USA > New York > Westchester County > Rye > Chronicle of a border town : history of Rye, Westchester county, New York, 1660-1870, including Harrison and the White Plains till 1788 > Part 12
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59
2 Some twenty deeds on record, within these years, are thus dated. Those entered immediately before and after are dated ' in the county of Westchester and province of New York.' (Town Records, vol. B. pp. 72-168.)
3 See the action on the bounds of Rye and Greenwich, given in the next chapter.
101
A VISIT FROM COLONEL HEATHCOTE.
had as good lose all as that ; and a great Deal of Stuff to that effect. I asked them why they did not take out a Patent 1 when it was tendered them. They said they never heard that they could have one. I told them that their argument might pass with such as knew nothing of ye matter, but that I knew better ; for that to my certain knowledge they might have had a patent had they not rejected it; and that it was so far from being done in haste or in the Dark, that not a boy in the whole Town nor almost in the County but must have heard of it; and that I must always be a witness against them, not only of the many messages they have had from the Government about it, but likewise from myself. At which they began to be divided amongst themselves, some saying It was true, others that those the Crown had employed had proved false to 'em. After a great Deal of time spent in argument on this and other subjects, I endeavoured to make them sensible of ye risque they run in this affair. But they seemed Deaf to all I could say, arguing that the Government of Connectitieut had taken them under their Protection, and shewed me a blind sort of a Paper from under Kemblell's 2 hand to yt effect. When I found I could do no good with the herd, I talked sep- arately wth some of ye Hottest of 'em ; which seemed to take some Im- pression ; and I desired them to talk with their neighbours. and lett me know their minds against I came yt way again, that I might be able to serve them before it was run so far that it would be out of my Power.
' I told them as to the last purchase, wherein I was concerned, if that gave them any dissatisfaction, I would not only quit my claim, but use my interest in getting them any part of it they should desire. Their answer was, they valued not that ; it was Harrison's patent that was their ruin.
' I intend. God willing, before my return to Yorke, to throw one Jour- ney more away upon them, tho' I despair of Successe therein. How- ever my utmost Endeavours shall not be wanting therein. I am, Gen- tlemen, in much sincerity, your most obedt and affectte servt
CALEB HEATHCOTE.' 8
1 The granting of patents was a favorite mode of raising money with the provin- cial governors of New York. New England men ever regarded it as a most unjust exaction. Sir Edmund Andros, who was made governor of New York and New England in 1688-89 declared, on arriving here, that the titles of the colonists to their lands were of no value at all. Indian deeds, he said, were no better than the scratch of a bear's paw. 'Not the fairest purchases and the most ample conveyances from the natives,' remarks Trumbull, ' no dangers, disbursements, nor labours, in cultivat. ing a wilderness, and turning it into orchards, gardens, and pleasant fields, no grants by charter, nor by legislatures constituted by them, no declarations of pretending kings, nor of his then present majesty, were pleas of any validity or consideration with Sir Edmund and his minions. The purchasers and cultivators, after fifty and sixty years' improvement, were obliged to take out patents for their estates. For these, in some instances, a fee of fifty pounds was demanded. Writs of intrusion were issued against persons of principal character who would not submit to sneh impositions, and their lands were patented to others.' (History of Connecticut, i. 373.) 2 I. e., Kimberly's ; see page 94. 3 N. Y. Col. MSS., Albany : vol. xli. p. 36.
102
HARRISON'S PURCHASE.
The inhabitants of Rye obtained no redress. For four years they enjoyed the happiness of belonging once more to the 'land of steady habits.' And then in 1700, the king's order in Council placed them back within the jurisdiction they had renounced, ' forever thereafter to be and remain under the government of the Province of New York.' The people acquiesced in this decision ; and the following action of the town is the record of the last protest made against an unrighteous procedure to which they were obliged in the end to submit : -
' At a lawful towne meeting held in Rye, September the 29, 1701, Deliverance Browne, senior, is chosen to goe down to New York to make the town's aggrievances knowne unto the Governor and Council, and alsoe to make inquiry concerning the Claim that John Harrison makes to our Lands, and to use what methods he shall see good for securing the towne's interest.' 1
' At a lawful towne meeting held in Rye, February 1702-3, the towne hath by a major vote chosen Capt. Theale and George Lane, senior, and Isaac Denham, to forewarne any person or persons that shall lay out any Lands within the towne bounds without the towne's approbation or order : that is to say, within the township of Rye.' 2
The purchase was owned in common by the five patentees, who soon divided it up among themselves in equal shares.3 Harrison
