Colonial Land Grants in Dutchess County, N.Y. A Case Study in Settlement by William P. McDermott

In 1727 the British Board of Trade in a letter to New York Governor Montgomerie criticized the land grant system in New York, "a very Great Hindrance to the peopling & Settling of our said province, that large tracts of land have been In­

grossed by Particular Persons, a Great Part whereof remain Unculti-vated." The board threatened forfeiture of land grants which did not "plant Settle and effectually Cultivate, at least three Acres of Land for every fifty Acres, within three years, after the same shall be granted.'" The purpose of this paper is to examine the following question. Did the few entrepreneurs who were awarded large tracts of land during the late 17th century and early 18th century encour­age settlement?

Dutchess County, a county of nearly 1200 square miles on the east side of the Hudson River midway between New York City and Al­bany, is particularly well suited to evaluate the results of New York's land grant system for the following reasons. I. Within its original boundaries were over 650,000 acres, almost 500,000 of which was divided among six large grants. 2. Land ownership was of two types,

The Hudson Valley Regional Review, September 1986, Volume 3, Number 2

Aertson, Roosa, Elton

PawlinY-4.f-

Sanders & Harmanse---l-4--

SchuyleL----I1+-

Cuyle~

Philipse

~ .S! .a o --------

Beekman --------

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

The Hudson Valley Regional Review 2

a) single owner and b) partnership. 3. When land was made available for settlement it was either sold outright to the new settler or it was leased: These three conditions closely match the conditions of size, ownership and kind of land tenure which applied to land in colonial New York as a whole. Therefore, Dutchess County provides an espe­cially good laboratory to evaluate the decision of the early governors to grant large tracts of land to a few entrepreneurs.

The map on page 2 shows the relative size of the land grants awarded in Dutchess County from 1685 to 1706. The Oblong, a strip of land on the eastern border originally owned by Connecti­cut, was added to New York in 1731. For comparative purposes the Great Nine Partners Patent, including its portion of the Oblong, was approximately 150,000 acres. Rombout Patent and its eastern neighbor, the Beekman Patent, were approximately 85,000 acres each. Because the number of settlers were few, Dutchess County was initially treated as one civil unit with an administrative body that managed the entire county. However, when settlement in­creased, two east-west lines from the Hudson River to Connecticut divided the county in 1717 into three approximately equal adminis­trative units called wards. These wards were called North, Middle and South Wards and are so labeled on the right side of the map. Twenty years later, in 1737, Dutchess was further subdivided into seven administrative units called precincts-an indication of the in­crease in population.

This study is limited to the period prior to 1740. These years provide a more representative picture of the success of the individu­als or partnerships who were the recipients of large land grants. After 1740, although some of these tracts of land remained intact, others were distributed amongst heirs or partners. As a result por­tions of these large tracts were sold to others. Further, the heirs had not acquired the land for the same purposes, nor is it clear their intentions were the same as the original owners were purported to be. In a number of cases there was disinterest among the heirs or an inability to establish a plan for the land they had inherited. Also, in some cases control of the land had passed out of the family through marriage. Cortland Manor, inherited from Stephanus Van Cortlandt after his death in 1700, is a good example of heirs' inability or unwillingness to develop the land for settlement. Its slow pace of settlement compared to its neighboring land grants demonstrates this point. Fewer than 25 families resided on the manor in 1712. Compare this number with the neighboring land grants of Bedford, Eastchester, Rye and Westchester. Combined they had more than

Colonial Land Grants in Dutchess County, N.Y. 3

250 families despite the fact that their combined land mass of 39,500 acres was less than half of that on Cortlandt Manor. It was not until 1732 that Cortlandt Manor was divided so that settlement in earnest could begin 2

Need for settlement

Settling the vast open spaces between New York City and Albany during the colonial period was a matter of great economic and de­fensive urgency. The fur trading enterprise which had been the economic backbone of early New York had declined rapidly just before the British takeover of the colony from the Dutch. Also, the great vacant expanse between Albany and New York City beckoned invitingly to the neighboring colonies of Connecticut and Massachu­setts which, by the end of the 17th century, began to feel the crush of their burgeoning populations. With increasingly more people to feed from soil already exhausted by poor cultivation methods, New England colonists looked westward with covetous eyes. The miles and miles of undeveloped land in New York seemed to be there simply for the taking. If these two threats, the loss of income from the fur trade and the risk of land hungary neighbors taking New York land, were not enough, colonial governors from Governor Dongan's time were painfully aware of the covert threat of the French in Canada. Not only were the French interested in monopo­lizing the fur trade through the defeat of the Iroquois, but their territorial hunger threatened an invasion of New York. French attacks on the unprotected outpost at Schenectady, although not frequent, undermined the security of the small settlements at Sche­nectady and Albany. Increasing the number of inhabitants around Albany together with settling the territory between New York City and Albany, if accomplished, would serve as a deterrent to French interests. It is in this context that the issue of settlement became one of utmost urgency.3

How to respond to this urgency tested the creativity of the earli­est governors. The decision to offer small parcels of land to many individuals and patiently wait for settlement soon gave way to an alternate choice. Large land grants were issued to a few in the hope that these men, acting on behalf of their own entrepreneurial inter­ests, would encourage settlement. Therefore, beginning in 1686 sev­eral million acres of land were awarded to a few entrepreneurs in

