USA > New York > Columbia County > History of Columbia County, New York. With illustrations and biographical sketches of some of its prominent men and pioneers > Part 9
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 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105 | Part 106 | Part 107 | Part 108 | Part 109 | Part 110 | Part 111 | Part 112 | Part 113 | Part 114 | Part 115 | Part 116
Germantown was formed into a district April 1, 1775. Hillsdale was taken from Claverack and made a district March 26, 1782.
The city of Hudson was incorporated April 22, 1785, to include all the territory embraced within the boundaries of Major Abraham's (Stockport) ercek on the north, Claverack creek on the east, the north line of the district of the manor of Livingston on the south, and the Hudson river on the west.
The districts were all formed prior to the organization of Columbia county, which was erected as such by act of Legis- latnre, passed April 4, 1876,f as follows :
" AN ACT to divide the County of Albany into two Counties.
" Whereas, the County of Albany is so Extensive as to be Incon- venient to its Inhabitants, therefore be it enacted by the People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the Authority of the same, that that part of the County of Albany which lies on the East sido of Hudson's River, ou the South side of the North Line of Kinderhook District, and on the South of the North Line of King's District, shall be one separate and Distinet Conoty, and shall be called and known by the name uf Co- lumbia; nod be it further enneted by the authority aforesaid, that the said County of Columbia shall bold and enjoy all the Rights, Privi-
On the first day of April, 1799, the south boundary line of the county was defined to be " a duo East line drawn from the South bank of the Sawyer's Kill, on the west side of Hudson's river, continued due East till it meets with a line settled and established between Robert R. Livingstun and Zachariah Iloffmao, deceased, and others as the mutual boundary so far as it respected them individually, then along the same as far as it runs, and thence on the same course continued to the southermost bond of Roeloff Jaosen's Kill."
1149163
36
HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY, NEW YORK.
leges, and Immunities which appertain to other Counties within this State.
" And be it further Enacted by the authority aforesaid, that the Court-House and Gaot for the said County of Colambia shall he erected at or near the place where the old church in Claverack now stands.
(Signed) " PIERRE VAN CORTLANDT, Pres. Sen. " JOHN LANSING, JR., Speaker. " GEO. CLINTON."
The original towns of Columbia county, seven in num- ber, were erected as such by an act passed March 7, 1788 ; their territorial description and boundaries being established by that act as follows, viz. :
" All that part of the County of Columbia bounded westerly and northerly by the County'of Albany, soatherly by the north hounds of the city of Hadson as far as the first falts in Major Abraham's Creek, and from thence running east aad easterly by a line running from a place in the north line of the county of Columbia ten miles distant from Hudson's River, due south, until it strikes the said last line from the said Falls," to be the town of Kinderhook ; and
" Alt that part of the said county now called Kings District bounded westerly by Kinderhook, northerly by the County of Albany, easterly by the east bounds of the State, and southerly by the said east line from the first falls in Major Abraham's Creek aforesaid, con- tinaed to the east bounds of this State, shall be, and hereby is, erected into a town by the name of Canaan ;" and
" All that part bounded southerly by the Manor of Livingston, westerly by the city of Hudson, northerly by Kinderbook, and east- erly by a line beginning at the southeast corner of Kinderhook, and running thence south fourteen degrees west to the Manor of Living- ston," was established as the town of Claverack ; and
" All that part of the said coanty hoanded westerly by Claverack, northerly by Canaan, easterly by the east bounds of this State, and southerly by the Manor of Livingston and the north line thereof, con- tinued to the east hounds of the State," was erected as Hillsdale; and
" All that part of said county beginning on the south side of the mouth of a certain river, commonly called Roeloff Jansen's Kill, and ranning thence along the south side of said river eastwardly until it eomes to the Tract of Land heretofore granted to Dirck Wessels, lying on both sides of said river, thence along the westerly, northerly, and easterly bounds of the said tract untit it again enmes to the said river, and then along the south side of the said river, and then (by various courses) till it meets with the north line of the county of Dutchess, and thence westerly along the Line of the said county of Datchess to Hudson's River, and thence northerly up along said river to the place of beginning," was erected as the town of Clermont, " except therenut the Tract of Country called the German, or East Camp ;" and
" All that part of the said county known by the name of the Ger- man, nr East Camp," was erected as Germantown.
" And all the remaining Part of the said county of Colambia shall be and is hereby erected into a town by the name of Livingston."
The other towns which are at present embraced in the county have been formed and erected as follows:
Chatham, formed from Canaan and Kinderhook, ereeted March 17, 1795.
Ancram, from Livingston, erected as Gallatin, March 19, 1803; name changed as at present March 25, 1814.
Taghkanic, from Livingston, erccted as Granger, March 19, 1803 ; present name adopted March 25, 1814.
Austerlitz, from Canaan, Chatham, and Hillsdale, erected March 28, 1818.