1 Town and Proprietors' Meeting Book, No. C. p. 20.
2 Ibid. p. 13.
3 The following advertisement appeared in the New York Gazette and Weekly Mer- cury, Monday, March 18, 1771 : -.
' If any Person has in his keeping the Partition Deed that was made between the Patentees of Harrison's Purchase, in the County of Westchester, and will notify where he may be applied to, by a Letter to the Printer hereof, he will afford a great Pleasure to the Proprietors, and may expect a handsome Reward for his Trouble. The Patentees were Harrison, Nicolls, Haight, Wilson, and William Jamison. The Deed must have been made about the Year 1700, and is likely to be among some old Papers about Flushing, on Long Island.'
The deed appears to have come to light hereupon with very little delay - an early proof of the advantage of newspaper advertisement - for on the twenty-eighth of Jime, 1771, the recovered document was admitted to be recorded, and we have it in full in the Records of the town of Rye, vol. D. pp. 280-283. It sets forth that the tract of land in question was bought by John Harrison in 1695, with funds belonging to his four associates equally with himself, and that the purchase was made in their behalf also ' in a joint and equal right and interest, and not otherwise,' to be held by the five purchasers 'as tenants in common, without any right, claim or demand of survivor- ship by reason of joint tenancy upon the death of all or any of the said parties.' The deed is dated November 10, 1700, and is signed by W. Nicols, Ebenezer Wilson, David Jamison, Samuel Haight, and John Harrison. The following statement is prefixed to Harrison's signature : -
' This may satisfy whom it may concerne that I underwritten doth assign over all my right, title and interest of this deed to Major William Lawrence, his heirs and assigns forever ; as witness my hand this twenty-third day of May, 1702.
JOHN HARRISON.'
·
103
DIVISION OF THE PURCHASE.
sold his interest to William Lawrence in 1702; Nicols and Wilson probably parted with theirs soon after. The only one of the orig- inal patentees who retained his portion was Samuel Haight, the ancestor of a prominent family of the town, in whose possession it remained until a comparatively recent day. Samuel Haight, like Harrison himself and Lawrence, was a native of Flushing, Long Island. He belonged to the Society of Friends. Indeed, nearly all the settlers of this purchase came from Flushing and other towns of Long Island ; 1 and most of these were of the same religious persuasion.2 It appears to have been from the first a 'Quaker' settlement, and from the fact that one of the original patentees was a leading member of that body, we are led to believe that such was designed to be the character of the enterprise from the first. A ' Friends' meeting house' existed here as early as the year 1727. A few of the inhabitants of Rye bought lands in this sec- tion, but in no such numbers as removed to the White Plains and other purchases.3
Brown's Point, now a part of the town of Harrison, but border- ing on White Plains, appears to have been held at first as a tract
1 ' JOHN HARRISON, late of Flushing in Queen's County,' and ' SAMUEL HAIGHT of Flushing,' are thus named in the partition deod above referred to. In 1750, Samuel Harrison, supposed to be a brother of John, was living in the purchase. (Rye Records, C. 255.) WILLIAM LAWRENCE, 'of Flushing,' is mentioned (Records, C. 118.) The following persons, who were early settlers in the purchase, are also known to have come from the same place : WILLIAM FOWLER (Records, B. 180, C. 45), WILLIAM MARSHI (Ibid. C. 118), WILLIAM THORNE (Ibid.), HENRY FRANKLIN (Ibid. C. 255, 261), ANTHONY FIELD (Bolton, History of Westchester County, i. 259).
THOMAS TREDWELL and JOHN THOMAS were from Hempstead, L. I. So, proba- bly, was RICHARD SEAMAN. (Rye Records, D. 148.) Thomas was the son of a missionary of the Church of England settled in that town. SAMUEL CHEESEMAN Was from Oyster Bay (Ibid. C. 14), THOMAS CARPENTER, ' of the island of Nassau,' probably from the same town (Ibid. D. 149).
2 ' The Humble Petition of Samuel Haight, John Way and Robert Field on behalf of themselves and the rest of the Freeholders of Queen's County of the persnasion and profession of the people called Quakers,' was addressed to Governor Nanfan, of New York, October 3d, 1701. They complain that in a late election of representa- tives in Queen's County, they and others were interrupted of their right and priv- ilege of voting by the justices. ( Documentary History of New York, vol. iii. 1007.)