4 The Hudson Valley Regional Review

the short span of four decades. However, many eighteenth-century observers, critical of this approach, expressed dissatisfaction with the slow pace of settlement in New York. Thirty years after the large land grant policy began with the award of Livingston Manor in Albany and Rombout Patent in Dutchess County, New York Gover­nor Hunter complained in his repon 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 the Prov­ince does not increase in numbers of inhabitants in proportion to

some of the neighboring ones."i Almost twenty years later Cadwal­lader Colden , Surveyor General of New York, accused the large landowners of serving their own interests rather than the needs of the province, " ... the Grantees themselves are not, nor never were in a Capacity to improve such large Tracts and other People [immi­grants] will not become their Vassals or Tenants.,,5

Land grants were awarded by Governor Dongan and his succes­sors to encourage settlement. In fact, the language of the patents often included specific reference to settlements. The decline of the fur trade, a staple in the New York economy from its very begin­nings, presented ever increasing economic pressure. Recognizing the growing importance of agricultural products for export, Governor Dongan awarded land on the Hudson (Rensselaer) in 1684 to Robert Sanders, Myndert Harmense and William Teller, "to settle and ma­nure land for the advancement and improvement of this province in the produce of corne stock.,,6 The specific reference to "corne stock" indicates the governor's intent to encourage settlement to cultivate that income producing exportable commodity. This was a major change in land usage. Fur trapping, although lucrative, never en­couraged nor supported permanent settlement.

S ettlement continued to be a requirement 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. In their request in 1696 to purchase land in Orange County the land was described, "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 seulement.,,7 Although Paul Dufour and partners did not receive the land in Dutchess County they requested from Governor Corribury in 1702, their stated intent, "for the encouragement and further Peopling of this country," points to the consistency of the settlemem theme almost two decades after Governor Dongan issued the first land grams.s A

Colonial Land GranlS in Dutchess County, N.Y. 5

petition by Dirck Vanderburgh and Abraham Staats was probably rejected because it did not mention settlement. They described the land, "hardly ... of any other use than to erect a sawmill thereon. "9 However, four years later Jacob Regnier and Company were more successful in obtaining a patent for the identical tract of land. Their request recognized the "generally Rocky Mountainous" condition of the land but they also indicated "some small places are to be found therein fit for cultivation and improvement.'do

Not to be overlooked is the attitude of reform brought by Gover­nor Bellomont (1698-1701). Although land was awarded for settle­ment purposes, the extraordinary size of the land grants given by his predecessor, Governor Fletcher, made it apparent that settlement over such broad expanses of land was improbable. As a result Gover­nor Bellomont's grants were fewer and much smaller in size. Addi­tionally, he proposed land reform which essentially would have voided many of the large land grants. While not all of Bellomont'S reforms were confirmed by the British government, although he did succeed in voiding several grants, 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 grant, later known as the Little Nine Partners, was careful to include the words, "for the better imporvement of the said lands and that they may not by (be) wast.',ll The letter awarding the grant in 1706 spe­cifically stated that settlement and some improvements were to be completed "within three years from the date of the Patent."I! Two years later the partnership asked for an extension. Fear they would lose the grant because they had not complied with the settlement clause in the grant prompted their request for an extension. " The stated plan of most New York governors, regard less of how well or how poorly it was implemented, was to encourage settlement in the vacant land north of New York City. How successful was this plan?

Settlement in Dutchess

Settlement in Dutchess County began in the late 1680s 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 70 settlers or 10 to 12 families. H In the census taken in 1714, Dutchess, then with its own government, reported 330 individuals (including slaves) in 49 fam­ilies. U These statistics reAect substantial growth in population in

6 TM Humon Valley RtgiomJi Rtview

TABLE I

Heads of Households in Dutchess County 1713-1737

1714 1727 1737

Nonh Ward 9 121 197 Middle Ward 22 7. 160 South Ward 18 62 161

Total 49 253 518

Source: Book o f the Supervisors of DUlchcS$ County 1718-1737

little more than a decade. Population cominued to grow steadily until the census in 1737 recorded 3 156 while individuals and 262 slaves living in Dutchess. '6 The cou nty assessment roll for that year corroborates that fi nding, listing 5 18 names of families. L1 The assess­ment rolls arc a particu larly good source of settlement statistics in Dutchess County because all individuals owning or leasing lands were required to pay laxes. Table I above notes the steady increase in population from 1714 to 1737. The average annual growth was approximately 10 percent.

