1853), II, 305. 14 . Philip Smith, Dutchess County, 55; James Smith, Dutchess County, 130; Isaac Hunting, History of Little Nine Partners (Amenia, N.Y.: Charles Walsh & Co., 1897) 73-76; N.Y., Journals of the Provincial Congress, I, 757, 766-767; Lynd, "Revolution and the Common Man," 94; William 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. 1 . 5Slightly overstating the number of Loyalists in the County, the Country Journal of July 8, 1786 remarked that "In Dutchess the people were pretty much evenly divided in sentiment, the Whigs being the majority in the north and western parts of the county and the Tories in the southern and eastern," quoted in Mark, Agrarian Conflicts, Note 68, 201. 16 6Flick, Flick, Loyalism, 141; Clifford M. 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 Eagle's History of Poughkeepsie (Poughkeepsie, N.Y.: Platt and Platt, 1905) 37, reported that of forty-five persons in Poughkeepsie who had their land sequestered only one had it confiscated. 17 New York Packet, June 22, 1780, June 21, 1781, June 13, December 20, 1782, April 24, 1783. Amount of sale of Forfeited Estates sold by Commissioners of Forfeiture, Middle District, N.D. [1788], War of Revolution MSS, V, Box 2, NYSL, puts the figure for the entire Middle District at seventy-five Loyalists who had their land confiscated and sold. In addition there are others who were not listed and whose land was sold, Abel Flewelling, William Bayard, Oliver Delancey, Thomas Jones, David Colden, and Isaac Low. The full total for the Middle District is ninety-six. 18 Allen Johnson, ed., Dictionary of American Biography (20 Vols., New York: Charles Scribner's & Sons,19281936) XII, 226; Pelletreau, Putnam County, 58; Historical and Genealogical Record, 215-216; American Loyalist Transcripts, LXIII, 283, NYPL; Alice Custis Desmond, "Mary Philipse, Heiress," NYH, XXVII (1947) 26. 1 9Dictionary of American Biography (DAB) XV, 34; American Loyalist Transcripts, LXIII, 203:7205, NYPL; Pelletreau, Putnam County, 520-521. 20 American Loyalist 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, 480; D, 55, 430; Pelletreau, Putnam County, 363-364, 575. 21 American Loyalist Transcripts, LXIII, 231-234, NYPL. 2 2Ibid., LXII, 295; Martha J. Lamb, History of the City of New York (3 Vols., New York: A. S. Barnes, 1896) II, 605-606. 23 Lynd, Anti-Federalism, 35, 46-47. 24 American Loyalist Transcripts, IXX, 331-370, NYPL. Crannell was father-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. 25 American 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. 26 Ledger 8, Liber of Deeds, Dutchess County, County Clerk, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.; Flick, Loyalism, 147-149; William Wilcox, Portrait of a General (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1962) 6-7, 20-21. 27 McCracken, Old Dutchess Forever, 301-305; American Loyalist Transcripts, XLIV, 5-54, 225-250, NYPL: Historical and Genealogical Record, 186. 28 James Smith, Dutchess County, I. 130, 141; Lynd, "Revolution and the Common Man," 65; French, Gazeteer, 541; John Alden, The American Revolution (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954) 208-213. 29 Pelletreau, Putnam County, 93-94, 106-113, 328,578, 676; Ellis, Landlords, 27-28; Zimm, Southeastern New York, II, 160. 30 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 historians 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

31 Lynd, Anti-Federalism, 74; "Revolution and the Common 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 Lynd, "Revolution and the Common Man," 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. McAuly to McKesson, December 24, 1785, McKesson Papers, NYHS; Uduy Hay to William Duer, June 20, 1784, Duer Papers, NYHS; East, Business Enterprise, 111-112. 33 Dodge, a member of the Assembly from Dutchess County, Graham, a merchant from Ulster County, and Hathorn, a Revolutionary Militia General and State Senator; Lawrence and Sleight, both New York City merchants, Old Ulster, VII (1911) 392-393; Pelletreau, Putnam County, 93-94; Cochrane, New York in the Confederation, 57, 60-61; Flick, Loyalism, 150-151; Ferdinand Sanford, "General John Hathorn," 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. 34 New York Journal, April 17, May 22, 1780. 35 New York Packet, May 22, 1785, March 23, December 11, 1786, April 15, 1787, July 8, 1788; Poughkeepsie Country Advertiser, August 12, 1788, March 12, 1784; New York Journal, July 24, 1788; Laws of New York, Chapter XL, March 22, 1788, I, 195; New York State, Office of the State Engineer, Division of Waterways, Department of Transportation, State Campus, Albany, Deed Book, 8, passim; Flick, Loyalism, 150-151, 157. 36

These 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 Commissions, Revolutionary War MSS, Box V, NYHS; Abstracts of Sales of the Commissioners 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, Jr., September 1, 1806, Great Britain, Treasury Papers, Series T.79, Public Record Office, London. 37 New York Packet, May 23, 1785, July 8, 1788. New York Journal, July 2, 1788; Poughkeepsie Country Journal, March 23, 1788, August 12, 1788. 38 Advertisement 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, 1788. Graham to New York State Legislature April 26, 1785, "There is still a considerable amount of lands remaining unsold which I have not been able to dispose of." War of the Revolution MSS, XLIV, Box 2, NYSL. 39 In 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. 40 Lynd, Anti-Federalism, 27-28, 75; Lynd, "Revolution and the Common Man," 125; Pelletreau, Putnam County, 579. Lynd cites only 401 purchases, some 75 less due to a failure 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 that 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 Crannell, March 10, 1788, Assembly Papers, XXV, NYSL; Poughkeepsie Country Journal, April 15, 1787; May 6, 1788; American Loyalist Transcripts, XIX, 331-370, NYPL: J. Wilson Poucher, "Dr. Peter Tappen," Dutchess County Historical Society Yearbook, XIX (1934) 38-44. 41 Lynd, "Revolution and the Common Man," 121-125. 42 Liber of Deeds, Dutchess County, passim; YeomanFarmers, 31; Esquires, 11; Army Officers, 8; Widows, 6; Judges, 3; Tailors, 2; Tavern Keepers, 2; Shoemaker, 1; Seamen, 1; Lawyer, 1; Physician, 1; Town Clerk, 1; Blacksmith, 1. 43 American Loyalist Transcripts, LXIII, 231-234, 287288, NYPL; Rent Roll of Roger Morris, Audit Office, 13, 116, Public Record Office, London; Dutchess County Tax

Sale of Loyalist Estates

Lists, 1771-1779, County Clerk, Poughkeepsie. 44 Edward M. Ruttenber, ed., Catalogue of Collections at Washington's Headquarters: Newburgh, New York (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. 45 Lynd, Anti-Federalism, 58; Young, Democratic Republicans, 46; McCracken, Old Dutchess Forever, 424; New York, Secretary of State, Calendar of New York Colonial Manuscripts, Indorsed Land Papers, 1647-1903 (Albany, N.Y.: Weed, Parsons & Co., 1804), 735; J. Wilson Poucher, "Zephaniah Platt," 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 County purchasers of Loyalist estates such as Platt, Melancton Smith and others were involved in the Plattsburg speculation. 46

Joseph 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. 47 Lynd, Anti-Federalism, 58; Biographical Directory of American Congress, 1540; East, Business Enterprise, 94, 108, 117-118, 146, 225, 275, 368; J. Wilson Poucher "Melancton Smith," Dutchess County Historical Society Yearbook, X (1925), 39-48; DAB, XVIII, 310-320, 515; Dorothy R. Dillion, The New York Triumvirate (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944) 164-165. 48 DAB, XIII, 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, II, 119, 276-277; John F. Watson, Annals and Occasions of New York City and State (Philadelphia: By the author, 1846), 241; Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1105. 4 9William Duer to Robert Morris, August 27, 1780; Robert Morris to William Duer, September 12, 1780, quoted in East, Business Enterprise, 111-112. Receipt from Gerard Bancker, Treasurer, New York 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. 50 Reubens, William & Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, XXII, passim. 51 Rent Rolls of Roger Morris, G. B., Audit Office, 13, 116, PRO; American Loyalist Transcripts, XLIV, 226226; LXIII, 231-234; NYPL.

John T. Reilly

52 Brown, Agricultural History, LXII, 327-339; American Loyalist Transcripts, LXIII, 225, NYPL; Mark, Agrarian Conflicts, 200-201; Flick, Loyalism, 88; Spaulding, New York in the Critical Period, 132; Reubens, William & Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, XXII, 451-452. 53 Twelve tenants eventually did file claims. American 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, Note 47, 210; Wallace Brown, The Kings Friends (Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press) 1968, passim. 54 Comfort 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. 5 5Willis F. Johnson, Colonel Henry Ludington (New York: privately printed, 1907), 208; Lamb, History of the City of New York, II, 212-213; Pelletreau, Putnam County, 692; List of tenants on Captain Philip Philipses' long lot No. 6; 1804, 1810, Philipse-Gouverneur Papers, Columbia University. 56

John 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. 57 Petition 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; Senate Papers, II, 2088; X, Box II; XI, Box I, NYSL; New York Assembly, Journal, March 28, 1782, 81; Lynd, "Revolution and the Common Man," 116. 58 Reubens, William & Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, XXII, 451-452.

Sale of Loyalist Estates

59 Pelletreau, Putnam County, 121-128; Dutchess County Tax Lists, 1777, 1779, County Clerk, Poughkeepsie. 60 Reubens, William & Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, XXII, 454. 6 1Liber of Deeds, Dutchess County, passim; Liber of Deeds, Putnam County, passim. 6 2Liber of Deeds, Putnam County, L, 14, 19. 63 Pelletreau, Putnam County, 500. 64 Sands later gave the remaining portion of his land to his daughter, Liber of Deeds, Dutchess County, 11, 312; 12, 242; 15, 247. 6 5Liber of Deeds, Dutchess County, 12, 10; 14, 141, 144. 66 Ibid., 17, 177, 180; 10, 146. 67 Ibid., 15, 82; Burnett Miller to Zephaniah Platt, May 27, 1784; Misc., MSS, NYSL. 68 Poughkeepsie Country Journal, May 18, 1786; December 30, 1788; April 9, November 5, 1791; New York Journal, December 7, 1791. 69 Bureau of the Census, Heads of Families, 1790, passim. 70 Frederick C. Haacker, "Early Settlers of Putnam County, New York," (Typescript, NYPL, 1946), 39-52; Elizabeth J. McCormick, "Abstract of Wills of Putnam County, New York," (2 Vols., Typescript, NYHS, 1940-1942); Robert B. 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; Amos Canfield, "Abstract of Wills Recorded at Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County, New York," NYG&BR, LXI (1930) 6-13, 119-126, 256-263, 381-386. 71 New York Journal, 7 December 1791. 7 2Liber of Deeds, Dutchess County, New York, 9, 312; 15, 247. Comfort Sands honored two leases on lands formerly belonging to Beverly Robinson. 73 Lynd, Anti-Federalism, 76-77; idem., "Revolution and the Common Man," 121-123. 74 Liber of Mortgages, Dutchess County, 4, 414, 432.

John T. Reilly

7 5Liber of Deeds, Dutchess County, 9, 209, 344; 11, 76, 224; Poughkeepsie Country Journal, July 7, 1789; June 26, 1790; April 20, 1793; This newspaper listed 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, December 15, 1791; March 1, 1792. 76 Abstract of Sales of Commissioners of Forfeiture for the Middle District, May 20, 1785, War of the Revolution, MSS, Oversize, NYSL. 77 Ibid., Poughkeepsie Country Journal, January 7, 1787; March 12, 1794. 78 Lynd, Anti-Federalism, 76-79; Lynd, "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 1, NYSL; Petition of Nathan Pearce and twenty others, February 1, 1785, Misc. MSS, Dutchess County, NYHS; Petition 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.

••• •.

rt M j r

c. ,, t

" 3. •

•

• •

ILtehda • . raictis of L ind, p

rrIJVCI•040tS,

3.)

•

;

• i I

Iltre

he penj'in it eta+. • at I. trio, .1 altaititlrf (;er c . 1: +A:1ot, r..rt or tl, city 04 Nr The Fir n n.Av m p41"1 and Abe/Alan cn, ;tin, ,./:,.1.1.umg AL..; act". The Fnrri n roff Ilionof r.it,t I .'.nfon, athir z.b conflipt, 0 . IC 3d. in ii..11; tr,n at Rt.:cotter Car , ,, cohtar.lug ..bout 13, •rre.s 4.b. A 1, t .-1 I . . 1 di r :'-.7.itsn iln• It ...II, t mt : ill ,btir cdii 41.0. int rt. no ntc. w:(1, et. k Fa:n, 2 ho LI le, sad u:,. ad, 1E1 IXiki. c •!: John 1)..u,1cdf.. (jilt. A vefy F 'rm. ii pciTediort coritdining jc.o 4cJr3, A:rh • d i•once, ban, orchard, mr.iduw.t, 31.41t1+11C1. 7r/a„k I,ot, oor.ninin 3," 1..res, in ptic• freoun at ito,,rrt Waliaolon, 1.4 iCirrtWellat.1):1. tills. A Lot. containing about 70 4CICS., jil lethal% at Beni .min Ctiplien, with 2 ht..dir, yrd other inipioten,for. gilt. A Fain 30 .1b3330 300 ncrts, oteut4e..1 by Gr.iy, or.ti too buil; ud, calt41 1111i 3

•11r 111<-04.5..

lie in A.I.Q1i4 • be *Wilt aforef.ad. valu.rbte Fatal in the north etfi pre. b. to Midiuuk 4Zjtioting tty -Gatti Clary. fun; attnt:ouittg, rub:Lotion, 360".0aes,- 'nib '4 'roil bolter, buts, to clic miset intipottoottenn.

ta't a tat Wit% 041

+. .. a

•riaat •3••

31.•

•.

•

3 3

•

I p• Ic d cci d 3t• • '0.1

11001:4 Ott (UV U.) 02

•

;

4C1.1

aveunttogcu JOON kitATI1ORN,

OWN

A NI.

at Vat kV 41111

Notice of sale of the lands and buildings in Arenia Precinct owned by Ceorge Folliot, New York merchant following his conviction as a loyalist. Sale was held at the house of Maj. Simeon Cook of Amenia on April 13, 1780. From the New York Packet, newspaper 'published in Fishkill, May 11, 1780.

Poughkeepsie Iron Works (Bech's Furnace)by H. Carmiencke, 1856. 29 x 361 / 4". Courtesy of Yale University Art Gallery, bequest of

Oil on canvass Evelyn Cummins

THE NEW AMERICAN LANDSCAPE: an analysis of Poughkeepsie Iron Works (Bech's Furnace) Jeffrey A. Arons A description of a nineteenth century painting of one of Poughkeepsie 's industries conveys the importance of paintings as sources of historical and social information. Jeffrey Arons is a senior at Yale University. 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. iron.