The Society of Friends had numerous adherents in the towns of Long Island. Lists given in the Documentary History of New York, vol. iii. pp. 1027-30, contain several of the names above given. Compare also Thompson's History of Long Island, vol. ii. p. 68, seq.
3 Roger Park, of Rye, had acquired lands in Harrison's Purchase, which are owned by some of the name at the present day, as early as 1740. (Records, C. 170.) Rev. James Wetmore owned a farm in the lower part of the purchase. William Horton owned lands on 'Brown's point,' near St. Mary's Pond, in 1757. (Ibid. D. 116, 178 ) Gilbert Bloomer owned in 1743 a farm which he then sold to Thomas Carpenter, situated where Mr. Charles Park has lately bought.
104
HARRISON'S PURCHASE.
distinct from either purchase. The principal proprietors in the lower part of this tract were Obadiah and David, sons of Joseph Purdy, who owned lands situated here at the time of his death in 1709. Home-lots of fifteen acres each were owned here in 1725, by John Haight, Caleb Hyat, Abraham Miller, Francis La Count, and others. In 1749, Daniel Cornell sold his house and 130 acres on Brown's Point ' near Mamaroneck River,' to Daniel Merritt. In 1739, Walter Williams sold eighty acres at the same place to Eliezur Yeomans. In 1752, David Purdy sold sixty-six acres 'on Brown's Point near the White Plains ' to Michael Chatterton ; bounded west by John Horton's mill-pond, and east by Mamaro- neck River. In 1757, William Hooker Smith, oldest son of the Rev. John Smith, of Rye, owned land on Brown's Point, and in 1769, Thomas Smith, his younger brother, bonght a house and thirteen acres of land, beginning at the bridge across the Causeway Brook, and lying between the brook and the road to Jolin Hor- ton's mill. Here, in a house which is still standing, Dr. Smith passed the last years of his life.
Harrison's Purchase was first settled about the year 1724. The earliest transfers of land in this tract are of that date, and the first local officers for this part of the town were appointed then. We find Samuel Field chosen as 'surveyor for haryesns pattue ' in 1724, and ' sheep-master' in 1725 ; and Roger Park, chosen as ' pounder ' in 1729. Until the Revolution, the inhabitants of the purchase participated with those of Rye in the transaction of town business, without any other distinction than that of having their own officers for the discharge of these local functions. In 1773 the board of supervisors for Westchester County refused to recognize a supervisor for Harrison, as distinct from the town of Rye.1 Har- rison also formed one of the six precincts of the parish of Rye, under the semi-ecclesiastical system of which we shall speak in an- other chapter. Elsewhere we shall also give an account of the Society of Friends in the purchase, and of various interesting oc- currences within this part of the town during the Revolution. It only remains for us to add here, that Harrison was organized as a separate township on the seventh of March, 1788.
1 Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westehester for 1869; Appendix, pp. 9, 10.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE.
1650-1870.
TT has been the fortune of MASS: GİKİMASSACHUSETTS LINEOF the town of Rye to be con- t 1 1 1 1 1 B cerned from the first in a bound- 1 LINE AGREED ON IN 166 ary dispute which has been pronounced 'one of the most NEW YORK remarkable on record.' 1 This controversy has referred to the OPO'KEEPSIE line separating the Dutch terri- HUDSON RIVER 1 1 tory of New Netherland, after- NEWBURGH O ward the British province of 1 New York, from the colony of WEST POINT EQUIVALENT TRACK" Connecticut. The differences 0 CONNECTICUT - APEEKSKILL RIDGEFIELD ANGLE M 20 MILES that arose in this connection HWILTON ANGLE were a fruitful source of un- -- SING SING 1 OF 16501 DUKES .TREES easiness and strife to our inhab- 1 itants for a period of seventy O BYRAM R C NEW MAMARONECK L.I. SOUND RIVER JERSEY years and more. This prac- tical inconvenience ceased in ON LINE A the year 1731, when the line was at length virtually fixed LONG ISLAND where it is now considered to N.Y. CITY be. But, strictly speaking, the question is an open one even yet. Strange to say, after a lapse of two hundred years, the boundary between New York and Con-
1 Report of the Commissioners appointed to ascertain the Boundary between the States of New York and Connecticut, April 9, 1856. Senate Document No. 165.
Report of the Commissioners to ascertain and settle the Boundary Line between the States of New York and Connecticut. Transmitted to the Legislature February 8,1861. Albany : 1861.