In spite of its growth in population Dutchess County cOlllinued to

be the least settled county through 1737, except for Richmond (Staten Island), a county far smaller in size. During the period 1698 to 1737 the population in New York Province increased more than threefold. The wh ite population of 15,897 in 1698 grew 1051,496 in 1737. Dutchess County g rew at the same rate during that period, and it therefore appears that the increase in popu lation in Dutchess may simply have been a reflection of the general growLil in popu la­tion in the whole of New York Province. It must be noted, however, that population growth in the province differed from county to county. The rate of growth in the coullties north of New York City was dramatically greater than that of New York County and the counties adjacent to or east of it, Kings, Queens, Richmond and Suffolk. T hese counties grew from a total of 12,099 individuals in 1698 to 26,850 in 1737. But the counties north of New York City (Albany, Dutchess, Orange, Ulster and Westchester) g rew from 3,798 in 1698 to 24,646 in 1737. Much of this growth occurred in Albany, 1,453 individuals in 1698 to 9,05 1 in 17.37 and Westchester, 917 indi viduals in 169810 5.894 in 1737. In fact. sixty percent of the popu lation north of New York City in 1737 resided in the older and earlier seuled counties of Albany and Westchester. Ulster, which had

Colonial Land Grants in DUlchcss Coumy. N.Y, 7

TABLE II

Growth of Settlement in Dutchess County 1688- 1737

Number of families at Number of Average number the end of families added of families

Period each period each period added eacb ),ear

1688- 1703 12 _75 1704 -1714 49 37 3_36 17 15- 1727 253 204 15.69 1728- 1737 5 18 265 26.50

also been seuled at an early date, did not panicipate as full y in the po pulatio n growth as did Alban ), a nd Westchester. IS

The shifting rate of population growth can be appreciated when the pcrcelllage of change in each COUIll )' is compa red to the total change in population in the entire province. For example. note the change in Q ueens County. Althoug h its population grew between 1703 a nd 1737. its share o f the total population in the province decreased from 2 1.7 percent in 1703 to 15.0 percent in 1737. On the m he r hand , Alban), County. where 11 .0 percent of the total popula­tion resided in 1703. had grown by 1737 to a 17.6 percent share of the population of the e ntire province. Dutchess also g rew d uring the same period from a .5 percent share o f the total po pulation in 1703 to a 6. 1 percent share in 1737. While its growth in absolute numbers was less tha n that of Alba ny and Westchester, its rate of growth exceeded that of all other counties except Orange. which grew at abou t the sa me rate. Thoug h growing slowly. Dutchess was clearly g rowing at a faster rate than much of New York Province.

It is clear that Dutchess County grew from an unseuled territory in 1683 to one in which settlement g rew at a steady rate, a nd that the n ile of po pulation growth in Dutchess exceeded the general increase in po pulation in New York Province. Dmchess participated in the general shift of population in the province as a whole : as the propor­tion of population in the southern counties declined , the re was a compensatory increase in the proportion of population seuJing iIi the coulllies north of New York County.

H ow successful was the land grant policy in the settlement of Dutchess County? In 1737. more than fifty years after the first land gra nt was awarded. o nl y 5 18 fami lies had settled in Dutchess

8 The Hrulwn Vall", Rtgitmlll Rt:Vinu

TABLE III

Number of Settlers: Natural increase compared to new arrivals

1718 1727 1737

Total number of settlers 129 253 5 18 Offspring of previous settler 8 30 89 Brother, cousin or nephew 5 8 22

Total 13 38 III

Newly arrived settle rs 75 63 154 Total number of settlers added 88 101 265

Coumy. Growth was quite slow, For example, dUl'ing the cleven years between 1704 and 17 14 fewe r than 4 fami lies per year were added to the total number of families settled in Dutchess County. Ahho ugh a great improvement is recorded for the pe riod e nding 1737, on ly 27 additional families were added each ycar during the previous ten years. Overall the results as nOled in Table II a re disap­pointing. Also, it is imponalll to note that some patenLS grew at a faster rate than others and there was almost no seulement on some patents. However, even taking th is into consideration the conclusion remains essentially the same: seu lement in the la rge ex panse of land available in Dutchess County was tediously slow.

Some of the fami lies included in the count in Table II we re the offspring of ea rly settlers. In Table III above the size of this group was determined to measure more accurately the ability o f the large landowner to attract new settlers. I!! Also it was imponant to deter­mine how man y of the earlier settlers remained in Dutchess during the period studied . Over 85 percent of the seulers from each previ­ous period remained in Dutchess. Of the new settle rs approximately 40 percent were offspring or relatives of previous settlers. The re­maining group of new settlers had migrated to Dutchess since the previous period. New arriva ls accounted fo r slightly less than 30 percent of the total popu lation in Dutchess in any given period. These , then, we re the settle rs attracted to Dutchess th rou gh the efforts of the large landowners.

Table II I above shows popu lation grew at a stead y nlte thl'Oughout the period studies. Also growth from natural increase contribu ted in increasing measure to the overall growth in popu lation. The res ults from Table 11 and Table III indicate seulement in Dutchess County was a slow process. Fortunatel y, most settlers preferred to remain,

Colonial Land Grants in Dutchess County, N.Y. 9

thereby providing a strong base for future population growth through natural increase. Although the large landowners' abili ty to attract settlers appears to have been limited , those who were encouraged to come to Dutchess remained. One question rema ins. Were all the large landowners equally successful in attracting settlers?