It produced 24 tons of

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 1 River. The painting is a 29 x 36 1/4 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 painting was originally known only as Factory on the Hudson. Its correct identification is attributed to Catherine Lynn, Assistant Professor of Art History at Yale University. Her research while a graduate student uncovered, the correct title.

Jeffrey A. Arons

as art but also as an historical document filled 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 descrip-

tion of the painting is provided to enhance the reader's understanding of the painter's use of color and composition. The factory 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 On top of the hill, to either side of

from left to right.

a rocky path, are grouped two white goats and three children.

One of the goats is lying down and two of the child-

ren, a boy and a girl, are seated. girl, is standing.

The third child, a

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.

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

Detail of Carmiencke's painting.

boy is wearing.

A tall but scrawny 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. 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 more 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. of color by the sun that is not pictured. clouds hover close to the horizon.

It is flushed Long white

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.

There 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 build-

ings are well-lighted and are clearly the prominent

The New American Landscape

Detail of Carmiencke'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. boats are undoubtedly heading for the city.

The

At mid-

century, the steamboat was the most important and certainly 2 the most impressive means of Hudson River travel. 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 lateSeptember.

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. more at stake.

However, there is much

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 paintings 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 Industrial Revolution in the Northeast was in full gear and the iron 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 3 manufacture were steadily improving. One hundred years later, the Northeast was becoming increasingly urban and industrialized and thus was better prepared for the war 4 that was inevitable. 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 flat 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.

schools or playgrounds are visible. In the industrialized areas, the family system of economic and cultural unity was giving way to the factory 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 envi-

ronment, but the fence here serves only to emphasize the 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.

apparent on which they could work.

There is no farm

In addition, according

to Edmund Platt, in Eagle's History of Poughkeepsie, the the iron ore to be smelted was hauled by mule teams. 5 These teams were long a familiar street feature. 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

goats 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 6 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 Poughkeepsie, New York (1870) by Jim Evans. The larger steamboat is visually identified with the factory 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.

The move-

ment along the river is all directed toward New York City so there is a sense that Poughkeepsie is moving toward the city, toward imminent 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 other 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." This is called an iron age--for no other material is so omnipresent in all the arts of utility. Whether moulded from the furnace battered on the anvil, or rolled in the mill, it is daily developed for new forms and new uses. Its strengths, its toughness and its endurance render it applicable to a thousand exigencies of manufactures.... It has been again and again offered to the fine arts. But architecture, sitting haughtily on her acropolis, has indignantly refused to receive it, or receiving it, has done so stealthily and unworthily, enslaving it to basest uses and denying honor and grace to its 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 8 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.

Pough-

keepsie Iron Works closed down in 1909 due to competition 9 from southern and western iron. Just eight years earlier, J. P. Morgan had consolidated the concerns of Carnegie and others to form the first billion-dollar corporation in the history of the country: United States Steel. Industrialism had important effects on American society and it is these effects that are part of a broader 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 added 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.

Platt

reports 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 10 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. Ktaadn, 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.

ENDNOTES

1Platt, Eagle's History of Poughkeepsie, p. 143. 2 Howat, The Hudson River, p. 171. 3 Beard, A Basic History of the United States, p. 207. 4 statistics from Ibid. 5 Platt, Eagle's History of Poughkeepsie, p. 143. 6 Ibid., p. 234. 7 Spencer, Readings in American Art, p. 180. 8 Ibid., p. 176. 9 P1att, Eagle's History of Poughkeepsie, p. 234. 10 Ibid., p. 143.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bark, Eugene C. and Henry Steele Commager, Our Nation, Evanston: Row, Peterson and Co., 1945. Beard, Charles A. and Mary R. 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, Jan. 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 History of Poughkeepsie from the Earliest Settlements: 1683-1905, Poughkeepsie: Platt and Platt, 1905. R. V. LeRay, publisher, LeRay's Poughkeepsie City Directory, Poughkeepsie: R. V. LeRay, 1890. Reynolds, Helen Wilkinson, ed., The Records of Christ Church: 1766-1916, Poughkeepsie: Enterprise Publishing Co., 1919. Spencer, Harold, ed., American Art: Readings from the Colonial Era to the Present, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1980.

Acknowledgement-Special thanks to Kevin J. Gallagher, local history librarian, The Adriance Memorial Library, Poughkeepsie, New York. Personal correspondence, March 30, 1982.

ms:tAV

The Poughkeepsie Iron Works. From Edmund Platt History of 1905,pg. 233. Poughkeepsie 1683

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

From a post card photo

MASKED BURGLARS IN MILLERTON - 1880 Chester Eisenhuth Finch's general store and post office was the scene of a burglary in 1880 by three masked men who escaped into the night without a trace. The 1,000 reward for their capture was never collected. Chester Eisenhuth is Town Historian, Town of Northeast. 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 original proprietors went into bankruptcy 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

84 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 safe as he did not know the combination.

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. as they started to pound him.

He continued to resist

Hoping to alarm his employ-

er, young Decker suddenly shouted "Jim" as loud as he But he made a wrong move for just as he opened his

could.

mouth a gag was stuffed in and tied firmly 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 John'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 pock-

eted 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.

When the men ordered Finch to

open the safe he replied that he didn't know the combination and besides there was little of consequence in it anyway.

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 I'll 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 safe was opened the three went through the contents, 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 the 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 hogtied, 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.

Discov-

ering the hapless Finch on his blood-covered bed, he ran

to the street to summon help where he found Conductor George Kisselbrack and Will Woodruff.

The three released

Finch and did their best to relieve his suffering 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

James Finch 1327 - 1897. Merchant in Yallerton, N.Y. Photo taken ca. 1870 by C. Gunman, artist at Fiikin's Gallery 298 Main St. Poughkeepsie, 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 offering 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 $1,000 in postage stamps of different denominations. The burglars were three in number and short and thick set and dressed in dark clothes.

Their height is

about 5 feet 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 taken 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. and short sack coats.

All three wore dark clothes

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 with these headlines: "MASKED BURGLARS!

James Finch proprietor and

clerk bound and gagged.

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 detec-

tive 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 the 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 the tight bindings. It was found that the burglars had first 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 finally 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 after 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 nowgone 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, about 100 men present, presided over by Lawyer E. W. Simmons.

Many

suggestions were offered and finally 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 Stewart 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 midnight 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

90 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 three fugitives fade away into the past. As far as can be ascertained, they never were apprehended Consequently, the

nor is it known whatever became of them. reward was never paid.

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, having long 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 from Dutchess County

Charles Fisher Location and preservation of the Lawson Burial Ground, site of Dutchess County's earliest family, grew from planning prior to construction of a wastewater treatment facility. Charles Fisher is an archaeologist employed by New York State.

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.'

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 among 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 research briefly out-

lined in this report resulted in the identification and location of this family cemetery, which enabled the 2 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 Tr -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 the 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 observation difficult. An earlier archaeological survey described 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 subsurface cultural deposits in some areas, including the vicinity of two stone foundations.

A number of soil layers containing artifacts

dating from the mid 18th 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 documentation became available which indicated the probable location of the Lawson Family Burial Ground.

This informa-

tion was obtained by B. Buchanan of the Bowdoin Park 3 Historical Society who kindly made it accessible. A brief summary 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 4 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 Lawrence Lassing (Lawson) transferred the parcel north of the stone wall on the proposed site to Drake and Jaycoks.

In this document,

Peter Lawrence Lawson 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, out5 buildings, etc., quarries, mines, etc." The deed also excepts 1/2 acre for a "burial place". An untitled map of 1798 shows two houses within the 6 northern portion of the study area marked "Leroy". One of these structures is back from the river, apparently the location of an early stone house, uphill to the east of 7 the project area. 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 of a stone wall known as the Landing 8 Place. According to local tradition, the landing for a ferry across the Hudson River was located in the southern corner of Leroy'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 number 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 our field study. Lawson Family Graveyard The exact location of the graveyard is not clear from Poucher and Reynolds placed the 9 An orchard is visible on a 1925 graveyard in an orchard.

the historical records.

aerial photograph of the site area which

closely corres-

ponds to the "graveyard" tested unsuccessfully during an early archaeological survey of the site.

An aerial photo-

graph from 1935 shows the cemetery as a dark area in a cultivated field. and 1940's

the stones were moved aside to permit plowing

and then replaced. visible.

It is claimed that during the 1930's

Eventually the stones were no longer

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 subsurface features in a plowed area requires examination of soil zones undisturbed by agricultural 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. 1).

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 the 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 mapped 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 Test Locations and Soil Core Locations

FARM

BOWDOIN

CEMETERY

•

Test

11....

•••=r

47 46 _

.•,

soil

Ismsais•

cores -

post •

fence

lm.

•

Charles Fisher

96 Figure 2

Plan View of Cemetery Test Locations Showing Grave Trenches and Limestone Head and/or Foot Stones

Test

-0-

dark brown loam 0

20cm.

pan view yel low

brown

sand

depth

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 1.4 meters long and 5 meters wide, was probably the burial of a small child or infant.

Although the second stain was not 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 1.8 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 stones were

found on their sides at the 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 10 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

98 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.

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 11 and early historic times.

Archaeology as Historic Preservation

APPENDIX Aerial Photographs

1925

Privately made. In possession of Bowdoin Park Historical Association.

1935

Fairchild Aerial Survey, 8520 271. Soil Conservation Department, Millbrook, New York.

1946

ft416VV-16PL-M-2-16PS-13-MAR-46-5M 350, Soil Conservation Department, Millbrook, New York.

1960

6-6 60EFC 54-25, Soil Conservation Department, Millbrook, New York.

n.d.

Sheet 15, Dutchess County Planning Board (c. 1960-1965).

1966

Sheet 183. Board.

Dutchess County Planning

ENDNOTES 1 Char1es Fisher, (1980a) Stage II Archaelogical and Historical Survey of Plant Site 1B. (Bowdoin Farm - Town of Poughkeepsie). Submitted to Hayward and Pakan Associates. With Greg Laden; (1980b) Addendum to the State II Archaeological and Historical Survey of Plant Site 1B. Submitted to Hayward and Pakan Associates. 2 B. Buchanan, Documentation for the Location of the Lassen Burial Ground. (n.d.) (See Appendix III of Fisher, 1980a). 3 Ibid. 4 Helen Wilkinson Reynolds, Dutch Houses in the Hudson Valley Before 1776. (The Holland Society of New York, 1929; reprinted 1965, Dover, New York.) 5Clifford M. Buck, The Lossing Family. (Privately published genealogical manuscript, n.d., Salt Point, New York 12578) Deeds and Records, Dutchess County Court House, Poughkeepsie, New York. 6 Hand drawn map, untitled, 1798. Available in the Adriance Memorial Libxary, Poughkeepsie, New York.

100

Charles Fisher

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; dune and Johnson, 18 West Avenue, Albion, New York 14411, p. 26. 8 . Ibid., 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 J. W. Poucher and Helen Wilkinson Reynolds, Old Gravestones of Dutchess County, New York, Dutchess County Historical Society, 1924, reprinted 1976. 10 L. Lewis Johnson and Jean E. Howson, Archaeological and Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation, Plant Site 1B, Tri-Municipal Sewer Improvement Area, 1979; Dutchess County, Project C-36-948, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York. 11 I would like to express my sincere thanks to William Rohde of Hayward and Pakan Associates for his concern with protecting the archaeological sites mentioned here. B. 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 FAMILY 1659-1982: Dutchess County's first settlers

B. Buchanan Evidence supporting the Lassen family as the earliest settlers is presented together with a discussion of the Lassen Patent, B. Buchanan is historian for Bowdoin Park and also the Bowdoin Park Historical Association. 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.

He 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 unset-

tled 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. Viele petitioned Albany to set the matter.

Lassen and

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 Lassens's Patent form a triangle, with the Hudson River as the west boundary, and the Wappingers Creek as the southeast boundary.

The north bound-

ary is formed by an east-west surveyed line running from the mouth of Jan Caspar's Kil to just above the Little Falls of the Wappingers Creek. Pieter is known 'to have built a stone house, by 1688,

B. Buchanan

102

on the riverbank just south of Jan Caspar's Kil.

A son,

William, born to him soon after, was the first non-Indian 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 Jr. included the west side of the Great Falls of the Wappingers Creek.

His son,

Pieter III, was one of a dozen or so grandsons and greatgrandsons of Pieter Sr. who were also named Pieter Lassen. Pieter III moved to Beekman, where the spelling of the family changed to "Lossing".

Benson Lossing, the noted

historian, journalist, and engraver descended from Pieter

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 first documented settler. The Lassen Patent covered the southern part of today's Town of Poughkeepsie.

The Lassen--Cuyler

Van Cortlandt

(Rombout) boundary line is still plainly visible on aerial photographs and traceable in parts on the ground (the western descent of Cottam Hill Road follows it). Presently well-known places lying within the patent are: the village of New Hamburg (daughter Maria Jansen'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 Lassenberg", divided between sons Isaac and William); andBowdoin Park (the share of grandson Pieter, Johannes' son).

The

South Hills Shopping Mall (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 Tr -Municipal Plant Site and Bowdoin Park.

Most unfortu-

nately, 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 landing during the 1700's.

Several stone foundations are tobe

found on Tr -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 as "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 along the

old road, is all stone to the roof peak, and, though much altered and yet unrecognized by local historians, gives evidence of dating back to Pieter's time.

It 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

B. 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 "Beginning 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 Lawrence Lassen, Drake & Jaycocks, Aaron Midlar, Peter LeRoy, John LeRoy, Meredith Howland, and (as a parcel) to J. & I. Grinnell, Temple Bowdoin, and the Children's Aid Society. Deeds 61:346, 61:349, 89:10, 126:1, 130:64, 416:491 demonstrate 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), Joanna Howland Grinnell (as the main body of the estate), Temple Bowdoin (as a parcel separately described), and the Children's Aid Society. See also 489:135, 489:131, 497:215, 556:443, 597:174, 629:304, 648:219.

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 residence 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 John LeRoy, resulting from the Howland--Banks--Grinnell 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 Assoc., privately made, c. 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. Shows dark area in cultivated field at site of cemetery. Witnesses 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 photograph 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. Numbered 6-6 60 EFC 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. Aero Service Corp., dated 1966; sheet 183. Soil mining in 1961, on all four sides of area staked as cemetery, is clearly visible.