Ghent, from Chatham, Claveraek, and Kinderhook, erected April 3, 1818.
New Lebanon, from Canaan, erected April 21, 1818. Stuyvesant, from Kinderhook, erected April 21, 1823. Copake, from Taghkanic, erected March 26, 1824. Gallatin, from Ancram, erected March 27, 1830.
Stockport, from Hudson, Ghent, and Stuyvesant, erected April 30, 1833.
Greenport, from Hudson, erected March 13, 1837.
Additional territory taken from Clermont was given to Germantown, March 2, 1858.
CHAPTER VII.
THE MASSACHUSETTS BOUNDARY-ANTI-RENT- 1751-1852.
THE peculiar disturbances known as anti-rent troubles may be said to have existed in Columbia county for a full century before their final extinguishmeut, for, although the long series of violent and unlawful acts which were com- mitted in the vicinity of the eastern border, and which had their commencement about the year 1750, have been most frequently mentioned as growing out of the question of the disputed boundary line between New York and Massachusetts, yet it is doubtful whether the controversy between the provinces was not less a cause of than a con- venient excuse for the lawlessness of those who were deter- mined to free themselves from the burden of yearly rent to the manors, particularly that of Livingston, which, as they asserted, owed its very existence to " falsehood and fraudu- lent pretenscs."
This question of boundary had been long held in dispute. By the government of New York it was maintained that their eastern limit was the Connecticut river, because " that the Dutch claimed the colony of New Netherlandt as cx- tending from Cape Cod to Cape Cornelius, now called Cape Henlopen, Westward of Delaware Bay along the Sea Coast, and as far back as any of the Rivers within these Limits extend ; and that they were actually possessed of Connect- icut River long before any other European People knew anything of the Existence of such a River, and were not only possessed of the Mouth of it, where they had a Fort and Garrison, but discovered the River above a hundred miles up, had their People trading there, and purchased of the Natives almost all the Lauds on both sides of the said River, and that the Dutch Governor Stuyvesant did in the year 1664 surrender all the Country which the Dutch did then possess to King Charles the Second, and that the States-General made a Cession thereof by the Treaty of Breda in the year 1667. That the Dutch re-conquered part of this Province in 1673, and surrendered and abso- lutely yielded it to King Charles the Second, in 1673-74, by the Treaty of London, and that in 1674 King Charles granted to the Duke of York all the Land between Con- necticut River and Delaware Bay."
The Massachusetts government scouted this argument, and in turn claimed westward at least as far as the Hudson river,* although, as they said, they " had for a long Time
# For the ulterior purpose of establishing their claims upon the Hudson the Boston government had, as early as 1659, made a grant of land on the Hadsou river, below Furt Orange, and in 1672 they sent John Payne to New York to solicit permission to pass and re- pass hy water. He was received by the authorities with great con- sideration and courtesy, and his request was referred to the king, but was never granted.
37
HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY, NEW YORK.
neglected the settlement of the West Bounds, they lying very remote from Boston."
The council of New York inquired, " By what Warrant they Claim or Exercise any right To soil or Jurisdiction west of Connecticut River ?" The general court of Mas- sachusetts, in a report made to their governor, September 11, 1753, retorted that " It is Demanded of this Govern- ment What Right we have to Soil or Jurisdiction West of Connecticut River, Suggesting that it was but very lately they knew we had any possessions West of that River; this proceeding of the Gentlemen of New York appears indeed extraordinary, as severall of our ancient and best Towns Had been settled West of this River about an hundred Years, and the Shire Town of Springfield near a hundred and Twenty Years."
" On the first reading of the above paragraph," said the committee of the council of New York, in a report made November 16, 1753, " few of us doubted but that the Shire Town of Springfield had been situated on the west side of Connecticut river Till we were informed that it was on the East side of that river, and that Mr. Poplis' Large map Represents it so, which Information some of us doubts the Truth of, Because of the Difficulty of Reconciling it with what was Conceived the Obvious sense of the above para- graph." And the committee proceeded to say that "The Massachusetts Government have been pleased to appoint a time and place for the meeting of their Commissioners with those of this province. If they would have been pleased to have Recollected that the Government of this Province is his Majesty's Immediate Government, which theirs is not, it would have been something more Decent to have referred the naming of those things to this Government .* And as his Majesty is concerned in the Controversy, and no Settlement which can be made by any authority derived from Both Governments without the Royal Direction, par- ticipation, and Concurrence can be Binding on the Crown, we Conceive that the appointment of Commissioners for the purpose would not only be fruitless and Ineffectual to the Determination of the Controversy, but also Derogatory To the rights of the Crown and disrespectfull to his most Sacred Majesty."