From these two documents chiefly the account here given of the controversy has been prepared. I have availed myself partienlarly of the historical sketch pre- fixed to the report of 1856, using the language as well as the facts where conven- ient. Other authorities will be referred to.
106
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE.
necticut remains unsettled in 1870 ; nor is there any immediate prospect of its determination.
Every school-boy has noticed the singular zigzag course of this boundary line, as it approaches the shore of the Sound. Instead of proceeding directly southward, in continuation of the line (K I) which forms the western boundary of Massachusetts, it diverges, at a distance of sixteen miles from the coast, to a southeasterly course, and runs for nearly seven miles in a straight line (IH) toward the Sound. Next, it strikes off at a right angle with this course, and runs for fifteen miles parallel with the Sound (HD) toward the Hudson River. At length it turns again to the southeast, and completes its way to the Sound (D C) in the same direction with the first deviating line. By this erratic course, five towns and part of a sixth, which would otherwise fall within the territory of New York, are cut off and inclosed within the limits of Connecticut. Greenwich, Stamford, Darien, New Canaan, Norwalk, and a part of Wilton, are the favored towns, while Rye just falls short of being thus included with them in that goodly land.
This peculiarity of our border - as noticeable as the famous ' Pan-handle' of Virginia - has its explanation in the history of the boundary dispute. It is a memorial not only of long and angry controversies which have been waged with reference to this line, but of the ignorance and uncertainty which in early times prevailed regarding the geography of the country, and in a great measure oc- casioned the whole trouble. It reminds us how utterly in the dark, respecting the form and character of the land we inhabit, were those who laid claim to its possession but a couple of centuries ago. ' The sources and directions of the Nile or Niger,' it has been truly said, ' have not in the present century been more shrouded in mys- tery, or given rise to more absurd conjectures, than attached ' in those days ' to the St. Lawrence, the Connecticut, the Hudson, and the Delaware rivers.'
The differences relative to this boundary question began, as we have said, in the times of the Dutch. We have already seen how conflicting were their claims and those of the neighboring English. Massachusetts and Connecticut professed a right to the whole ter- ritory beyond them, westward to the Pacific Ocean. Holland ad- vanced a counter claim to the domain of the colonies, eastward to the Connecticut River, if not to Cape Cod. The first proposal to adjust these differences came from Peter Stuyvesant, in the year 1650. His conference with the English at Hartford resulted in an agreement on various matters in dispute, one of which was
107
DIFFERENCES WITHI THE DUTCH.
the vexed question of the boundary. It was resolved that the line should ' begin at the west side of Greenwich bay, being about four miles from Stamford, and so run a northerly line twenty miles up into the country, and after as it shall be agreed by the two govern- ments of the Dutch and of New Haven, provided the said line come not within ten miles of Hudson river.'
This agreement, which seems to have been entered into by the Dutch in perfect good faith, never acquired the force of law, as it was not sanctioned by the governments at home. The English practically disregarded it in their subsequent steps to plant settle- ments along the coast, even beyond the specified line. A second conference took place thirteen years after, on the thirteenth of October, 1663.
The correspondence on this subject, preserved in the archives at Hartford, is very curious. The proposition made by Connecticut ' to the Agents of the Dutch Governor that came from the Man- hadoes ' was, among other things, ' That West Chester and all ye people and lands Between that & Stamford shall belong to this Colony of Connecticutt till it be other wise issued.' Governor Stuyvesant's agents refused this proposal, but made another, as fol- lows: ' Westchester with the land & people to Stamford shall Abide under the Government of Connectecute tell the tyme that the bounds and limits betwixt the Abovesaid Collonij and the pro- vince of new Netherlands shall be Determined heare [by our mu- tual Accord or by persons mutually chosen, margin] or by his Royal Majesty of england and the high and mighty lords the estates of the vnited provinces.' 1
The Dutch, however, soon vanished from the scene; and now began a conflict of clainis among the English themselves. On the twenty-third of April, 1662, King Charles II. by that famous char- ter, afterward so remarkably preserved, granted to the colony of Connecticut a territory described as follows : -
' All that part of our dominion in America bounded on the east by Narraganset River, commonly called Naragonsit Bay, where the said river falleth into the sea, and on the north by the line of the Massachu- setts plantation, and on the south by the sea ; and in longitude as the line of the Massachusetts colony, running from east to west ; that is to say, from the said Narraganset Bay on the east to the South Sea on the west part ; with the islands thereto adjoining, ' etc.