B. Buchanan

106

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adriance Memorial Library, Poughkeepsie. All the usual sources of old documents, atlases, maps, clippings, and collected papers. Buchanan, B., Documentation for the Location of the Lassen Burial Ground. Unpublished. Listing of pertinent deeds, maps, publications, aerial photo1979. graphs. 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/or derived from the Lassen Patent. Unpublished. Poucher, J. Wilson and Reynolds, Helen W. eds., Old Gravestones of Dutchess County, New York, Collections, Dutchess County Historical Society (Poughkeepsie, 1924), vol. II, 232. Reynolds, Helen W. Dutch Houses in the Hudson Valley Before 1776. The Holland Society of N.Y. Reprinted 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 HOLLOW FAIR Louise Tompkins Historical notes and personal experiences at the original Dutchess County fairgrounds. Louise Tompkins is town historian of the Town of Washington. The original fairground of the Dutchess County Agri1 cultural Society, organized in 1806, was situated at the northeast corner of Routes 82 and 44 at Washington Hollow. It was so named to honor George Washington.

According to

tradition he and his officers made camp one night under a huge cottonwood tree which stood in front of the present Cottonwood Inn. For a great many years, the Washington Hollow Fairwas the grand event of the summer season.

Farmers and their

families came from all over the county in coaches drawn by four horses, wagons drawn by two horses, carriages drawn by one horse, ox carts, and on foot.

Many of the families had

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 grandchild-

ren all knew each other.

When they arrived at the Fair,

they greeted each other with such joy and enthusiasm that they seemed to be at 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"--or so they said!

Farmers' wives displayed at booths their canned

fruits, jellies, pickled pears, peaches, and cucumbers. At other booths they displayed things they 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

108

Louise Tompkins

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 fairgrounds 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 Washing-

ton 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 abeautiful 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 B. Clay,

son of Henry Clay, came north looking for good horses, Edwin Thorne advised him to buy Mambrino Chief.

He fol-

lowed Mr. Thorne's advice and took the horse back to Kentucky, where he became the ancestor of the famous Kentucky race horses. One day Washington Velie of Washington Hollow saw a lively brown mare following behind a gypsy wagon.

He pur-

chased 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. exhibited in Chicago in 1876.

The Queen of Cows was

The Washington Hollow Fair

109

Dr. G. Howard Davison of Altamont Stock Farm near Millbrook, exhibited in the early 1890's beautiful prizewinning Shropshire sheep which he 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 first time I went to this famous 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 car-

riage with him and Topsy took us at a fast trot to the Fair at Washington Hollow.

Grandma met several ladies at the

They went into the Hall together, talking

Exhibition Hall.

happily about what had happened since last year. drove Topsy under a shed, and tied her there.

Grandpa

Then he and

I walked around the grounds looking at all the beautiful animals.

We stopped at the grandstand to watch the trot-

ting horse races.

I had never seen a horse race and I was

thrilled to see the horses flash around the race track at a terrific rate of speed for horses--or 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 time to milk our cows."

After we picked up Grandma at the Exhibi-

tion 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 Washington Hollow Fair was one to be remembered always. ENDNOTES 1 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.

Joseph Wild, Commissioner at the draft wheel used in the second draft in the 12th district of New York on May 31, 1864 at Poughkeepsie, N.Y. From pen and ink sketch from President Roosevelt's collection at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, N.Y.

THE CIVIL WAR COMES TO DUTCHESS COUNTY David Lund New York City draft riots during the Civil War had a disruptive effect on residents and property in Poughkeepsie, Pleasant Valley, and Bangall. Less than one percent draftees in Dutchess County actually served in the Union army. David Lund teaches in a private 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 mists 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 Lee'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. fully drawn.

Over 1,000 names were peace-

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) 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 first 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 Pough-

keepsie had the first Associated Press office 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 2 As steamboats, overland gather to the rest of the state. travellers, and occasional trains reached Dutchess County from New York City, news and rumors 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. into New York, either.

The trains couldn't run south

On July 14 the citizens of Pough-

keepsie 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

committed 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 car3 Several citizens were treated to tridge, into the air." 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, If their serv4 ices are needed, they will not fire blank cartridges." ready to assemble at a moment's warning.

Since one of the main targets of the New York rioters was that city's Black population, Poughkeepsie's Negro community naturally feared for its safety should rioting spread.

Accordingly, a Negro military company was formed,

its approximately 60 members determined "to defend their

113

The Civil War Comes to Dutchess County

Fey. James W. C. Pennington fugitive slave, abolitionist and author of a black history text. Rev. Pennington taught in a black school in 1863. From Armistead, A Tribute for the Negro,1378,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 summer 5 and occasionally paraded through the city. 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, sev-

eral 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 flocked 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 filled with people either carrying off 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 commented, "the pigs will drink it if no one else

David Lund

114 6 will."

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

Eagle printed a letter from J. W. C. Pennington, the principal of Poughkeepsie's "Colored School".

Pennington

wrote:

About the 13th [of last month], I left my family among seven other peaceable colored families at #312 W. 26th Street...New York where we have resided for more than 3 years, and came here to take charge of the Colored School. I brought only a change of clothing with me, and a few notebooks, leaving all my other effects. ... At the close of my school...I proceeded peaceably to New York, and directly to my residence, hoping that I should see my family where I left them; but on reaching my door I found it battered by the mob, and closed. Nor is this all. My appearance was the signal for the hideous shout—"Kill the damned black nigger," followed by a shower of stones. Without showing any signs of alarm or cowardice, I left the locality as soon as I could and walked about the city for six hours with a view to find my family, and to see how it was with the colored people generally. I did not succeed in finding my family, up to this moment. I do not know whether my wife is among the living or the dead. I returned here this evening by the 'Mary Powell', satisfied that the half has not been told... J. W. C. Pennington P.S. Should this meet the eye of anyone who can inform me of the whereabouts of my wife '4117-lira Pennington, they will do a kindness by communicating with me at this place. 8 Pennington's family was apparently unharmed, 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. August 3, Hickock's bookstore in Poughkeepsie advertised for sale: THE GREAT RIOT IN NEW YORK A full account of the wholesale outrage on life and

property-accurately prepared from official sources. In pamphlet form, price 10 .

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--Septem-

ber 6, 1863—the draft was begun in Poughkeepsie for the 12th Congressional District--Dutchess and Columbia Counties.

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 1,000 men of the 21st 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 11 Civil War. 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 summons.

Of the 2,619 men that did respond, 885--a

full one-third--were 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 examina-

tions were completed, a grand total of 13 draftees from 12 Dutchess and Columbia Counties marched off to war. Almost one-third of those who responded to their draft notices in the 12th District paid the commutation fee--quite a large 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 pockets, 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

116

David Lund

Presbyterian Church in Pleasant Valley,N.Y. Erected 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 13 equally among the members. Not all the citizens of Dutchess were as loyal to 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 1, 1861, the citizens of Pleasant Valley raised a national flag 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

to cheer and applaud.

117

A few came for other reasons, and

threats were openly made that the flag would not fly 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 14 hole in the floor of the church. 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 fact that her students began to wear small American flags and badges as a protest to her discussions.

On November 4, 1863, sev-

eral of the older boys decided to raise an American flag at the 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. new flag was soon raised.

Miss Briggs gave a political

lecture to the class, then dismissed the 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

118

David Lund

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 1 For a full discussion of the New York draft riots see: Adrian Cook, The Armies of the Streets; the New York City Draft Riots of 1863. (Lexington, Ky. 1974). 2 Poughkeepsie Daily Eagle, July 14, 1863. 3 Eagle, July 16, 1863. 4 Eagle, July 15, 1863. 5 Eagle, August 3, 1863; August 15, 1863. 6 Eagle, July 16, 1863. 7 Eagle, July 17, 1863. 8 Eagle, July 23, 1863. 9 Eagle, August 3, 1863. 10 Eagle, September 7, 1863. 1 . 1William S. Benson Jr., "Dutchess County's Role in the Civil War", Dutchess County Historical Society YearBook, vol. 66, 1981. 12 Fishkill Journal, December 31, 1863. 13 Eagle, August 22, 1863. 14 Eagle, June 3, 1861. 15 Eag1e, November 13, 1863.

Corner of Main and Market Streets in 1861, showing Liberty Pole. From Edmund Platt, History of Poughkeepsie 1683 to 1905, pg. 178.

Grand Opening program, Collingwood Opera House, February 1, 1869.

THE BARDAVON 1869 OPERA HOUSE 1869 - 1979

Jesse Effron

The Collingwood Opera House was the stage until 1917 for the most well-known performers of music and the dramatic arts. Its history during that period and the period which followed until its recent rebirth as a theatre for performing arts is discussed. Jesse Effron is on the Board of Directors and is the historian of the theatre.

On February 1, 1869 the COLLINGWOOD Opera House in Poughkeepsie, N. Y. opened with a gala concert, sponsored by Poughkeepsie business men, in tribute to the owner and builder, James Collingwood. deserved.

The tribute was richly

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 it 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 offering 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 Effron

122

tion (15 years before the METROPOLITAN Opera House, 20 years before CARNEGIE HALL) and its durability as a continuously operating theatre for more than 110 years, the COLLINGWOOD, 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 the stage,

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 the 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 office 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 opera house,

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

Egbert B. Sweet First manager of the Collingwood Opera House.

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 horseshoe -shaped 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 the balconies

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. Batoni 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 to Solomon". Some of the statistics that interested the public at the time: Collingwood had spent $50,000 on the theatre; a

Jesse

124

Sarah Bernhardt

Lillian Russell in H.M.S. Pinafore ca. 1889.

Effron

December 8, 1917.

The Bardavon 1869 Opera House

125

half million bricks went into its construction.

It was a

mammoth 80 by 120 feet with a 12 foot basement containing a dining room, 70 by 30 feet, with a320 sq. ft. 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 opera house, 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 merely as acarpenter and builder.

The courage of these men to undertake a proj-

ect of this magnitude is truly astonishing.

What 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. changes were made.

During this period only minor

At some point before 1910 the stage

was enlarged, the seats in the parquet were rearranged so that they all faced the stage directly, and the proscenium opening was heightened and the design around it simplified. Seating was made more comfortable and 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 to capacity.

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". Immediately 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

Jesse Effron

Photograph of ignace Paderewski near the time he performed at the Opera House.

Photograph of Jascha Heifitz near the time he performed at the Opera House.

The Bardavon 1869 Opera House

company sponsored a ball.

127

For this event Collingwood

built a temporary floor 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 few 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 B. Du Chaillu, the famous African explorer.

But for the next three weeks the theatre

was dark until March 3 when the Van Arnum and Everitt company of Troy opened a three-

aek season with Bulwer-

Lytton's popular "Lady of Lyons".

On April 5 the Grau

French Opera (the same company that ran the Metropolitan Opera House from 1898 to 1903) came with "Genevieve 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 first manager of the COLLINGWOOD Opera House was Egbert B. 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

Jesse 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 commented on the "perfect acoustic quality" of the opera house),

Maude Adams, John Drew, all three of the Barry-

mores , 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 the 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 the musical world.

A few names will suffice to indicate the caliber of

visiting performers: Jascha 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 occa-

sions, once with the eminent conductor Karl Muck.

The

Symphony Society of New York with Walter 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 COLLINGWOOD served as the platform for local amateur dramatic and musical productions.

Favorite home-

grown 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 Jan. 24,

1871, there was a grand celebration at the opera house marking the opening of the first 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 fields 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; Wednesday-a 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 school. The 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.

Herbert, incidentally, performed at the COL-

LINGWOOD as a cellist. During the first 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.

Jesse Effron

130

Bardavon 1869 Opera House. Detail of hand plaster work, part of the 1923 renovation.

crafted

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 and 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 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 COLLINGWOOD 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 Jacques Thibaud and Harold Bauer, an elegant finale to the COLLINGWOOD'S first period.) On January 1, 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 cantilevered balcony, divided into loge and rear sections.

131

The Bardavon 1869 Opera House

projection booth was installed as was a new film screen, the largest and finest obtainable. Old style was gone but elegant art deco fashion remained.

Much of the work done during the 1923 renova-

tion is still apparent in the general appearance of the theatre today.

Jeanne B. 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 dentils, 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 COLLINGWOOD was covered and simplified, its lighting, of course, changed to 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 "Midsummer Night's Dream", or as "Shakespeare (The Bard of Avon) 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

132

Jesse Effron

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 carpenter 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 in 1923 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 official 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 twenties, 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

•-N

133

Jesse Effron

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 modified 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 effects of absentee ownership did not show themselves immediately.

This was due, at least in

part, to the influence of Harry Rovster, the local manager. He made himself very much 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 Colling-

wood's death in 1874, through distribution of the estate, the ownership of the theatre was separate from that of the office building in front of it.

The COLLINGWOOD 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 marquee 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

136

Jesse Effron

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 committee was dismayed 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 committee immediately organized itself

as "Concerned Citizens for the Bardavon" with the immediate 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 first 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 Poughkeepsie 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 office rentals and the only way we can make office 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.

When Urban Renewal amended its

plan (through the initiative of the Concerned Citizens for the Bardavon) the extra space was not needed and we were

137

The Bardavon 1869 Opera House

left with the theatre".

Under the circumstances as out-

lined 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 ceremony, 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 benefit of the whole community goes to the first 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.

Any history of the new BARDAVON must take note of

the contribution of Julie Dunwell, the first director of events, and her husband Stephen, the first general manager, who put themselves on a round-the-clock, seven-daya-week schedule on a volunteer basis from September, 1975 until the present time. In a sense the rebirth of the COLLINGWOOD 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.

Jesse Effron

138

James Collingwood, the present owners have had very little experience in running a theatre.

Ben Sweet, the COLLING-

WOOD'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.

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 1,000 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 theatre keeps 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 lav-

atories 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 the capacity of the auditorium.

Robert Cole,

an experienced and able director has been hired. are that stable future is assured.

All signs

The COLLINGWOOD-

BARDAVON 1869 Opera House, having narrowly escaped destruction is well started into its second century.

Bardavon 1869 Opera House in its recently renovated splendor.

Aertson, Poosa, Elton Pawling Fauconnier Sanders & Harmanse Schuyler Cuyler

arvM

Land grants awarded in Dutchess County 1683 - 1731. Based on map from Dutchess County Historical Society Yearbook volume 24 (1939), 52.

HILIOS

adVivi

ariacro

1 2 3 4 5 6

- small patents CNVN1 ELEON

Legend

LAND GRANTS IN DUTCHESS COUNTY 1683 - 1733: Settlement or Speculation? William P. Mc Dermott A demographic study of Dutchess County indicates "extravagant" land grants awarded in the late 17th century may in fact have retarded settlement. However, that point of view held by some 18th century public officials is incomplete. It overlooks the efforts of some owners to settle the land and fails to take into account other factors which affected settlement. Wm. P. Mc Dermott is editor of the Dutchess County Historical Society, Yearbook.

"Extravagant land grants to a few favorites .

•

retarded the development and peopling of the province [New 1 York] for many years to come." 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 Kim, 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 2 Spencer's thesis purchased for resale and profit.