Visualizing 518 families living on an expanse of land colllaining over 650,000 acres, five decades after the first patent was awa rded, brings into sharp focus the sparseness of settlement in Dutchess County. Even as late as 1756 historian William Smith observed. 'The only villages in it [Du tchess) are Poghkeepsing and the Fish-Kill though they scarce deserve the name,'·20

The final purpose of this study is to determine where in Dutchess County settlement occurred. This discloses wh ich of the patent g.d.nt­ees succeeded in encouraging settlement. The civil di visions of the county, wards in 1737, did not follow patent lines, but when the three wards were divided into precincts they, for the most part, did follow patent lines. As a result the 1737 and 1739 assessment rolls were compared to determine on which patents settlement occurred.21 Al­though a great many families remained , the 48 families who we re unaccounted for in 1739 either had le ft the county. died . or passed their land to children.

The Rhinebeck and Beekman Patents granted to Henry Beekman played a major role in the settlement of Dutchess County in the earliest years. The number of famil ies on these two patents ac­counted for almost half of all the families living in Dutchess in 1737. A few families lived in the Schu yler patent incorporated into the Rhinebeck precinct, but these were too few to affect the overall conclusion. Settlement on the fo llowing major patents was quite poor: Great Nine Partners, Little Nine Partners, Philipse Highland and the Oblong. Only about 14 percent of the popu lation of the county settled on these patents. Although accounting for only 15 percent of the popu lation, Poughkeepsie. in spite of its small size. contained a greater share of the population than its size alone would command2'2 Twenty-four percent of the population in the county settled in Romboul. Table IV opposite tabulates the numbers of families who had settled on each patent in 1737.

T he largest portion of settle rs clung to a narrow corridor along the Hudson River, the principal connecting link between Dutchess County. Albany, and New York City. And even that corridor was not settled evenly. Settlement probably clustered near the villages of

10 Tlu I/UWOII Vallq Rtgitmal R IWitw

TABLE IV

Assessment Roll for 1737 Separated into Place of Residence in 1739

Precinct &: (Patent Name) Number of residents

Not listed in 1739 Beekman (Henry Beekman) Fishkill (Rombout) Nine Pa rtners (G reat Nine Pa rtners) Northeast (Little Nine Partners) J>oughkeepsie (see foo tnote 22) Rhinebeck (Hen ry Beekman &: Peter Schuyler) Southern (Philipse Highland) Total

. B 92

II I .0 13 70

129 15

SIB

Fishkill , Poughkeepsie , and Rhinebeck. Confirmation of this narrow pauern of settlement is obtained froOl the description of Dutchess County roads extant in 1737. T he principal north-south road , in places barely more than a trail of blazened trees. hugged the Hud­son River as it t raversed the length of the county. From this road the re we re several shorter roads to landings on the Hudson, the main commercial connection between Dutchess and Albany to the north and New York City to the sOllth . Additionally. there were two roads from Beekman's inte rior patent. T he road from a small settle­ment in existe nce since 1722, called Poughquag, brought settlers and their produce to the landing on the Hudson Ri ve r in Fishkill Pre­cinct. Approved in 1732, a new road, only a footpath in some places, traveled from Dover in Beekman's interior patent nea r the Connec­ticut line to the landing on the Hudson in Poughkeepsie, Also, an earlier road from this area had been built with its terminus on the Hudson Ri ver in Bee kman's Rhinebeck Patent. And a new road, although no t yet completed in 1737 , WaS opened from Dover through the southern portion of the Great Nine I)artners Patent to Poughkeepsie.~s

Apparently, Henry Beekman (died 17 17) and son. Henry Jr., had developed a successful method for auracting and reta ining settlers. Though aba ndoned by the New York government in 171 2, the Pala­tines provided a solid base of settlers for these two land grants. Colonel Peter Schuyler a ppears to have had li ttle more than specula­tive interests; he sold all his land in Dutchess CoU11ly only a few

Colo nial Land Cranu in Dutchess County. N.Y. II

years after he had acquired iLN Of the several large palellls----oflile Creat Nine Partners, the Lit lle Nine Pa rtne rs, and Philipse High­land-on ly one had been pre pa red fo r settlement by 1737. And this one, the C reat Nine Partners, had only recently d ivided their land. Earlier, a strip of land on the Hudson River had been d ivided in 1699 in to nine lots, 1.5 miles wide by approximately 4 miles long, presumably to develop commercial enterprise. However, little activ­ity was apparent by 1737. In fact, only one member of the owners of these three patents, Hen ry Filkin of the Creal Nine Panners, may have ever set his foot on Dutchess soil .

Settlement on the land within the Poughkeepsie preci nct see ms to have succeeded because of eady rentals and sa les to ind ividuals with agricultural or commercial interests. These patentees seem to have come to Poughkeepsie to stay. Roben Sanders and Mynden Har­mense (Van Den Bogart) encou raged settlemem th rough transfer of land prio r to 169 1 to tenants, one of whom was Sanders' brother-in­law, Baltus Barentse Van Kleeck.tl Also, Myndert Harmense built a saw mill prior to 1699, thereby demonstrating his serious illient to develop the land for selliement. '.!ti In fac t, his widow and son stayed in Dutchess. They appeared separately on the first cenSLIS taken in Dutchess County in 17 14. T homas Sanders, a mill owner and son of the patelllee, Robert, was also recorded on the 1714 census. Contrast the settleme nt plans of these patentees with those of Colonel Pete r Schuyler. True to his speculati ve style, he had completely d isposed of his land in Poughkeepsie by 1699.27 In fac t, one of Schuyler's three sales was made to Robert Sande rs and Mynden Harmense.28