This grant not only covered the territory formerly in dispute with the Dutch, but included also the greater part of that claimed
1 Colonial Boundaries Hartford (MS.), vol. ii. doc. 4.
108
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE.
by the Dutch on the Hudson River, leaving them only a few miles at the mouth of that stream. .
The remainder of the Dutch territory King Charles conveyed to his brother the Duke of York and Albany, on the twenty-fourth of March, 1663. The charter setting forth this conveyance gives him that part of the continent east of Massachusetts now comprised in the province of New Brunswick and the State of Maine, - with some variations of the boundaries, - and also the whole of Long Island, ' together with all the river called Hudson river, and the land from the west side of the Connecticut river to the east side of Delaware bay.'
Comparing the two charters with the map of the country before us, we perceive at once that the king bestowed upon his brother not only the lands held and occupied by the Dutch, to which he had no shadow of a claim, but also the greater part of what by a solemn charter he had only a few months before granted and guar- anteed to the colony of Connecticut !
The Duke of York at once prepared to take possession of his royal brother's magnificent gift ; and for that purpose sent out an armed force under the command of Colonel Richard Nicolls, to whom the city of New Amsterdam was surrendered on the seventh of September, 1664. The whole of New Netherland became sub- ject to his government on the twelfth of the next month. The administration of the province devolved upon Colonel Nicolls, who also held in conjunction with three officers under his command the power to settle questions respecting the contested boundaries of the patent.
Though the charter of Connecticut was of earlier execution, and consequently of greater authority than the patent to the Duke of York, the inhabitants of that colony naturally felt considerable alarm at his Majesty's disregard of their rights, and in view of the advent of so powerful a claimant to their lands. Accordingly the General Assembly of the colony hastened to appoint delegates to , accompany their governor to New York, for the purpose of con- gratulating the duke's commissioners, and settling the boundary with them.
On the twenty-eighth of October, 1664, these delegates met the commissioners, and without any difficulty agreed upon a settlement of the boundary between the province and the colony. It was un- derstood that the limit should be fixed at a distance of twenty miles east of the Hudson River, running parallel with that stream north- ward from Long Island Sound. An agreement to this effect was
109
A BLIND TREATY.
written out, but did not receive the signatures of the parties. The treaty actually signed a few weeks later, described an entirely dif- ferent line. According to this, it was ordered and declared ' that ye Creeke or ryver called Momoronock weh is reported to be about thirteen myles to ye East of West Chester and a lyne drawne from ye East point or Syde where ye fresh water falls into ye Salt, at high water marke North North west to ye line of ye Massachusetts, be ye westerne bounds of ye said Colony of Connecticutt.'
Little did the commissioners who agreed to this arrangement imagine whither a boundary thus projected would carry them. Manifestly, they supposed that a line drawn in a direction north- northwest from the mouth of Mamaroneck River, which was said to be about twenty miles east of the Hudson, would continue at the same distance from the river till it should reach the Massachusetts border. So far from this, however, a look at the map will show that such a line ( A B) must intersect the Hudson near West Point, and even cut off a large traet of land on the other side of that river, be- fore reaching the southern boundary of Massachusetts, which at that time it was claimed ran across the continent to the sea! Whether it was the design of the delegates from Connecticut to mislead in this matter or not, they certainly made the most of their advantage, and soon extended their settlements to the banks of the Hudson.
The people of Rye were particularly interested in this construc- tion of the compact. Their town had been organized under the jurisdiction of Connecticut ; and as the remotest settlement of that colony, its territory would of course reach to the extreme western boundary, wherever that might be fixed. A survey made about the year 1680 showed the inhabitants what a wide extent of coun- try they could now legally claim. It appears that they actually tried to enforce this claim. Some inhabitants of Rye - who they were we do not know - attempted about this time to occupy and settle the lands along the Hudson, which fell within the line traced from the mouth of Mamaroneck River. Meeting with opposition in this attempt, they complain to the legislature of Connecticut, who gravely present the matter to the governor of New York as a grievance that requires redress. The letter stating these facts is dated Hartford, May 11, 1682.
' May it please your Hon"", write the magistrates, 'We your friends and neighbours the Governor and General Assembly of his Majesty's Colony of Connecticut ' having 'at our present session had information and complaint made unto us that sundry persons under your jurisdiction. and particularly Mr. Frederick Phillips,
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.