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 governor 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, 3 thereby limiting its potential for settlement. 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 4 New York Province. Four years earlier land favorable for settlement had been transferred from New York to Connecticut in a final 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 Lords 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] 5 . up into the Country amongst our Indians". The 0

"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 6 future settlement." 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? ernor Hunter thought not.

Gov-

Thirty years after the Living-

ston grant, Hunter commented 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 Colden who judged the large land grant approach to settlement, a failure.

Colden 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 8 Lands, and the most conveniently situated." Recently the issue of early settlement has been studied through the relationship between tenants and landlords.

Two researchers, Bonomi and Kim, independently

have drawn conclusions from their work which are contrary to the findings of the earlier research of Higgins, Mark, 9 Spencer and others. 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 10 Kim concluded there was significant population growth. 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 Kim.

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, soil11 exhausted and land-limited New England inhabitants. It 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 prolif-

eration 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 Gov-

ernor 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 ,,12 make improvements upon the plantation or farm. Governor Dongan was even more specific in his land grants because he was concerned about the effect 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 13 this province in the produce of come stock." The specific reference to "come stock" indicates Governor Dongan's intent to encourage cultivation of the exportable commodity.

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 [?] may be capable of settlement.u14

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 15 Even land which might Dongan's arrival in New York. 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 16 granted. 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 17 While therein fit for cultivation and improvement." 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 18 of the said lands and that they may not by [be] wast." The letter of patent awarded in 1706 specifically stated that settlement and some improvements were to occur 19 "within three years from the date of the Patent."

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 patent.

147

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, 20 and so near to the enemy". The requested extension with a promise to settle and improve the land five 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 Ingrossed 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 21 Fifty years after Governor same shall be granted". Dongan took office, continuing concern about the lack of settlement, Cadwallader Colden scathingly criticized large landowners.

"...the Grantees themselves are not, nor never

were in a Capacity to improve such large Tracts...."

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 [large land grants] was deceived as to quantity; but the King was deceived in all 22 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. County?

Was this the case in Dutchess

Did the large landowner stimulate settlement or

had he acquired the land merely for speculative purposes?

William P. Mc Dermott

148

Settlement in Dutchess County: Growth Settlement in Dutchess County began in the 1680's shortly after the first land grant was awarded.

The first

census, taken in 1703 when Dutchess was still under the administrative supervision of Ulster County, recorded approximately 100 settlers or seventeen to twenty fam23 ilies. Eleven years later in 1714 Dutchess, then with its own government, reported 417 white individuals or 24 sixty-seven families inhabiting the county. 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.

TABLE 1. Number of taxpayers in each ward

North

1718

1721

1724

1727

1730

1733

101

121

145

160

Middle

100

133

South

Tbtal

129

164

195

253

321

389

Source: Book of the Supervisors of Dutchess County, 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 confidence as a true reflection of the number of families residing in Dutchess each year. Evident in Table 1 is the continuous and steady increase in

149

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733

population over the fourteen year period 1718 - 1733.

fact the average rate of growth annually was an impressive seven and one-half percent. doubles every decade.

At that rate population

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 is 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 Dutch-

ess and the counties north of New York City.

While Dutch-

ess seems to have grown at about the same rate as Orange and Ulster counties it fell 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

150

Suffolk 7000

New York Queens

6000

5000

4000

3000 Kings

2000

Dutchess 1000

Richmond

1703

1714

1731

1723

Fig. 1 Population change 1703 - 1731 Dutchess County compared to southern New York counties Albany 7000

6000 Westchester 5000

4000 Ulster

3000 2000

Orange Dutchess

1000

1703

1714

1723

1731

Fig. 2 Population change 1703 - 1731 Dutchess County compared to counties north of New York city

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733

151

Ni York Queens Suffolk

Kings Pichmond Dutchess 1703

1714

1723

Fig. 3 Percentage of total population Dutchess County compared to southern New York counties

1731 1703 - 1731

Albany

Westchester

MOM..

Ulster Orange Dutchess

1703 Fig. 4

1714

1723

1731

Percentage of total population 1703 - 1731 Dutchess County compared to counties north of New York city

William P. Mc Dermott

152

TABLE 2. NuMber of white inhabitants in New York Province 1698-1731 1698

1703

1712/14

1723

17311

New York

4,237

3,745

3,611

5,886

7,045

Kings

1,569

1,590

1,774

1,658

3,968

4,800

6,068

6,713

407

1,175

1,251

1,513

Suffolk

1,721 2 3,366 6542 2 2,121

3,158

3,900

5,266

7,074

Albany

1,453

Queens Richmond

1,228

4 2,073 3 100 4 235 4 1,748 4 1,404

3,798

5,560

12,099 15,897

Dutchess

Orange

200 2 917

Westchester Ulster

2,871

5,693

7,300

417

1,040

1,615

390

1,097

1,785

2,553

3,961

5,341

1,800

2,357

2,996

8,031

14,148

19,037

12,847

15,076

20,245

24,003

18,407

23,107

34,393

43,040

Total Northern Counties Totl Southern Counties Total

Source: Compiled from Evarts B. Greene & Virginia D. Harrington: American Population Before the Federal Census of 1790, (New York, 1932).

las corrected in Robert V. Wells "The New York Census 1731", New York Historical Society Quarterly, 57 (1973), 256. 2 the nuMber of children in the available compilations appear to be too few. 3estimated number of whites based on data from Greene & Harrington: footnote pg. 94. This estimate was subtracted from Ulster's total. Dutchess was administered by Ulster during its early years. 4includes individuals over 60 listed separately in the tables compiled by Greene & Harrington: see pg. 95.

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733

153

reflect 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 1,900 inhabitants fifty years later reflects interest in settlement. Where did Dutchess County fit in comparison to all other counties in New York Province?

Certainly with fewer

than one hundred settlers before 1700 Dutchess was an insignificant entity in the province.

Although it appears

from Tables 1 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. Immediately 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 the proportion of

William P. Mc Dermott

154

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 divi-

sions 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.

These

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.

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733

155

And Adolph Philipse received all of the land which is the present Putnam County.

The large patents held in partner-

ship 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.

TABLE 3. Growth of settlement during the period 1683-1733

Period

Total # of families at the end of each period

4 of families added each year

Average # of families added Average # of families added each year, each patent each year

1688-1703

1.25

.16

1704-1714

4.27

.53

1715-1719

134

13.40

1.68

1720-1724

195

12.20

1.53

1725-1729

280

17.00

2.13

389

109

27.25

3.41

1730-1733

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 owner was 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 differences 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.

There-

fore, eight patents divided into the number recorded in column 4 provides the average number of additional families settled on each patent each year.

While it is

evident from Table 3 growth occurred over the fifty 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 others there was almost no settlement at all in other patents.

However, even taking these dif-

ferences 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 significant 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 1733. For example, from eighty-eight families listed on the 1718

157

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733

assessment roll who continued to be listed in 1733 there were eighty-one male offspring 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 families appeared on the first assessment role in 1718.

Furthermore, an additional estimate of 10% of those

listed on the 1733 assessment roll were independent taxpaying offspring 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.

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 findings indicate the results of Table 3 are inflated to the extent that offspring cannot be considered new settlers.

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 first 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 and the 25 Fish-kill though they scarce deserve the name". The final 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. lines were not the same.

Patent lines and ward

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.

For-

tunately, 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 affect the principle issue settlement occurred in Dutchess County.

where

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 1739.

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.

TABLE 4. Assessment roll for 1733 separated into place of residence in 1739 Precinct

Number of residents

not listed in 1739

Beekman

Fishkill

Nine Partners

Northeast

3 52

Poughkeepsie

119

Rhinebeck Southern

7 Total

389

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. Northeast 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 interior 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 findings 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. 2.

Settlement on several major patents wasinsignificant.

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 patents combined. 3.

Although accounting for only 18% of the population, Poughkeepsie precinct, in spite of its small size compared to most of the other patents, contained a greater share of the population than its size alone would command.

Fishkill precinct, which included most of the Rombout Patent, accounted for 20% of the population 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. was not settled evenly.

And even that corridor

Settlement 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

Beekman'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 27 County roads extant in 1733. The principle north-south road, in places barely 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 landings on the Hudson.

Additionally there were two

roads from Beekman'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 significant contribution to the early settlement of Dutchess County.

Colonel Peter Schuyler, awarded the patent

which occupied the northern portion of the Rhinebeck precinct, appears to have had little more than speculative interest.

He sold the northernmost one-third of his land 28 grant one year after receiving it. 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 to Poughkeepsie to 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

William P. Mc Dermott

162

The

interests appear to have been primarily speculative.

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-in30 law Baltus Barents Van Kleeck. Also, Harmense had built a saw mill before 1699 further indicating settlement plans 31 for himself and others. 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 32 These facts support the conclusion that set-

Harmense.

tlement in Poughkeepsie 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 settle-

ment came from Roger Brett and his wife, Catharine, daughter and heir of Francis Rombout.

Roger's death in 1718

left Catharine in a financially difficult position.

As a

result she could no longer follow the initial plan to lease land; instead, she distributed land primarily through sales in fee 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 33 the Rombout patent than that of Catharine Brett. 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.

163

Land Grants in Dutchess County 1683-1733 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 35 requiring unanimous agreement was not renewed in 1718. 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 the 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 36 to nineteen. An attempt made by the Great Nine Partners in 1725 to have the Assembly pass an act permitting further 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 Jamison, 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 the parties, or so many of them at least as shall be owners of the greatest part of said 37 Although it is difficult to ascribe intent land...." because of the absence of personal notes from the shareholders in the Great Nine Partners company, it is equally difficult to conclude there was great interest in division and settlement when the existence of such a significant

William P. Mc Dermott

164

paragraph, which essentially gave permission to divide, was overlooked for thirty years.

Interestingly, Jamison

was only one of two attorneys in the partnership; William 38 Huddleston was the other. 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 the 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 39

land.

The remaining four large land grants in Dutchess were owned by individuals.

One is clearly an example of spec-

ulation, 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 fac-

tor 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

years six thousand acres were sold in parcelS from 350 40 acres to 1,320 acres. 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 41 once." 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 1, 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 theirs were less successful. Conclusions The manner in which the large land grants were used by their owners in the early 18th century reflects the model proposed by Kim.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.

In the second category of Kim's model

is the landowner who developed land to 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

William P. Mc Dermott

166

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. Peter

Land speculators such as

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 in-

terested in settling families 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 to continue to support the Palatines, 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 offered an appealing atmosphere for the newer settlers whose background was English.

Note the apparent ease with which the Palatines

resettled into Dutchess County.

The common bond in the

Dutch-German background must have facilitated 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 Colden, 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 land43 owners. 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 44 The truth, as it obstructors", describes others. applies to Dutchess County and perhaps most of New York, lies somewhere between those two observations.

ENDNOTES 1 Spencer, Charles W. Phases of Royal Government in New York 1691-1719 (Columbus, Ohio, 1905), 7-8. 2 Kim, Sung Bok "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. 4 0'Callaghan, E. B., ed. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York (Albany, N. Y., 1856-87), III, 397. (hereafter cited as N.Y. Col. Docs.)

William P. Mc Dermott

168

5 N.Y. Col. Docs., III, 397. 6

N.Y. Col. Docs., III, 625.

7 N.Y. Col. Docs., V, 480. 8 0'Callaghan, E. B., ed. Documentary History of the State of New York, 4 volumes, (Albany, 1849-51), I, 384. (hereafter cited as Doc. Mist. N.Y.) 9 Bonomi, Patricia, "New York's Land System", chap. 6 in A Factious People: Politics and Society in Colonial New York (New York, 1971), 179-228; Kim, "A New Look at the Great Landlords", 613-4; Higgins, Ruth L., Expansion in New York with Especial Reference to the Eighteenth Century (Columbus, Ohio, 1931), 24-5; Mark, Irving, Agrarian Conflicts in Colonial New York 1711-1775 (New York, 1940, 65-6, 72-75, 195; Spencer, Charles W., "The Land System of Colonial New York," New York State Historical Association, Proceedings, XVI (1917), 162-63; Turner, Frederick J., The Frontier in American History (New York, 1920), 82-3. 10 Bonomi, "New York's Land System", 195; Kim, "A New Look at the Great Landlords", 613. 1 . lEllis, 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, 19193. 12 New York Colonial Manuscripts, Land Papers, 16421803, 63 volumes, New York State Library, II, 14. (hereafter cited as Land Papers). 13 Land Papers, II, 31. 14 Land Papers, III, 30. 15 Land Papers, III, 71. 16 Land Papers, III, 15. 17 Land Papers, III, 175. 18 Land Papers, III, 93. 19 Land Papers, IV, 135. 20 Land Papers, IV, 135. 21, 'Governor Montgomerids Instructions, 20th October 1727, Instruction #38 & #36, The Letters and Papers of Cadwallader Colden in New York Historical Society, Collections, 1711-29 (Mew York, 1918-1923), I (1917), 211. Earlier 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. 22 Doc. Hist. N.Y., I, 384-385. 23 Estimate based on data from Greene, Evarts B. and Harrington, Virginia D. American Population Before the Federal Census of 1790 (New York, 1932), XXIII. 24 Doc. Hist. N.Y., I, 368-69. 2 5Smith, William The History of the Province of New York....to 1762, 2 volumes, (London, 1757; reprint Cambridge, Mass., 1972, Michael Kammen, ed.), 211. 26 Ibid. 27 Old Miscellaneous Records of Dutchess County, 17221747 (Vassar Brothers Institute, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 1909), 154, 160. 28 Dutchess County Clerk's Office, Liber 2:398; Robert Livingston Papers, Series II, Reel 28, item #26, Schuyler sale to Gansevoort, 6/18/1689,New York Historical Society. 29 Reynolds, Helen W. Poughkeepsie: The Origin and Meaning of the Word, Dutchess County Historical Society, Collections (Poughkeepsie, N.Y., 1924), I, 29-31. 30 Ibid., 77. 31 Dutchess County Clerk's Office, Liber 1:278. 32 Reynolds, Poughkeepsie: The Origin and Meaning of the Word, 29. 33 Reynolds, Helen W. ed. Eighteenth Century Records, Dutchess County, New York: Rombout Precinct and the Original Town of Fishkill, Dutchess County Historical Society, Collections (Poughkeepsie, N.Y., 1938), collected by William W. Reese, VI, 44 (deed #2), 46 (deed #11) suggests Roger Brett died June 1718; Ibid., 1-6; 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. Kim 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. 3 4Kim, "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" LVI (1975), 36-41.

William P. Mc Dermott

170

35 Colonial Laws of New York, I, 633, 882, 1006; N.Y. Col. Docs., V, 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 County, New York (Poughkeepsie, N.Y., 1979), 3-4. 37 Ibid., 4. 38 Hamlin, Paul M. and Baker, Charles E. eds., Supreme 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), III, 104-107. 39 Passed by the New York Assembly, November 28, 1734. Colonial Laws of New York, II, 868-70. 40 La Potin, "The Minisink Grant", 43-46. 4 'Kim, "A New Look at the Great Landlords," 601; Bonomi, "New York's Land System," 197. 42Kim,

"A New Look at the Great Landlords," 595-98.