Rombout Pate nt (Fishki ll preci nct) was awa rded in 1685 to Francis Rombout (died 169 1), Cui Ian Verplanck (died 1684), and Stephanus Van Cortlandt (died 1700). Settlemelll began a ftc r 1708 when the patent was partitioned into three pans by the heirs of the o riginal patentees. Roger Bretl and his wife, Catherine , daughter and heir of Francis Rombolll, were the onl y heirs of the original patentees who showed genuine inte rest in seul ing their traCI of land. Roger's un­timely death in 17 J 7 changed the ir initial plan from treating their land as a leasehold to settling the land through a combi nation of leaseholds and sales.29 T he Verplanck and Va n Cortlandt heirs we re slow to develop the ir ponions of the la nd gra nl.~

Recently, limited success in settling large tracts of land in New York has bee n ascribed to problems related to jo int ow nershi p? l Indeed, joilll owners hip did present several problems. Fi rst, a re­lease from all partners was required by the prospective buyer ( 0

12

secure a good title to the land. And when an original patentee died the number of heirs increased, many times substantially, the number of releases required for anyone sale. In some cases heirs were inac­cessible. Some had moved from the province, and Olhers had such lillie interest in the land they simply ignored the entire process. Also, an earlier law which permitted a simple majority of patentees to subd ivide land was not renewed in 1718.'2 Thereafter, joint owners wishing to divide their land were required to obtain special permission from the New York Assembly or governor . This was a time-consuming and expensive procedure wh ich discouraged some joint owners from d ividing their land. Although partnerships may have been a factor in dividing land grants in some pans of New York, it does not seem to ha"e been a factor in Dutchess County. For example, the partners in the Rombout Patent d ivided their land successfully in 1708. The two other land partnerships in Dutchess County, the Great Nine Partners and the Little Nine Partners, did not divide for other reasons. In fact, the Great Nine Partners had made a small division in 1699Y Although this partnership at­tempted in 1725 to obtain permission from the New York Assembly to divide the large remaining tract, they failed . Five years later one of the original partners, David J am ison, a prominent New York attorney with numerous professional and personal connections with New York's govern ing body, discovered in the initial subdivision made in 1699 a paragraph which permitted later divisions. "And that fu rther 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 land .... ,~ This oversight, together with the quarter-century delay in attempting to subdivide the land attests to the lack of inter­est in this partnership to use this large grant fo r the reason it was intended-to encourage settlement. Interestingly, William Huddles­ton, another well-known New York attorney, was also a partner.35

And finally, the partners in the third land partnership in Dutchess, the Little Nine Partners, showed no interest in subdivid ing the land until 1734.36

I t appears the nature of ownershi p, whether it was a partnership or land owned by an individual, was not a deciding factor in limiting settlement. Note the twenty-three owners of the Minisin k Patent in Orange County who successfully divided their I~nd grant in 1711.37

With respect to individually owned large land tracts in Dutchess, only one was settled; the others were nOlo Philip Schuyler made no attempt to settle his twO land grants in Dutchess. Neither Frederick

Colonial Land Granl.S in Dutchess County. N.Y. 13

Philipse nor his son Philip attempted to divide their Dutchess County land. In fact, Philipse Highland Patent was not divided for settlement until 175 1 when Frederick's grandson, Frederick II died. Contrast the absence of settlement strategy of these individual owners with that of Henry Beekman J r. His interest in settling his two large tracts was abundantly evident in the number of settlers he was able to attract. Both of his land tracts were prepared for settle­ment quite early, one Jess than a decade after the patent was con­fi rmed in 1703.

Were settlers available to settle the land? Philip Livingston of Liv­ingston Manor on the north boundary of Dutchess County com­plained even as late as 1741 , "its no Easy mauer to gett 17 families at once."M But factors other than availabili ty of settlers accounted for the limited success of the Livingstons on the family manor. For example, the Livingstons offered small fa rms at higher rents than other leaseholds. Also the family's imperious attitude toward tenants was less than appealing and probably discouraged some families who might have wished to settle on the manor.59 While it would be useful to cite Henry Beekman's success again, even stronger evidence of the availability of settlers comes from the remarkable increase in population in New York Province. From 1698 to 1737 the white population increased 325 percent. And it should not go without notice that a great many of these famil ies settled north of New York City. In fac t, the white population north of New York City grew 650 percent from about 625 families in 1698 to about 4,000 families in 1737, 2,500 of which settled in Albany and Westchester.4G

What accounts for the success of Henry Beekman J r.? Even as late as 1737 the number of families on Beekman lands equalled almost half of the total number of families in all of Dutchess County. The fac t that his land was available only as rental farms should have limited the number of settlers interested in settling there. Renlal land in other parts of the province was struggling to obtain settlers.4 1

Certainly owning land rather than renting was more attractive to many new settlers. In spite of this, why did Henry Beekman Jr. succeed? Two reasons explain his success. First, most of the available land in Dutchess was in his two tracts. Second, Henry Beekman J r. apparently had qualities as an individual which made him more attractive than the typical landowner. T o begin, although Dutchess County had 650,000 acres of land to settle, less than 150,000 acres of it had been made available by the mid-1730s. For example, only the southern third, approximately 28,000 acres of the Rombout Patent,

14 TM Hudsrm Valley Regional Rwirw

had been prepared for settlemen t. Of the members of that partner­ship, only the Bretts encouraged settlement. Further, at Poughkeep­sie, there were two small land grants which had been opened for settlement at an early date. But Beekman 's approximately 100,000 acres of land represented the greatest portion of land available for settlement in Dutchess County. As a result new settlers were drawn to the land available in this large tract where they could choose the land they wished to farm .