43n

The Second part of the Interest of the County in Laying Duties", The Letters and Papers of Cadwallader Colden in New York Historical Society, Collections, 19341935 (New York, 1935-1937), II (1935), 268. 4

4Kim, "A New Look at the Great Landlords," 614.

Map of Dutchess County On December 16, 1737 the county was divided into seven precincts. Precinct lines were drawn along the early patent lines. Listed below are the precincts and the patents which were included in each precinct. Precinct

Patents

South

Philipse

Rombout

Rombout excluding land west of the Wappingers Creek

Beekman

Northeast

Crum

Elbow

Beekman

Poughkeepsie Sanders & Harmanse Schuyler Cuyler Rombout west of the Wappingers Creek Crum Elbow

Great Nine Partners Faucconnier

Rhinebeck

Rhinebeck Schuyler Aertson,Roosa,Elton Pawling

Northeast

Little Nine Partners

Note:

Precinct lines were extended into the Oblong on December 17, 1743.

Beekman

. is

kill

or Rom •out

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 accessions 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 Bicenten-

nial era of the American Revolution.

We hope to

show our love for history in these two events. 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 Jr. Ed.D.

Annual Reports

176

Annual Meeting - Bellefield, Hyde Park June 19, 1982

President Scardapane called the meeting to order at 1:30 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 officers and trustees for their time and efforts 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 to 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.

The Treasurer

briefly 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 Orton.

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. 1982.

Deadline for the next issue is August 1,

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. this number, 1,236 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 Festival. 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.

To that end, it has been a fine year.

The

collection at the Clinton House has been increased by over 100 gifts and has grown in volume and depth and is well used.

Such 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. replaced.

The front and back porches are soon to be

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

Annual Reports

178

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. Jean 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 Dermott 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 recipient of numerous donations that have increased both the volume and depth of our collections.

From September 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.

Every-

thing 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

Mrs. Spraker Francke

Edward Anderson

Edna Freer

Arlington High School

LTC Gayle D. Hix

Mrs. Fred Barth

Melodye Kaltz

Ezra Benton

Mrs. Betty Klare

Barbara T. Blair

Mr. & Mrs. R. T. Lane

Clifford Buck

Catherine Leigh

Lenora Buck

Little Nine Partners Historical Society

Mrs. Charles Butts Art Carver

Clara Losee

Mrs. John Cavo

Mahwenawasigh Chapter - DAR

Radford Curdy Charles Meredith DeLaVergne

Lawrence Mamiya

Detroit Historical Commission

Maumee Valley Histor-

Dutchess County Planning Dept.

ical Society

Dutchess Philatelic Society

Stephanie Mauri

Lee Eaton

Donald Mc Ternan Mrs. S. A. Moore

Jesse Effron cont'd.

Annual Reports

180

Mrs. Francis Morrill

Herbert Saltford

Sheila Newman

Joseph Siepietoski

Helene Norris

Michael Skok

Joseph F. Papalia

Lena Stephens

Thomas E. Parker

Collin Strang

William J. Powers Jr.

Wallace Van Benschoten

Mrs. Kenneth D. Quick

Norma Van Kleeck

John K. Rinaldi

Mr. & Mrs. H. R. Van Vliet

Mrs. Mae Rodenburg

Alson Van Wagner

Rutgers University

Ruth Varian

Library

Robert Watsky

FUND RAISING Edward Van A. Howard On November 21, 1981 at Vassar Institute, Dr. John Connolly 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 Historical Society hosted a wine and cheese reception at the Clinton House to mark the kick off of their fund raising campaign.

Dr. John Connolly, past president of Dutchess

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 members 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 fur-

ther report and the successes of our efforts will be made as results are obtained. The following are deserving of special note and thanks for their efforts in connection with the fund raising to date: Dr. John 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, John 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 significant 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 New York Council For The Humanities.

Quaker Life in The Hudson

Valley, A Regional Perspective 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 afford the building and the collections greater security, it also helps to keep insurance costs down. A secretary and a groundsman have been added to the staff at the Clinton House.

They have both been enormously

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 to that end.

Annual Reports

183

YEARBOOK Wm. P. Mc Dermott, Editor The 1981 Yearbook reflected well the philosophy of 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 uncovered 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 history.

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 the 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 from 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 Logan'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 submissions.

PUBLICATIONS Wm. P. Mc Dermott

During the past year several proposals for publication were reviewed by the committee.

The result of the commit-

tee's work was a decision to reprint an important work of Helen W. Reynolds, long out of print. Therefore, Marriages and Deaths - 1778-1825, volume 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 at the end of the 18th 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.

While there are some requests

for these Yearbooks from time to time, it was apparent that 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 offer 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 to the Society.

Annual Reports

186 ANNUAL TREASURER'S REPORT 1981

$ 2,145.72

Balance - December 31, 1980 Receipts Dues Landmarks Donations Wells Fund Reynolds Fund Adams Fund Publication Sales Yearbook Pilgrimages Meetings Quaker Grant Misc. Sales Insurance Glebe House

$ 4,103.00 600.00 2,046.78 10,017.89 1,466.38 1.753.76 1,632.11 310.75 1,464.00 1,637.15 1,600.00 353.35 67.50 83.12 27,135.79

27,135.79 $29,281.51

Disbursements Salaries (net) IRS - FICA and Withholding Federal Employment Insurance NYS - Withholding NYS - Unemployment Insurance Buildings & Grounds Housekeeping Telephone Postage Glebe House Preservation Newsletter Office 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)

$ 4,974.49 1,857.47 35.54 215.22 431.70 1,267.02 580.00 905.58 376.64 2,000.00 1,061.66 577.13 456.82 1,833.06 1,278.16 390.41 525.89 623.99 575.00 800.00 393.09 178.64 278.72 917.02 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) Fees Affiliation Bank Charges Employment Advertisement Education Exhibits

$29,281.52 100.00 50.00 30.75 22.75 40.00 51.17 27.544.92

Balance - December 31, 1981

27,544.92 $ 1,736.59

GENERAL FUND (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 (Savings & Interest Bearing Accounts) Receipts - Interest

2,131.37

$26,777.23

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

2,665.61 $26,242.99

Balance - December 31, 1981

WILLIAM PLATT ADAMS FUND (Interest for Glebe House Support) $25,022.18

Balance - December 31, 1980 (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 Accounts) Receipts Interest & Dividends Transfer from Reynolds

$10,526.41 1,199.23 11,725.64

$129,641.42

11,725.64 141,367.06

Disbursements Transfer to Checking Balance - December 31, 1981

10,017.89

10,017.89 $131,349.17

189 PRESIDENTS OF HISTORICAL SOCIETIES IN THE TOWNS OF DUTCHESS COUNTY AMENIA George E. Phillips 317 Fblan Road Amenia„ N.Y. 12501

NORTHEAST Mrs. William Warren Reservoir Road Millerton, N.Y. 12546

BEACON Joan K. Van Voorhis 82 North Walnut St. Beacon, N.Y. 12508

PLEASANT VALLEY Mrs. Judy Moran 21 Arbor Arms Apts. Pleasant Valley, N.Y. 12569

BEEKMAN Mrs. Dorothy Montgomery Walker Road Hopewell Junction, N.Y. 12533

POUGHKEEPSIE (Bowdoin Park Historical Association) Mrs. John Wood 4 Mesier Avenue, South Wappingers Falls, N.Y. 12590

CLINTON William S. Benson Jr. Hollow Road Salt Point, N.Y. 12578 DOVER Mrs. Caroline Reichenberg Mc Carthy Road Dover Plains, N.Y. 12522 EAST FISHKILL Joseph B. Wells Wbodcrest Drive Hopewell Junction, N.Y. 12533 FISHKILL Carl Erts 19 Broad St. Fishkill„ N.Y. 12524 HYDE PARK ASSOCIATION Leon Froats 3 Watson Place Hyde Park, N.Y. 12538 HYDE PARK SOCIETY Kathryn Stearns Hollow Ridge Road Staatsburg, N.Y. 12580 LA GRANGE Dr. Edwin Hunger Didell Road, RD #2 Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12603 LITTLE NINE PARTNERS Mr. Edward Schweikardt Farview Avenue Pine Plains, N.Y. 12567

POUGHKEEPSIE CITY Timothy Allred 3 Eastman Terrace Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12601 QUAKER HILL & VICINITY Mrs. N. Edward Mitchell Wilkinson Hollow Road Pawling, N.Y. 12564 RED HOOK (Egbert Benson Historical Society of Red Hook) Mary O'Neill Box 1776 Red Hook, N.Y. 12571 RHINEBECK Marilyn Hatch RD 2, Box 150A Rhinebeck, N.Y. 12572 STANFORD Mrs. W. J. Arbuco Box 154, South Anson Road Stanfordville, N.Y. 12581 UNION VALE Mrs. Helen Manson P.O. Box 100, Verbank, N.Y. 12585 WAPPINGER Mrs. Katherine Lyons 15 W. Academy St. Wappingers Falls, N.Y. 12590 WASHINGTON Charles Tripp P.O. Box 592 MilIbrook, N.Y. 12545

APPOINTED HISTORIANS OF DUTCHESS COUNTY

190

COUNTY HISTORIAN Joyce Ghee County Office Building Poughkeepsie, New York 12601

CITY HISTORIANS POUGHKEEPSIE Elizabeth I. Carter 40 Randolph Avenue Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12603

BEACON Alexander D. Rogers 12 W. Willow Beacon, N.Y. 12508

TOWN HISTORIANS AMENIA Catherine Leigh Flint Hill Road Amenia, N.Y. 12501

DOVER Mrs. Donald B. Dedrick Nellie Hill Road Dover Plains, N.Y. 12522

BEEKMAN Lee Eaton Clove Valley Road Hopewell Junction, N.Y. 12533

EAST FISHKILL Henry Cassidy Rushmore Road Stormville, N.Y. 12582

CLINTON H. Richard Van Vliet Fiddler's Bridge Road Staatsburgh, N.Y. 12580

FISHKILL Willa Skinner Charlotte Road Fishkill, N.Y. 12524

TOWN HISTORIANS (Continued)

FISHKILL (Village) Margaret Somers Rapalje Road Fishkill, N.Y. 12524

RED HOOK John Winthrop Aldrich "Rokeby" Barrytown, N.Y. 12508

HYDE PARK Marianne Grace Mill Road, P.O. Box 554 Hyde Park, N.Y. 12538

RED HOOK (Village) Rosemary E. Coons 34 Garden Street Red Hook, N.Y. 12571

LA GRANGE Emily Johnson Mbore Road Pleasant Valley, N.Y. 12569

RHINEBECK DeWitt Gurnell 38 Mulberry Street Rhinebeck, N.Y. 12572

MILAN Clara W. Losee RD 42, Box 171 Red Hook, N.Y. 12571

STANFORD Mrs. Elinor Beckwith Stissing Road Stanfordville, N.Y. 12581

NORTHEAST Chester Eisenhuth Simmons St., Box 64 Millerton, N.Y. 12546

TIVOLI (Village) Joan Navins 2 Friendship Street Tivoli, N.Y. 12582

PAWLING Ronald Peck South Quaker Hill Road Pawling, N.Y. 12564

UNION VALE Irena Stolarik N. Smith Road TaGrangeville, N.Y. 12540

PINE PLAINS Dr. Byrne R. D. Fone Mt. Ross Road Pine Plains, N.Y. 12567

WAPPINGER Mrs. Constance Smith RD #3, Route 376 Wappingers Falls, N.Y. 12590

PLEASANT VALLEY Gail Crotty Quaker Hill Road Pleasant Valley, N.Y. 12569

WAPPINGERS FALLS (Village) Miss Caroline P. Wixson 86 East Main St. Wappingers Falls, N.Y. 12590

POUGHKEEPSIE TOWN Mrs. Virginia Ferris 6 Kingsway Circle Camelot Village Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12601

WASHINGTON Louise H. Tompkins Dutdhess County Infirmary Millbrook, N.Y. 12545

191

DUTCHESS COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY

193

Membership - September 1982

Honorary

Buck, Clifford M. Butts, Dr. Franklin A. Carter, Mrs. E. Sterling

Deyo, Jerome Mc Dermott, Dr. William P. Powers, Mrs. Albert Tompkins, Louise

Adriance Memorial Library Ablback, Mr. & Mrs. Louis Ahlquist, Roy T. Aldeborgh, Mrs. David Alden Elementary School Aldrich, John Winthrop Aldrich, Mrs. Russell Aldridge, Louise R. • Allen, Mr. & Mrs. Edward C. Allen, Theodora D. Allred, Tim Amenia Historical Society Anderson, Edgar A. Anderson, Mrs. Rupert W. Andrew, Frank & Marie Anson, Shirley V. Armstrong, Mr. & Mrs. Thomas J. Arnold, Mr. & Mrs. Dennis R. *Arnold, Elting *Asher, Mrs. Robert W. Auser, Dr. Cortland P. Averill, Walter *Badgley, George A. Bailey, Elton, V. V., Jr. Baker, Murrell Balch, Dr. Roscoe A. Baltuch, Norman Banta, Mr. & Mrs. George Banta, Mr. & Mrs. J. Edward Bard College Library Bartholf, Elizabeth B. Bastian, Dr. & Mrs. Edward H. Bateman, Betty B. Baxter, Lionel F. Beacon Historical Society Beck, Mr. & Mts. William C. Becker, Mr. Stephen P. Beckwith, Mr. & Mrs. Asa T. Beekman Historical Society Behr, Betty M. Behrens, Mr. & Mrs. Manley L. *Life Member

Bell, Mrs. Claude R. Benson, William Benton, Mt. & Mrs. Ezra R. Bergmann, Mr. & Mrs. Eric Berry, June Beast, Charles E. Bierce, Ann E. Birch, Richard Biszick, Ms. Barr Blakley, Mrs. Elmer Bloomer, Mrs. F. Irving Boos, Mrs. Charles Bowdoin Park Historical Assoc. Bowman, Mr. & Mrs. Donald Braig, Mrs. Louis J. Breed, Mrs. James R. Breed, Mrs. R. Huntington Breed, Mr. & Mrs. Robert B. Bresee, Laurence & Elizabeth *Briggs, Mr. & Mts. Kenneth R. Brinkerhoff, David W. Brown, Mr. & Mrs. Edward G. Brownell, Mrs. Daphne M. Buchanan, Beatrice S. Buck, Lenore V. Buglion, Juliahne *Bullenkamp, Grace Bushnell, Mrs. Elizabeth Buthmann, Eleanor Butts, Alfred M. Butts, Mr. & Mrs. Charles A. Butts, Mrs. Franklin A. Buys, Barbara Smith Campbell, Harlan R. Cantor, Lea Etta Capers, Mrs. Ellison Carl, Arnold G. Carman, Mrs. William Carroll, Mr. & Mrs. William Carter, Mrs. George 0. Carter, Mrs. Norman

194 Carver, Arthur H. Case, Barbara A. Case, Mt. Robert R. Cassidy, Mrs. Joseph A. Cavalier, Mrs. Dorothy H. Chaput, Jacques Chiaramonte, Mrs. Arlene Ciolko, Mr. & Mrs. William Clark, Dr. Jonathan Clark Co. Genealogical Society Clinton Historical Society Clinton Library Center Cole, Helen C. Conklin, John R. Connelly, Raymond J. Connevey, Mt. & Mrs. Charles H. Connolly, Dr. & Mrs. John Conrad, Mts. Anne D. Cook, Mr. & Mrs. Robert H. *Cook, Mrs. Turner Cookingham, George E. Cookingham, Mrs. Virginia Coons, Mts. Rosemary Coote, Mts. James W. Corning, Mrs. Edwin Costello, Mrs. Hazel M. Covert, Mrs. Albert C. Crapser, Kay M. Criswell, Col. Howard D. Crites-Moore, Mr. & Mts. Donald Cross, Raymond G. Crum, Mrs. Raymond P. Cunningham, Mrs. Edward V. K. Curdy, Radford Curtis, Margaret D'Avanzo, Mt. & Mrs. Aurelio Davies, Mrs. Hugh R. Davis, Mr. & Mrs. Putnam Dean, Mr. & Mrs. G. V. Diebold, Constance R. Decker, Mrs. Harry de Cordova, Noel Jr. Degan, Gail De Graff, Mr. & Mts. John De La Vergne, Mr. & Mrs. Charles De Pauw, Merlin M. Detmer, Raymond Dickson, Mt. Chauncy Diddell, Mildred D. Dodge, Bernice F. Doty, Olive H. Dover Historical Society *Dows, Stephen Olin Dunkelbarger, Mrs. Janet L. Dunton, Anna Mary *Durocher, Mrs. Linus F. Dutchess Community College Dutchess Co. Genealogical Society

Dykeman, Nathan East Fishkill Historical Soc. Eastwood, Robert S. Eaton, Mrs. Raymond Edwards, Mrs. Georgia S. Effron, Mr. & Mrs. David Effron, Jesse Eggert, Mrs. Betty Blair Eidle, Mrs. M. Kenneth Eisenhuth, Chester F. Eisner, Lester *Ellis, Mts. Walter J. Elting Memorial Library Emsley, Mrs. Joseph Emsley, Joseph W. & Beverly Erickson, Mr. & Mts. Newton Fairbairn, Mrs. Helen L. Fairbanks, Mr. & Mrs. John M. Fenner, Leah P. Fetler, Daniel Fink, Mrs. Mapledoram Fishkill Historical Society Fishkill Plains Library Fitchett, Mrs. Bernice Fitchett, Carlton B. Flowers, George S. *Floyd, Ruth Van Wyck Fogg, Michael Fone, Byrne R. S. Forster, James V. Fouhy, Mt. & Mts. Robert C. Fraleiqh, Charles H. Francke, Louis J. *Francke, Mrs. Spraker Frazer, Mr. & Mrs. Silas Freer, Marguerite R. French, Mrs. Frank J. Friedland, Dr. & Mts. S. L. *Frincke, Muriel E. Froats, Mr. & Mrs. Leon A. Frost, Barbara V. Furlong, Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Gallo, Paul A. Gardner, Mr. & Mts. James E. Gardner, Mr. & Mrs. John R. Gartland, Mr. & Mrs. J. J. Jr. Gay, Mt. & Mrs. Robert C. Geisler, Mr. & Mrs. John Gekle, William F. Gellert, Mr. & Mrs. Arthur L. Gemmel, Mr. & Mts. Alton Genealogical Society-Salt Lake George, Mr. & Mrs. Glenn Germond, Mrs. Homer Ghee, Joyce C. *Gill, George M. Glover, Jenny H. Glover, Maria A.

Goetz, Diane M. Grant, Mr. & Mts. Henry G. Graybeal, Pamela S. Green, Mrs. J. Sam Greene, Mr. & Mrs. F. Coleman Grey, Mts. Edward Griffeth, Mary & Jonathan Grinnell Library Association Grover, Victor E. Guernsey, Mt. & Mrs. H. Wilson Gurnell, De Witt Gusmano, Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Gustafson, Mrs. Julia B. Hager, William D. Haggerty, Thomas Hahn, Mr. & Mrs. Thomas, Sr Haight, Lyndon A. Halpin, James H. Halstead, Mts. Purdy A. Ham, Mrs. J. Frederick Hambleton, Mrs. William H. Hamersley, Mt. & Mrs. L. Gordon Hane, Mrs. Milton J. Hansen, Mrs. B. G. Harden, Miss Helen Hare, Carolee *Harmelink, Rev. & Mrs. H. H., III Harmon, Mr. & Mrs. Vernon C. Hart, Mrs. Herbert F. Hasbrouck, Alfred Hasbrouck, Mrs. Martha Haslam, Mrs. Peter Haugh, Mr. & Mrs. Conner F. Hauser, Mr. & Mrs. Arthur E. Hawkins, William & Agatha W. Hayden, Dr. & Mrs. Benjamin, III Hayden, Mrs. Catherine V. Heaton, Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence A. Hedges, Mr. & Mrs. James, II Heidgerd, William Hemroth, Mrs. George Hevenor, Robert B. Hicks, Mary C. Hill, Mr. & Mrs. Grant B. Hill, Mrs. Harry H. Hinkley, Mr. & Mrs. David R. Hirst, Mrs. H. Sherman *Hoag, Mrs. F. Philip Hoe, Mt. & Mrs. Edward L. *Hoe, Mr. & Mrs. Robert Hoecker, Alice & Anita Hoff, Mr. & Mrs. Frederick Hoffmann, Mrs. Edith Holden, Mr. & Mrs. Arthur E. Hoskins, Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Howard, Mr. & Mrs. Edward Van Howley, John Hoyt, Miss Ruth M.

195 Hoyt, Mrs. William V. Hubbard, Mr.&Mrs. E. S., III Hubbard, Mr. &Mrs. E. Stuart,Jr. Hunger, Dr. & Mrs. Edwin L. Hunt, Mrs. A. Seaman Hunter, Elmer R. Hunter, Mary Alice Hyde Park Historical Assoc. Hyde Park Historical Society Hyde Park Library Association Ingersoll, Mrs. Iona Varton Jacob, Mrs. Thomas F. James, Mr. Spencer C. Jr. Jaminet, Mrs. Loretta T. Janson, Mrs. William H. Jaycox, Herbert L. Jeanneney, Dr. & Mts. John Jeffries, Mrs. John F. Jenner, John M. Johnson, Dr. & Mrs. C. Colton *Johnson, Mr. & Mts. J. Edward Jones, Henry Kaltz, Mr. & Mrs. Dieter Kane, Mr. & Mrs. John V., III Kane, Mrs. Linda L. Kelly, Arthur C. M. Kendall, Mr. & Mrs. Robert Kennedy, Helen I. Kerin, Mrs. Edward B. Kester, Charlotte T. Key, James W. & Mary C. Kinkead, Miss Elsie H. *Kirby, Helen Cornell Klare, Mrs. Harold V. Knauss, Mr. & Mrs. Howard C. Knickerbocker, Mrs. William Koloski, Dr. & Mrs. Raymond Kranz, Mrs. Mary M. *Krulewich, E. Peter La Grange Historical Society Lana, Mr. & Mrs. Waino W. Lane, Miss Margaret L. Lane, Margaret T. Larrabee, Marshall, III Lattin, Mr. & Mrs. C. M., Sr. Lawlor, Denise M. Lawson, Mabel V. Leigh, Mrs. Catherine Flint Lennox, Gail M. Leroy, Mrs. Howard J. Levy, Mrs. Lynn *Lewis, Mr. & Mrs. Lou Lindsley, Rev. James Elliot Lippman, Dr. I. Jack Litt, Mr. & Mrs. Solomon Little Nine Partners Hist.Soc. Livingston, Marion A. Lockwood, Mr. & Mrs. Lansing

196 Logan, Nancy A. Lombardi, Joseph J. *Losee, Byron Vincent Losee, Mrs. John Lossing, Margaret Lossing, Mary S. Love, Mr. & Mrs. Donald Lucas, Mr. & Mrs. Lucas J. Ludwig,. Charlotte E. Lumb, Mrs. James L. Lumb, Mr. & Mrs. Stephen P. Lund, David & Linda *Lynn, Mts. C. L. Lyon, Lucinda S. MacGuinness, Mrs. Robert B. Madsen, Mr. & Mts. Alfred M. Maguire, J. Robert Mansfield, Mrs. G. Stuart Maranto, Darlyne & Frank Marconette, Marguerite Marist College Library Marshall, Joseph W. Mastmann, Mt. & Mrs. Herbert Mather, Constance Mauri, Mrs. Stephanie *Mavadones, Zinas M. Maxwell, Clarence W. McCabe, Mrs. Joseph McCalley, Mrs. Adrienne A. McComb, Mr. & Mts. Arthur B. McCullough, Mrs. David G. McDonald, Mrs. Charles F. MbEnroe, Mr. Jack A. McGinnis, Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence McGinnis, Mt. & Mrs. Peter McGurk, Ms. Patricia H. McKee, Mrs. Jean McKinnon, Mrs. Sandra Tabor MbTernan, Donald H. Mead, Mr. & Mrs. Richard T. Meadows, Elizabeth M. Meads, Mrs. Manson Meagher, Mt. Raymond E., Jr. Mesler, Mt. & Mrs. Kenneth B. Meyer, Mr. & Mrs. Richmond F. Meyers, Esther G. Millbrook Central School Nillbrook Free Library Miller, Elliot Miller, Mr. & Mrs. John *Miller, Rev. A. J. Millett, Mr. Stephen C. Mills, Mts. Harold S. Millspaugh, Mr. & Mts. Stanley Minturn, Mrs. Gerald Mitchell, Mts. Charles A. *Mitchell, Grayson B. Mitchell, Mts. N. Edward

Mberschell, Mt. & Mrs. G. E. Mbger, Roy & Elizabeth Mongoven, Mr. & Mts. Edward R. Montgomery, Mr. & Mrs. R. J. *Mbore, Mrs. Samuel A. Moran, Mrs. Judy Morey, C. Allerton Morrissey, Mt. & Mrs. James Moser, Mrs. Clifford M. Mosher, Mt. & Mts. Charles Motes, Mt. & Mrs. J. H. Mund, Dr. & Mrs. Andrew Munderback, Mr. & Mts. C. R. Murphy, Brian Murtaugh, Mt. Edward J. Mylod, Mr. & Mrs. Charles J. Naile r Mrs. John M. Naramore, Bruce E. Navins, Mrs. Charles J. Nelson, D. Peter *Nestler, Harold R. Netter, Mrs. E. M. Nevers, Mts. George A. Newburgh Free Library Newman, Dr. & Mts. Edward Neyer, Wilma J. B. Nichols, Mr. & Mrs. William Norris, Nt. & Mrs. Stanley J. Northeast Historical Society Norton, Mts. Donald E. Noxon Road Elementary School Oakley, Edith H. O'Brien, Doris J. O'Donoghue, George Olivett, Frank J. 011ivett, Audrey O'Neill, Ellen Marie Opperman, Mt. & Mts. Martin Orton, Mrs. Horace V. O'Shea, E. Richard Ostrander, Collin E. Ouimette, Robert A. Ouimette, Mt. & Mrs. W. T. Pantridge, Mr. & Mts. R. A. Parker, Mts. Thomas E. Peters, Mrs. Barbara E. Petz, Mr. & Mts. Joseph L. Picard, Mts. Irving Pierce, Madeline E. Pierce, Robert Piwonka, Ruth Pleasant Valley Free Library Pleasant Valley Hist. Society Podmaniczky, Mt. C. B. Polhemus, Mrs. Norman H. Pomeroy, Mr. & Mrs. R. Watson Potter, Mr. & Mrs. Owen W. *Poucher, John L.

Poughkeepsie Historical Society Psaltis„ Peter Pugsley, Mts. S. Velma Pultz, Mts. Frank H. Pulver, Mt. & Mts. B. Jordan Quaker Hill Historical Society Rack, Mts. Narita L. Radovski, Mt. David A. Randolph School Rawson, Mt. & Mts. Edmund G. Reed, Mt. & Mrs. Fay, Jr. *Reese, Mt. & Mts. Willis L. M. Reese, Mts. James E. Reichenberg, Mts. Richard Jr. Reichert, Mt. Henry C. Reifler, Mt. & Mts. Aaron Reigle, Gerald L. Reilly, Mt. & Mts. Edward R. Renshaw, Mts. Robert E. Rhinebeck Country School Rhinebeck Historical Society Roberts, Richard *Rodenburg, Mts. Carl A. *Roig, Mr. & Mts. Herbert S. Roosevelt, F. D., High School Roosevelt, Franklin D. Library Rosenblatt, Mts. Albert Rothwell, Mt. William F., Jr. Rubin, Mt. & Mts. Nathaniel Ruesch, Miss Alida E. Ruf, Ludwig Ruhnke, Elmer *Rymph, Mt. & Mts. Carlton *Rymph, Mt. & Mts. Ernest *Rymph, Mt. & Mts. Harvey J. Sadlier, Mts. William J. Saltford, Herbert Salvato, Mt. & Mts. Donald Sammis, C. Theodora *Sammis, Gertrude C. Sammis, Mts. Lloyd Sanford, Mt. & Mts. David N. Satterthwaite, Mts. J. Sheafe Saye, Mts. Marian V. A. Scardapane, Dr. & Mts. F. A. Jr. Scheniman, Beatrice E. Schmidt, Mt. & Mts. C. B., II Schmidt, Mabel S. Schoentag, David C. Schoohmaker,Nt. & Mrs. Allen, III Schoohmaker, Mts. Helen H. *Scott, Henry L. Seeger, Mr. & Mts. Peter Seymour Smith Elementary School Shelby, Mts. Charlotte Sherman, Mt. & Mts. Jonah Shields, David S. Siepietoski, Joseph & Sandra

197 Simpson, Alanson G. Sinnott, Clifford Sinnott, Mr. & Mts. Joseph Skidmore, Hazel Skinner, Mts. Willa Slocum, Dr. & Mrs.Jonathan Smith, Constance 0, Smith, Mt. & Mts. Clifford Smith, Mts. Earl Smith, Mts. Edwin A. Smith, Elizabeth M. Smith, Eunice H. Smith, Mts. Malcolm Smithers, Mt. & Mrs. John A. Somers, Mt. & Mts. Arthur Sommers, Mts. Virginia *South, Paul Space, Margaret N. Spingarn, Mrs. Joel Spingler, Margaret Spratt, Mt. & Mts. James, Jr. *Spross, Mt. & Mts.Chas.G.,III Spross, Mt. & Mts. Hubert C. Stache, Arthur P. Stairs, Mt. & Mts. David S. Stanford Historical Society Stearns, Robert E. SteehoIm, Mts. Hardy Steihhaus, William R. Stehberg, Frances W. Stappadher, Mts. Margery Stevens, Mts. Walter W. Stevenson, Dr. Jean K. Stolarik, Mts. Karel Strain, Mts. Chalmer L. Strain, Mr. & Mts. Richard C. *Strang, Collin Strang, Mt. & Mts. Robert Stringham, Mts. Varick V., Sr. *Stringham, Mt. & Mts. V., Jr. Stutz, Mr. & Mts. Frederick Suckley, Margaret L. Supple, Mts. Leonard J Swenson, MS. Christine M. Swift, Mts. Georgia E. Swift, Ruth P. Taber, Mt. David S. Takacs, Mr. & Mts. Daniel Taylor, Mts. Donna Taylor, Robin Telfer, Mts. Florine D. Thayer, MS. Tag Thornton, Mts. Archie Thornton, Mt. & Mrs. J. Stanley Thystrup, Miss Marion E. Timm, Miss Ruth Toole, Kenneth R. Trakel, Newell B.