Also settlers may have been attracted to Beekman's land because of certain appealing personal qualities in the man. In COillrast to the stereotypical picture of the large landowner, represented most com­pletely by the Livingslons, Henry Beekman Jr. was in many ways a plain man. He sometimes referred to himsel f simply as "an Esopus farmer."~2 Although quite successful financially, he was able to appeal to those less fortunate. Perhaps his unusually prominent nose helped him develop a sympathetic attitude to those socially or culturally pe­ripheralto the mainstream. Although not particularly aggressive, he quickly seized any opportunity to settle his land. For example. imme­diately after the Palatines were abandoned by the government in 17 12, Beekman invited thirty- five of these fam ilies to settle on his Rhinebeck Patent. And when the Quakers, a persecu ted grou p in the seventeenth century, moved westward from eastern Massachuseus in the late 1720s, they found a receptive landowner in Henry Beekman. They settled on his Beekman Patent and continued to Row into that patent well into the 1740s.H And when several ind ividuals expressed interest in purchasing a large parcel in Beekman Patelll, he encour­aged it, in spite of the fact that it was a leasehold .H He also acted on behalf of the Moravians who were being persecuted for their religious beliefs.~ 5 Allhough the Moravians left Dutchess, Beekman's support undoubtedly left its mark on the minds of man y simple families in the county despite the fact they did not share the Moravians' philosopby. And finally, in 1743, he came to the aid of a few small landowners who were in a boundary dispute with the owners of the Great Nine Partners Patent.~6 Further, his altitude toward his tenants was bal­anced and fair . Although willing to initiate legal action against those who did not pay rent, when in doubt he could also take the word of the tenant. "[I] blive [he] is honest & Say what [he] paid & what not" he wrote of J ohannes Dollson when a rent payment was not recorded. On another occasion he wrote, " I blive [he] may ,have paid more than I can find Credited."H

In addition, Beekman's attitude was one of accommodation and compromise, Also he showed considerable concern for his constitu-

Colonial Land Grants in Dutchess County, N.Y. 15

ency. For example, in a dispute between himself and the newly elected junior assemblyman from Dutchess County, Beekman said, "[I} would rather Suffer a Smal Ind ignity than Inflame the Commu­nity." And in a boundary dispute with the Philipse heirs he turned over 6,000 acres of his Beekman Patent rather than engage in a personal 01' legal battle.~8 His ability to work with people of different backbrounds was apparent in his lengthy service as an assemblyman. He represented Dutchess County through ilS years of abrupt change from a Dutch-German comllllll1ity to a predominently English com­munity.~l1 And his business and political association with one of the Livingstons, Henry, apparently d id not change how he was per­cei,'ed by the ordinary man. Of course, the fact that Henry Living­ston was a surveyor, who served in the relatively simple capacity of county clerk for 52 years, and married the daughter of an ordinary Dutch farmer probably set this Livingston apart from the others.~o

Conclusion

Was the criticism leveled at the large landowner by the British Board of Trade in 1727 reasonable? Based on the findings from Dutchess County the answe.· appears to be, yes. Except for a portion of the Rombout Patent, a few thousand acres in Poughkeepsie, and the two land grants owned by Henry Beekman Jr. , most of the land in Dutchess was not available for settlement until 40 to 50 years after the land grants were awarded. In fac t, it was not until 1751 that all of Dutchess County was finally opened lO settlers . The early land­owners did liuJe to prepare the land for settlemen t and as a result they were, "a very Great Hindrance to the peopling & Settling" of New York as charged by the Board ofTrade.b

! And further, the fac t that very little land was available to purchase probably had a signifi­cant, albeit an unmeasurable, effect on the numbers of families who could have migrated to Dutchess bm didn't. When land was finally opened for sale in the Great Nine Partners Patent, interested New Englanders flocked to his empty expanse of land. In fact, between 1740 and 1755 almost 500 families flooded into the patent.~2 The pent-up need fo r land by New Englanders had become critical in the early years of the eighteenth century. Too little land and too many heirs lO share it resulted in 1O0 few farms available to the steadily increasing New England population. Therefore, in the mid-eigh­teenth century, New Englanders, some of whom could not purchase land, even found the newly available leasehold land in the Philipse

· ' 6 TIlt H(ui.srnl Vollq RtgiOlml Review

Highland Patent appealing. In the few shon years before 1756 this newly opened tract of land attracted over 350 new fa milies.

Population increased slowly in Dutchess County until New En· glanders arri ved in the county. Only 25 percent of the population before that period was the result o f new fami lies migraung to Dutch· ess. Most of the increase seen prior to the New England migrauo n was the resu lt of naLUral increase. It overshadowed any settlement strategy created by the large land owne rs or their heirs. Also the overwhelmi ng Dutch·Ge rman cultural presence in the county may have limited the interest of potential settlers in the earliest years. The new migranlS were English . Nevertheless , perha ps Cad wallader Colden , who held many high public offices in the course of his fifty years of public service in New York including the office of Surveyor· General , was right when he concluded in 1726, "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."5D

Notes I "Governor Momgomerie's Instructions. 20 October 1727." Instruc;tion #38 and

#36. The Leltas mid Papn5 of CaldWGllada Coldell. Collec;tioll5. New York Historkal Society , (Ne"' York. 19 18- 1923). I (1917). 2 1 I. Earlier similiar conditions and the threat of forfeiture had been included in the Board of Trade's ilu truc;tions to GoI'er­nor John Lal'elac;e in 1708. LB. O'Caliaghan, cd .. Docummts Rtlolive 10 Iht Calunwl His/II')' IIllht Slate III Nnu Yllrk (Albany, N.Y. 1853·1887). III (1853) 397. (Hereafter dted as N.Y.CoLDocs.)

t Sung Bok Kim. "The ~Ianor of Cortlandt and Its Tenants. 1696-1785." (Ph.D. diss., Michigan State Unh'ersity, 1966),83 & 85.

' Sung Bok Kim. Landlqrd and Tenallt ill Colonial New York. Manorial Society. 1664-1775 (Chapel Hill. N.C.). 22-28. (8A*)

~ N.Y.Col.lJoQ .• V. 480. J Cadwallader Colden, "The Stale of Lands in the I'rol'inc;e of New York, in 1752 ,~

The Documentary History of the State of New York. 4 "015. (Albany. N.Y .• 1849-1851 ). E.B. O'Callaghan, ed .. 1.584.

e New York Colonial Manuscripts, Land I'apers. 1642· 1803.65 1'015 .. New York State Library. II. 31. (Hereafter cited as Land Papers)

) Land Papers. Ill . 30 . • Land Papers. 111 .71. II Land Papers. Il l. 15. 10 Land Papers. Ill. 175. II L.'lnd Papers. 111 .93. 11 Land I'apen. IV. 135. " Land Papers. IV. 135. 1< Everts B. Greene and Virginia D. Harringtoll. American Population Before the

Federal Census of 1790 (New York. 1932),94 . l l5Wiliiam P. 1>I c;Dcrmott. "The lil4

Colonial Land GranLS in DUlc;hC$s Lounty. 1'1. r. 17

Dutchess County Census: Measure of Household Size." Yearbook. Dutchess County Historical Society. LXVIII (1983). 164.

16 Greene and Harrington. American Population. 98. 17 Dutchess County Tax Lists. 1730-1748. Adriance Memorial Library. Poughkeep­

sie. N.Y. 18 Greene and Harrington. American Population, 92 &: 98. 19 To d istinguish between offspring and those who newly migrated to Dutchess the

names found on the census or assessment rolls were gathered for each five )'ear period between 1714 and 1737. This list. when compared to the list of heads of households " 'ho remained from the previous til'e )'ear imen'al. provided a list of common surnames. Genealogical information g'.Ithered for 80 percem of this group distinguished between those who were offspring and those who were new arril·aU. Where genealogical information was unavailable. an educated gI,ess. based on collat­eral evidence. placed the remaining 20 percent in the appropriate group. No attempt was made 10 seek Out those offspring whose name had changed as a result of mar­riage. The resul t is a slight underestimation of the number of offspring and a slight overestimation of new selllers.

fG William Smith. The HiJlo,)' of Ihe Provinct of New York .... 10 1762 2 \"ols. (London. 1757. reprint Cambridge. Mass .. 1972. Michael Kammen. ed.). I. 21 1.

tl It was assumed the place ,,'here a family Jived in 1739 was the same place it had !il'ed in [737. The few families who moved within the coullty during this short interval had little effect on the overall results.

n Poughkeepsie "'as sl ightly enlarged ,,·hen it changed from ward 10 precinc!. When made a precinct. it included the following patents: Sanders and Harmanse, Schuyler, and Cuyler. These are numbered 4. 5. 6 on the map on page 2. It also included a small portion of the Rombout Patent west of the Wappingers Creek. (noted on the map as the stream between Rombout and Poughkeepsie which empties into Ihe Hudson River).

" O[d Miscellaneous Records of Dutchess County. 1722- 1747 (Vassar Brothers In­stitute. Poughkeepsie, N.Y .. 1909). 154. 160· 165.

'I, Dutchess County Clerk's Office, Deeds, Liber 2. 398; Peter Schuyler sale to Gamel·oorl. June 18. 1689. Robert R. LiI'ingston Papers. Series II. Reel 28. item #'26. Ne'" York Historical Society.

'I~ Helen W. Reynolds. Poughkupsie: The Origin orul Meallillg of Word. Collections. Dutchess County I-l istorical Sockl)' (Poughkeepsie. N.Y., 1924), I. ;7; Helen W, Re)'­nolds. "How Poughkeepsie Was Founded." Yearbook, Dutchess County Historical Societ)', XV (1930), 30-35.