198 Traver, Mr. & Mrs. Theodore H. Tschudin, Mr. & Mrs. Emil Tuceling, Mr. & Mrs. William Tunold, Marjorie S. Tynan, John F. Tyrrel, Mr. & Mrs. Nelson M. Ulrich, Edwin A. Union Vale Historical Society Valente, Miss Edith Van Benschoten, Mr. & Mts. John Van Benschoten, Mr. & Mrs. W. Van Kleeck, Mrs. Baltus B. Van Kleeck, Baltus B., Jr. *Van Kleeck, Peter Van Kleeck, Mrs. Ralph E. Van Kleeck, Col. R. Thomas Van Kleeck, William T. Van Vliet, Mt. & kits. H. Richard Van Voorhis, Mrs. Ralph B. Van Wagner, Alson D. Van Wagoner Genealogical Library Van Zanten, Mr. & Mrs. Frank Varian, Ruth W. B. Vassar College Library Vassar, John A. Velletri, Mrs. Louis J. Verven, Mr. & Mrs. Angelo Vinall, Mrs. Harry E. Vinck, Albert Vogel, Mrs. Craig

Voorhees, Dr. Earle W. Voorhees, Miss Valere S. Wade, William B. Wager, Howard C. Wappingers Falls Hist. Society Washburn, Mrs. Olin G. Washburn, Mt.& Mrs. William F. Washington Historical Society Weber, Mrs. Donald Webster, Mrs. Allen Wenck, Francis H. Werder, Miss Catherine Whalen, Olive White, Mr. & Mrs. William R. Williams, Dorothy Williams, Emma B. Williamson, Mr. & Mrs. Geo. D. Willig, Mr. & Mrs. Stanley B. Wilson, George N. Wilson, Leona V. Wohlback, Mrs. James Wolfson, William & Ruth Wbllenhaupt, Mrs. Arthur Wood, Mr. & Mrs. Itti. Robert Workmaster, Wallace Wunderly, Mr. & Mrs. Robert Yellen, Mts. Lola Young, Mr. & Mrs. Paul N. Zuccarello, Dr. Louis

Index

199

Adriance, Platt and CO., Bardavon, (continued) Barnegat, 101 121 Adams, Maude, 128; Baruch, Dr., 17 Aertson patent, 154 Altschuler, Modest, 129;Boss, Capt. Joseph, 30 agriculture; Bauer, Harold, 130 Barrvmores, the, 128; animals, 109; Bauer, Harold, 130; Beardsley, William, 132 Roosevelt, F. D., 58; Ben Greet Players, 129; Bech, Edward, 71 Washington Hollow Bernhardt, Sarah, 128; Bech's Furnace, 71f Fair, 107f Booth, Edwin, 128; Beekman, Henry, 102, 154, Albany (city), 25, 27, 75, Boston Symphony, 128; 159, 161, 165; patent, 86, 101, 141f; CO., 166 154f Brooks, Louise, 132; Altamont Stock Farm, 109 Bellomont, Gov., 146 Bulver-Lytton, 127; Amenia Precinct, 39 Bennett farm, 11, 12 Car-ill°, Leo, 132; American Revolution, 25f, Damrosch, Walter, 128; Berkeley, Lord, 142 37f; battles, 33, 35; Bie, Chris, 12 de Pachman, Viadimer, Commissioners of Forblacks, Civil War, 112f 128; feiture, 37f; ConfiscaDenishawn Dancers, 132; Bloomer, Gilbert, 54 tion Act, 37f; LoyalBouton, Jekiel, 54 Drew, john, 128; ists, 37f, minutemen, Bowdoin Park, 92f, 103, du Chaillu, Paul B., 25, 26 104; farm, 93, 98; 127; Amste.rdam (Holland), 101 Historical Assoc., 104; EIman, Mischa, 128; Angevine, john, 42; Historical Soc., 92 Fairbanks, Douglas, Peter, 42 Boyd, Ebenezer, 49, 56 132; archaeology, 91f Fish, Hamilton Sr., 134;Brett, Catharine, 162, Arnold, Azariah, 108 Gabrilowitsdh, Osip, 128; 165; Roger, 162 art & artists; Gilbert & Sullivan, 129;Briggs, Miss Sarah, 117 "Bakers Falls", 79; British, 25f, 27, 32, 34, Graham, Martha, 132; Carmiencke, Johann, 71; 41, 48; Amada, 27; Grau French Opera, 127; Church, Frederic, 79; government, 146; Heifetz, Jascha, 128; Evans, Jim, 77; ministry, 25, 32; Royal Held, Anna, 128; "Factory on the Hudson", Herbert, Victor, 129; Army, 41; squadron, 34; 71; vessels, 25f Hofmann, Josef, 128; Ferguson, Henry, 79; Brockholls, Governor, 145 Horst, Louis, 132; "Glens Falls, NY", 79; Jefferson, Joseph, 128; Broughton, Sampson, 146 Homer, Winslow, 79; Johnson-Ketchel fight, "Morning Belle", 79; Campbell, George D., 132 129; Campobello Island, 11, 16 "Mt. Ktaadn", 79; Keene, Laura, 127; "Camptown Races" (song), "Poughkeepsie Iron Klaw & Erlanger, 129; 108 Works", 71; Mac Cracken, Henry N., Canada, 11 "Poughkeepsie, NY", 77; 134; Wall, William, 79 Mansfield, Richard, 128;Carmiencke, Johann Hermann, 71f Astor, Vincent, 16 Muck, Karl, 128; Paderewski, Ignace, 128;Carteret, Lord, 142 Austin, Lon, 87 Ayrault, George, 108 Russell, Lillian, 128; Caspar Kill, 91, 101, 102, 103 Russian Symphony, 129; cemeteries, Lassen family, Bangall; village of, 111, St. Denis, Ruth, 129, 93 117 132; Rardavon Theatre, Census (1790), 54 SChumann-Heink, Charlotte Precinct, 39 "Concerned Citizens Ernestine, 128; "Chevaux de Frize," 27f, for", 136; Shawn, Ted, 132; 33f performers and Snowden, Mrs. Philip, churches: performances: 129; "Black Crook", 129; Sousa, John Philip, 128; Pleasant Valley Presbyterian, 116; "Genevieve of Brabant", Symphony Soc. of N.Y., Trinity, NYC, 43 127; 128; "Hindoo Dances", 129; Thibaud, Jacques, 130; Church, Frederic, 79 "Lady of Lyons", 127; Thompson, Denman, 128; cities, Albany (Fort "Midsummer Night's Van Arnum & Everitt Co., George), 25, 27, 75, 86, 101; Hudson, 86, 88; Dream", 129; 127; Kingston, 44; PlattsWeidman, Charles, 132; "Mike Angelo", 132; burgh, 49, 54; White ZiMbalist, Efrem, 128. "Robin Hood", 132 Plains, 34, 35 Rrker, Thomas, 42 "The Tempest", 129;

200

Index

Evans, Jim, painter, 77 Civil War, 90, 111f; Denmark, 101 & black community„.112f; Denning, William, 49, 54 Draft, 111f; "Home Factory on the Hudson De Witt, John, 56, 165 (oil), 71 Guard", 115; riots, 111f Dickenson, George E., fairs, Dutchess County Clark, "Grid", 85 113; J. P., 112 (Rhinebeck), 9; WashClark, Kate, 85 Dickerson, Tertullus, 42 ington Hollow, 107 Clay, Henry, 108 Dobb's Ferry, 34 Clinton, George, 28, 30, Dodge, Samuel, 45; Falikill Creek (see creeks) 34; Henry, 43, 44 Fall Kill Iron Works, 79 Stephen, 42 Colden, Cadwallader, 143, Dongan, Gov. Thomas, 142, Fauconnier Patent, 146, 147, 167 158, 159 144, 145, 147 Cole, Robert, 138 Ferguson, Henry Augustus, Dover, 160 Coleman's Station, 88, 89 Drake, -, 92 79; Mr., 10 Collingwood, James, 121f; Duer, William, 33, 49, 50 Field, Stephen, 56; Opera House, 121f; William, 56 Dufour, Paul, 145 Finch, Jim, 83f; store, Theatre, 130 Duke of York, 142 Columbia Co., 115 83f Dumphy farm, 12 Confederate Army, 111f Fishkill, 33, 38, 44, Dunwell, Julie, 137; Confiscation Act of 1779, 157f, 162 Stephen, 137 Fletcher, Gov. Benjamin, 38, 40, 45 Dusenbury, Moses, 56 Connecticut, state of, 26, Dutchess Co., 5f, 25f, 141, 145, 146 Flora Temple, 108 53, 142, 154 37f, 83f, 91f, 101f, Continental Army, 44 Folliott, George, 40, 42, 107f, 111f, 141f; Continental Congress, 40 43, 45 Agricultural Society, Copperheads, 116, 117 forts, Constitution, 28, 107f; 34, 36; George (see Cori-bury, Governor, 145 archaeology, 91f; Albany); Washington, 27, Cortlandt Manor, 39 Court of Common Pleas, 33, 34, 35 Cossayuna Hills, 135f 42; Fox, -, 144 Cottam Hill Road, 102 fair, 9, 107; Francisco, Charley, 88 Cottonwood Inn, 107 fairgrounds, 107; counties: Albany, 149f, Fredericksburg, 44 Farm Bureau, 15; 166; Columbia, 115; land distribution, 37f; French and Indian War, 41, Dutchess, 5f, 25f, 37f, land grants, 37f, 141f; 147 83f, 91f, 101f, 107f, leaseholders, colonial, Fricker, Kenneth, 135 111f, 141f; Kings, 149f; Friesland, Neth., 101 37f; Montgomery, 40; New Frisby, Caleb, 56 Loyalists, 37f; York, 149f; Orange, 26, population, 148f; 38, 54, 145, 149f, 164; roads, colonial, 160; galleys (see also "ships"). Putnam, 55, 154, 155f; 29, 30 settlement, 37f, 92f, Queens, 149f; Richmond, Germania Society, 127 101f, 141f; 149; Suffolk, 149f; Gidney, joshus, 42 Sheriff, 42; Ulster, 26, 38, 148f; Tri-Municipal Treatment Glover, Col. John, 35 Westchester, 26, 34, 35 Graham, Daniel, 45, 46 Plant Site, 91f 40, 52, 143f, 149f, 166 Gravesend, L.I., 33 Crannell, Bartholomew, 42 Eastman College, 121 Great Falls (of the Wap'Eggleston, Miss Alma, 90 43 pingers Creek), 102 Crary, Catharine S., 37 England, 109 Great Nine Partners Eno, Stewart, 89 creeks,CAspar Kill,101-2; Patent, 155f Falikill, 13; Spuyten Esopus, 101 Greene, Brig. Gen., 26 Duyvel, 31; Wappingers, estates: Bennett farm, Greenspan, Louis, 136, 137 11, 12; Beverly house, Grimes, Capt., 30 101 43; Crumwold Farms, 8, Crumwold farm, 8, 9 Cuyler, -, 102; gore, 159 9; Dumphy farm, 12; Hackett, John, 12 Howlands, Meridith, 93; Hale, Mr. & Mrs. W. D., Hughson, 12; Jones, 12; Davenport, Thomas, 52 109 Newbold, 12, 13; Pleas- Hamill, Daniel, 42 Davidson, G. Howard, 16, ant Hill, 93; Bohan 109 Hand, Lt. Col., 26 farm, 12; Springwood, Deacon, Webster, 86 Harmense, Myndert, 145, 8f; "Top Cottage", 12; 158, 162, 165 de Chastelleaux, -, 43 12; farm, Thompkins Decker, john, 83f; Harlem, Railroad, 90 Wright 108; Thornedale, Louis, 90; ,Hathorn, John 45 12 Haverstraw Bay, 27,29,30 Ted, 90