'Ie Dutchess COUnty Clerk's Office. Deeds. Liber I, 278. 27 Reynolds. Poughkeepsie. 29-31. " Reyno[ds. Poughkeepsie. 29. t!I Helen W. Reynolds. cd .. Eightullih Cmlury Rwmis. Duuhess COUllty, New York:

Ilombq!ll Pm:illct alld Iht Ongi,jol Town ()f FiJhkill. Co[k'ctions, Dutchess County Histori­cal Society (Poughkeepsie, N.Y., 1938). VI. 1-7. A[so see map made in 1728 b)' Robert Crooke. Depul)' SUfl·eror. "Land in Verplanck Portion of RomboUI Patent." a copy of which is in Adriance Memoria[ Library Poughkeepsie. N.Y. Abo note Philip Van Conlandt, heir of one of the owners of the Rombout Patent had only six tenants on his share of the Cortland t Manor in 1746. Kim. Landlord and Tuuml in Colonial New York,151.

JO Reynolds. Eiglllemih Cenlury Ru()rds. 3·4.

18 The Hudson Valky RegiotIQ/ Review

" Armand La Potin, 'The l\linisink Grant: Partnerships. Patents. and Processing Fees in Eighteenth Century New York:' New York History. LV I (l975), 36·41-

J! Charles Z. Lincoln, ed., TM Colonial WW!! of N~ York from the Ytar 1664 to the RnKJ/uJirm. 5 ~·ols. (Albany, N.Y. 1894), I. 633, 882, 1006; N.Y. CoL Docs., V, 527. 529-30.

" "Proceedings of the Nine Panners 1730- 1749:' transcribed by Clifford Buck and William P. McDermon in William P. McDermott, ed., Eightwuh Celltury DocumelllS of tht Nine Parlnl!T$ Pattrlt. Dutchess County, New York. Collections of the Dmchess Coumy Historical Society (Baltimore. Md., 1979), X, 3-4.

!.O McDermott, Eightunth Ctrllury Documents. 4. !3 Paul M. Hamlin and Charles E. Baker, eds., Supreme Court of Judicature of the

Province of New York, 169 1-1704. Collations, New York Historical Society, 3 vols. (New York, 1952-1959). III , 104-107.

56 law passed by the New York ~embly. November 28,1734. Lincoln. The Colo­nial laws of New York, II , 868-870.

!1 la Potin, "The Minisink Gram," 43-46. ,. Philip Livingston to Mr. John D'Win. March 5. 1141. Li,'ingston-Roomond Mss,

reel 9. Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park. N.Y. '9 William P. McDermott, MThe Livingstons' Colonial L,nd Policy: Person3l gain

over public need," P3per delivered 3t the Livingston Tercemeral1' Symposium. June 6,1986.

<0 Green and Harrington. Amnican P~ulatia>l. 92 and 99 . • 1 McDermon, "The Livingstons' Colonial land Policy." ,I George Dangerfield. Chancellor Robert R. LiuiligstOIi of Ntw J'ark 1746-181) (New

York. 1960),30. n Dell T. Upton. "A History of the Quakers ill Dutchess Count)'. New York

1728-1828," B.A. in History, Colgate University. 1970,20-29. 34-38 . .. Henry Beekman 10 Gilbert Li"ingston. February 29, 1734, Robert R. Livingston

Papers, New York Historical Society. OJ Philip l. White, TM BuklOOtI.S ofNtw Yorh;'1 Politia (wd CQ""'ItTCt 1647-1877 (New

York, 1956), 188-189. 16 Henry Beekman to Messu Capt. Frans la Roy. Peter Vieln. Peter Parmentier

and Mighil Peltz, December 29, 1743, Yearbook, Dutchess County Historical Society. voL 12 (1927), 41-42.

t1 Henry Beekman to Henry Livingston. April 7. 1752, Yearbook, Dutchess Coum), Historical Society, XII (1921), 37- 38; Henry Beekman to Henry Li"ingston, Decem· ber 19, 1744, Henry Beekman Mss. New York Historical Society.

+8 Kim, w.wlord tl.w Tenant, 372 . • 9 William P. McDermott, "The Dutch in Colonial Dutchess: Declining Numbers­

Continuing Influ ence," Yearbook. Dutchess County Historical Society, voJ. LXX (1938), 10.

50 J. Wilson Poucher, "Dutchess County Men of the Revolutionary Period- Henry Livingston," Yearbook, Dutchess County Historical Society, vol. XXIII (1938). 42-43.

~ I "Governor Montgomerie's Instructions:' Tht Ll llusa.w PapllT"SofCadwalltuierCuldtn . Collections, New-York Historical Society, 2 vols. (Ne,,· York, 1935-1937) 1. 211.

JI Dutchess County Tax Lists. 1730- 1748, 1753-1757, Adriance Memorial Libral1', Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

""The Second Part of the Interest of the County in laying Duties." Tilt LtlllT$ and Papn-s ofCadwallatkr Coldm. I I, 268.

Colonial land Gran15 in Dutchess Coumy. N.Y. "