Index

201

Hazelwood, john, 28 Lady Thornedale, 108 Mt. Alvernia, 103 Heath, Brig. Gen., 26, La Grange, 108 29, 30, 34 Lamb, john, 49 Narrows, 26 Hell Gate, 35 land grants (see National Guard, 115 Hickock's bookstore, 114 ents), 37f, 141f Navy, the Poughkeepsie, Hill, Capt., 30 Landing Place, 93 25f Hoag, Dr., 88 Tassen (see also Lassing, Netherlands, 101 Hamer, Winslow, 79 Lawson, Lossing), 91, New England, 38, 128, Horton, Mts., 89 101f; Isaac, 103; Marie 143, 144 hotels, see "inns" (Lassen) Jansen, 102; New Hackensack, 103 Howard, Lord Charles, 33 Pieter, 91f; Pieter Jr.,New Hamburg, 102 Howe, General, 25f; Lord 102f; Pieter PietPrsen, New Jersey, 25, 26, 27, Richard, 26f; Sir Wil101f; Pieter III, 102, 35, 142 liam, 26f, 43 103; William, 102, 103 New Rochelle, 35 Hawlands estate, Lasseriberg, the, 103 New York, 11, 25f, 33, Meredith, 93 37f, 41, 43, 75, 78, TAssing (see also Lassen, Huddleston, William, 164 86, 88, 111f; Assembly, Lawson, Lossing), 92, Hudson River, 71, 77, 91, 102; (Lawson), Peter 163, 164; Commissioners 93; American Revoluof Forfeiture, Specie & Lawrence, 92 tion, 25f; "Factory on Lawrence, Jonathan, 45 Sequestration, 40f; the Hudson" (oil), 71; Lawson (see also TAssen, Comm. of Correspondence, families on the, 7, 17; TAssing, Lossing), 91f, 33; Conservation Comm., Highlands, 26, 27, 34, 102f; family, 104; Farr14; Convention, 27, 32, 44; "the Hoeck", 101, ily Burial Ground, 91f; 35; Council of the Col160; Valley, 11, 25f, H., 5; johanne, 103; ony of NY, 25f, 33, 37f; 57, 58, 75 Peter, 91f; Peter Lawdraft riots, 111f; ForHudson Valley Philharmon- rence, 92; Pieter, 91f ester, 15; Governor, 14, ic Society, 135 16, 17; Grand Central Leroy, -, 93 Hughson, -, 12; JereLittle Falls (of WapDepot, 86, 88; Grange, miah, 56 16, Province, 142f pingers Creek), 101 Humeston's meat market, Little Nine Partners, newspapers: 88 "Breeder's Gazette", 19; 146, 155, 159f Hunter, Governor, 143 "Farm Journal", 10, 14; Livingston, family, 38f; Husted, Harry, 90 Millerton Telegram, 86, Manor, 142, 143; 87; Poughkeepsie Daily Mt. G., 28; Philip, Hyde Park, 5f Eagle, 111f; Poughkeep165; Robert R., 27, 142 Indian, 142, 145; deed, Long Island Sound, 25,26, sie journal, 136; Poughkeepsie Sunday Courier, 34, 35, 36, 38 101 6, 7, 9, 14 Inglis, Charles, 40, 42, Lorrain, Claude, 123 Lossing (see also Lassen, Nine Partner's Patent (see 43, 45 also "Great" and "LitTAssing, Lawson), 91f, inns, Brick Block, 89; tle"), 159 Millerton, 89 102; Benson, 102 Nine Partners Precinct, Loucks, Perry, 89 158 Jamison, David, 163, 164 loyalist estates, 37f Jan Caspar's Kill, 101, Ludington, Colonel Henry, Northeast Precinct (see also "Little Nine Part51 102 ners"), 158 Jansen, Maria (Lassen), Lyceum series, 127 102 Mac Cracken, Henry N.,134 Oblong, the, 154, 155, Jay, john, 27 156, 159f Millerton, village of, Jaycoks, -, 92 Ogilvie, Mrs. 44; Rev. 83f; Cornet Band, 90; Jenks, Horace, 87 John, 41 Hotel, 85, 90; Inn, 89; Johnson, Sir William, 39 Post Office, 83, Tele- Orange Co., 26, 54, 145, Jones, -, 12 149, 153, 164; Minisink gram, 86, 87 Patent, 164 Minisink Patent, 164 Kane, John, 42, 44, 50 Montgomerie, Governor, 147 King, Israel, 55 Palatines, 161, 166, 167 Moran, -, 89 Kingsborough, 39 Parker, Capt., 27 Mbrgan, Gerald, 13; Kingsbridge, 31 Partellow, Amos, 42 Mary, 13 Kings Ferry, 34, 35 Norris, -, 40; Mary, 40, Patents, 154f; Kip, Hendrick, 154 Aertson, Roosa & Elting, 41, 42; Roger, 40f Kisseibrack, Conductor 154; Beekman, 159; Morrison, Malcolm, 44 Cleorae. 85

202 Patents (continued), Cuyler, 102, 159; Fauconnier, 146, 158; Great Nine Partners, 155; Kip, 154; Lassen's, 101f; Little Nine Partners, 155; Minisink, 164; Oblong, 155; Pawling, 159; Philipse, 37f, 155; Rhinebeck, 154; Rom bout, 155; Sanders & Harmense, 158, Schuyler, 101, 158 Paulding, WM., 27 Pawling, 44; Patent, 159; Widow, 146 Pelham Manor, 35 Pells Point, 35 Penney, W. E., 87 Pennington, Almira, 114; J. W. C., 114 Peters, J. Girvin, 9 Philipse, Adolph, 155, 166; family, 38f; Frederick, 40, 41; (Highland) Patent, 43, 159f, 161f; Manor, 143; Margaret, 39; Mill, 34 (see Yonkers); Philip, 41, 51, 52; Philipsburg Manor, 39, 53; Precinct, 44 Pine Plains, 89 Platt, Edmund, 77, 79; Zehaniah, 49, 54 Plattsburgh, 49, 54 Pleasant Valley, 111f; Presby. Church, 116 Plog, Mt., 11, 17 population, 18th century, 148f Post, James, 125, 127, 132 Postal service robbery, 83f Poughkeepsie, 44, 47, 86, 111f, 121f; Bech's Furnace, 71f; black population, 112; "boatman of", 93; bridge, 122, 128; Buckeye Works, 79; "Colored School", 114; "Factory on the Hudson" (oil), 71; Fall Kill Iron Works, 79; fire ships of, 36; Home for the Friendless, 127; Iron Company, 71f; Iron Works,

Index

Poughkeepsie (continued), 71f; Journal, 136; Navy, 25f; Phoenix Hose Volunteer Fire Co., 125; Poughkeepsie and Eastern Railroad, 128; "Poughkeepsie Iron Works" (oil, 71; "Poughkeepsie, New York" (oil), 77; precinct, 38; 158; Poughkeepsie Savings Bank, 136; Schuyler patent, 159f; town of, 98, 102; Transportation Company, 77 Poughkeepsing, 157 Poughquag, 160 Powell, Caleb, 42 Pratt, George D., 15 Propean, Benjamin, 56 Provincial Congress, 35, 49 Putnam County, 55, 154, 155, 159 Putnam, Major Gen., 26

Rombout Patent, 101; 155f; 162 Rombout Precinct, 39, 41 Roosevelt, Anna Eleanor, 10f; Franklin D., 5f; "Farm journal", 10, 14; farms, llf; FDR ColuMnist, 18; forestry, llf; James, 7, 8; Sarah Delano, 7, 8, 9 Roosevelt Home Club, 12 Royster, Harry, 134, 135 Ruble, Thomas, 42

St. John, Abraham, 55 Sanders, Robert, 145, 162, 165; Thomas, 162 Sanders and Harmense Patent, 158, 159, 161 Sands, Comfort, 49, 54 Sandy Hook, 26 schools, colleges, universities: Columbia School of Law, 10; Cornell School of Agric., 15; Cornell School of Forestry, 15; railroads, Harlem Groton, 8, 9; Harvard, express, 88, 90; New 9; Syracuse School of York Central, 11; Forestry, 17; Vassar, P.H. & B. R.R., 89; 121, 134; Yale, 71 Poughkeepsie and Schuyler, Peter, 154, 161, Eastern, 128 164, 166 Red Hook, 154, 159 Schuyler Patent, 101, 158, Regnier, Jacob, 146 159, 161, 164 Rensselaer, 145 Scott, John Morin, 49 Rhinebeck, 89; Fair, Scutt, John, 89 9; patent, 154, 159f, Secret Committee, 27, 28, 164; precinct, 158 30, 35 rivers, Caspar Kill, settlement, 37f, 92f, 91; Croton, 29; 101f, 141f East, 25; Hudson, 71, Shaw, John, 42 77, 91, 93, "the Hoek" 101, 160; ships, (see also "galleys"), Mary Powell, North, 34 114; Phoenix, 27f; roads, colonial, 160; Roebuck, 33; Rose, 27f; Cottam Hill Road, 102; De La Vergne Avenue, Spanish Amada, 33 103; Post Road, 10; Simmons, E. W., 89, 90 Slattery, Richard, 54 Route 9, 103; Routes 82 & 44, 107f Sleight, John H., 45 Smith, Leander, 89; Robinson, -, 40; BevMelancton, 49; Moses, erly 40f; Susanna, 40, 12; William, 49, 56, 41 157, 160 Rochfort, Lord, 25 Rogers, Archibald, 8, 9; Smith Brothers, 121 Col., 9; Edmund P., 9, Snyder, George, 87 South Hills Mall, 103 13; Mts., 9 Rohan, Dick, 12; Pete,12 Southern Precinct (see Rombout, Francis, 145, Philipse-Highland) Spencer, Gen., 26 162

Index

Spragg, Thomas, 42 Springwood, 8f Spuyten Duyvel Creek, 31 Staats, Abraham, 146 Staten Island, 27, 149 states, Conn., 26, 53, 142, 147, 160; Kentucky, 108; Mass., 76; N.J., 26f, 35, 142; N.Y., 37f; Pa., 143 Stephenson, Capt., 26 Stillman, Dr., 88, 89 Stirling, Gen., 33 Stissing Mbuntain, 89 Sullivan, Brig. Gen., 26, 33 Swartwout, Col., 26 Sweet, Ben, 138; Egbert B., 127 Sylvan Lake, 71

Van Kleeck, Baltus Barents, 162 Van Ness, Col., 26 Van Rensselar's, 58 Vassar College, 121, 134 Velie, Washington, 108 Verplanck, Gulian, 145, 162, 165 Viele, Arnout, 101 Vincent, Charles, 42 Virginia, state of, 26

Wall, William G., 79 Wallace, Capt., 27 Wappingers Creek, 101f Wappingers Falls, village of, 103 Ward, Major Gen., 26 Warwick, Arthur, 90 Washington, General George, 25f, 44, 107 Washington Hollow Fair, 107f Watts, John, 40, 42, 43; Tappan, Major ChrisJohn Sr., 55; Robert, 55 topher, 27 Weidman, Chas., 132 Tappan Zee Bay, 27, 29, Westchester Co., 26, 34, 30 35, 52, 143, 149, 153, Teller, William, 145 166 Templeton, John H., 83, West Point, 44 87 Wheeler place, 88 Terbos, Daniel, 56 Whig, 40, 41, 50, 51, 55, theatre, names of per57, 58 sonalities, 121f Thomas, Capt., 30, 31, 32 Rouen's Suffrage, 129 Woodruff, Will, 85 Thompkin's farm, 12 Thompson, John A., 89 Yates, Robert, 28 Thorne, Edwin, 108 Thornedale, estate, 108; Yonkers (Philipse Mill), 34 horse, 108 Throggs Neck, 35 Tilghman, Lt. Col. Tench, 33, 34 Tinker, Capt., 30 Tbbias, Joseph, 42 T011es, Frederick, 37 "Topsy", 109 Troy, NY, 127 Ttumbell, Gov., 32 Tupper, Commodore B., 30 Ulster Co., 26, 56, 149, 153, 167 Val-Kill Industries, 12 Van Benschoten, Elias, 29 Van Cortlandt, -, 102; Stephanus, 162, 165 Van Dam, Rip, 146, 147 Van Den Bogardt, Myndert Harmense, 162 Vanderburgh, Dirck, 146

203

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

Zip

Enclosed is my check for enrollment in the following membership category. The membership year is from January 1 through December 31.

Individual

15.00

Joint

20.00

Historical Society

15.00

Library

15.00

Life

Date

Signed

Further information is found on the right.

250.00

DUTCHESS COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY Clinton House Museum Box 88 Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12602

The Dutchess County Historical Society was organized in 1914 to preserve and dis9aminate information about the history of Dutchess County. Since that time it has oonducted its educational piugiam through invited speakers at meetings, field trips and an active publication p/ogiam. This p/cgiam was extended when the Clinton House Rhiseum was opened in 1980. Publications - The Society has published ten bound volutes about Dutchess County history through its publication pruyiam entitled Collections of the Dutchess County Historical Society. The Yearbook, published annually since 1915, has been a principle vehicle for disseminating information about the history of the County. Additionally, the Dutchess Historian, a newsletter published quarterly since 1976, brings the members news About the Society and news from twenty-two town historical societies in Dutchess County. Museum - The Clinton House, a state-mned historic landmark, is operated as the museum, library and headquarters of the Society. It hou-os the Society's manuscript collection and resource library both of which are available to marters and individuals conducting research. The Dutchess County Historical Society has provided space in its headquarters for two related organizations: 1) Daughters of the American Revolution, Ilahwenawasigh Chapter, and 2) Dutchess County Landmarks Association. Society activities - The Society conducts two all day pilgrimages each year, spring and fall, to visit various historical areas in Dutchess County. Additionally, the winter dinner neeting and the late spring annual dinner meeting include historical picyiams. Support - Programs, publications and Society activities are supported financially from membership dues, contributions, income from endownents and an active acquisition ptoyiam. Tax and contributions - Contributions, gifts and bequests are tax deductible because the Society qualifies as an educational institution. The Society will provide guidelines for appraisal for items of historical value presented as gifts. Manbership - Members tc.,ive the Yearbook, the Dutchess Historian, invitations to pilgrimages and meetings, free admission to the Clinton House Museum and Library and discounts on Society publications.

PUBLICATIONS

COLLECTIONS, DUTCHESS COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: Vol. I

Old Gravestones of Dutchess County, New York, J. Wilson Poacher and Helen W. Reynolds, editors (1924, reprint 1976). Inscriptions on 19,000 gravestones 17501916. Pp. XI, 427, illus., index. Cloth $30.00

Vol. IV

Notices of Marriages and Deaths, 1778-1825, Helen W. Reynolds, (1930, reprint 1982). Carpilation from Poughkeepsie newspapers of marriages (2500) and deaths (1500). Includes separate list of wives' maiden name, husband's occupation, relationships to others and names of clergymen. Pp. XII, 140. Cloth $15.00

Vol. VIII

Family Vista, Margaret Chanler Aldrich, (1958). Mannirs of the author and her contacts with many tiventieth century notables. Pp. 233, illus. Cloth $6.00

Vol. X

Eighteenth Century Documents of the Nine Partners Patent, Dutchess County, New York, William P. Mb Dermott, editor, (1979). Caviled by Clifford Budk and William P. Mb Dermott. Transcriptions of the Nine Partners Proceedings, 1730-1749 and abstracts of land transactions and estate transfers. 8000 mein entries - 30,000 refCloth $35.00 erences. Pp. XXVIII, 735, maps, index.

Other books available: History of Dutchess County, New York 1683-1882, James H. Smith, (1882, reprint 1980). General history of Dutchess County. Also included is a history of each of the twenty towns. Pp. 562, illus., biographical appendix, index. Cloth $35.00 Portraits of Dutchese 1680-1807, S. Velma Pugsley, (1976). Portraits of eighteenth century Dutchess County residents with background information on each. Pp. 47, 40 illus., index. PApnr $3.50 Nineteenth Century Art in Dutchess, S. Velma Pugslpy, (1982). Portraits of nineteenth century Dutchess County residents. Also includes landscapes of various sites in the county. Background information on each illustration. Pp. 44, 35 illus., index. Paper $3.50

Purchases may be made from Dutchess County Historical Society Clinton House - Box 88 Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12602

Dutchess County Historical Society Yearbook Vol 067 1982

Articles inside

The Civil War Comes to Dutchess County (1982)

Louise Tompkins