And thus the controversy grew more complicated as time elapsed, neither party appearing willing to concede, though both were evidently conscious of the extravagance of their claims; for it is noticeable that in the voluminous corre- spondence which ensued between the governments in refer- ence to the numerous acts of aggression committed by the respective partisans upon the disputed territory, frequent allusion was made to the distance from the river at which those acts were perpetrated; this being really an acknowl- edgment on both sides that the boundary should be, and probably would be, established on the basis suggested by the commissioners of the crown in 1664, and, as between New York and Connecticut, agreed on by Governors Don-
gan and Treat in 1685, and confirmed by King William March 28, A.D. 1700; namely, a line running generally parallel to, and twenty miles east of, the Hudson river.
It was in the fall of 1751 that the first symptoms of dis- " turbance became manifest, in defiant threats made by the tenants on Livingston manor against their landlord, Robert Livingston, Jr., grandson of the first proprietor. Many of these tenants had neglected to pay their rents, and now neglect grew into refusal, open defiance, and an avowed purpose to continue their occupation, not as tenants, but as owners, under authority of grants to be secured from the government of Massachusetts Bay. Among the earliest, and at that time the principal, malcontents were Michael Hallenbeck, a tenant upon the manor for thirty years, and Josiah Loomis, an ore-digger at the iron mines, and a tenant for twelve years under Livingston, who now brought action of trespass against Hallenbeck, and warned Loomis off his manor. Whether this action of the proprietor was the cause of, or was caused by, their rebellious conduct does not clearly appear, but it resulted in their seeking protection from the assumed authority of the adjoining province.
Not long after Livingston received a letter from a resident of Sheffield, the tenor of which was as follows :
" March 24, 1752.
" SIR,-in consequence of an order of a Committee of the General Court of the Province of Massachusetts Bay to lay out Equivalents in the Province land, I have begun on the East side of Tackinick Bar- rick and laid out a large Farm which encompasses the Dwellings of Michael Hallenbeeck and Josiah Loomis, and you may depend on it the Province will assert their rights to said lands. I have heard you have sucd the one and threatened the other, which possibly may not turn out to your advantage. I should have gladly seen you and talk'd of tho affair with Calmness and in a friendly manner, which I hope to have an opportunity to do. In the mean time, I am, Sır, your very humble servant, OLIVER PARTRIDGE."
This seems to mark the commencement of a long-con- tinued series of active hostilities between the two provinces.
On the 16th of April, 1752, Mr. Livingston made his grievances known in a communication addressed to the governor, requesting that official to cause the apprehension and committal of such persons as should disturb his pos- sessions under pretense of authority from Massachusetts. The petition was referred to Attorney-General William Smith, who reported that in his opinion it was most ex- pedient for the governor " not to Interpose at present by any Extraordinary Act or Order, but leave the Petitioner to his Ordinary Remedy at Law ;. and if any of his Possessions are forcibly taken or forcibly held from him, the Statutes of England being duly put in Execution will sufficiently punish the offenders and afford a speedy Relief to the Petitioner."
On the 22d of November, 1752, William Bull and fifty- seven others, many of them tenants upon the manors of Livingston and Van Rensselaer petitioned the Massa- chusetts general court for a grant of land, which they de- scribed as " Beginning at the Top of the first Great Moun- tain west of Sheffield, running northwesterly with the General course of the Mountain about nine or Ten miles ; thence turning and running West about six Miles, thence running Southerly to the North Line of Connecticut out; thence running Easterly to the first-mentioned Boundary."+
* Commissioners appointed by both provinces, however, met in conference at Albany in June, 1754, " hut could not come to any sort of agreement ; and if we may be allowed to judge of this transaction from events which have happened since, instead of operating as a remedy to the evil, it has had quite a contrary effect."-Report of the Lords of Trade to the King, May 25, 1757.
+ These boundaries clearly inclose a tract of which a great por- tion is included in the present bounds of Massachusetts.
38
HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY, NEW YORK.
This petition of Bull and others was regarded by Mr. Livingston as "the Groundwork of all the proceedings" by which he was afterwards so seriously disturbed in his pos- sessions ; and this view seems to have been shared by the Legislature of Massachusetts, who reported " that the pres- ent warmth and disorders arose upon, or at least quickly after, the Petition of some persons (who had encroach'd on this Province's ungranted Lands West of Sheffield) ; that the General Court of this Province would sell or dis- pose of to them the Lands they thus possesst ;" proceeding to state that " not long after this a Number of persons in the Employ of Robert Livingston, jr., Esqr., burnt down the Dwelling-house of George Robinson, one of these Pe- titioners, and Mr. Livingston caused his Body to be attached and Committed to Albany Gaol, by a Warrant from Authority in New York Province, who was after- wards Bailed by Order of this Government ;" but Living- ston declared that he caused Robinson's incarceration for trespass in carrying away his (Livingston's) goods, and that in his opinion the bailing and defending of him by the Massachusetts government was "an Aiding and abet- ting of the said Trespass, and an Encouragement to future Trespassers of the like kind."
In the spring of 1753 the Massachusetts government, under the plea that they "judged it vain to attempt any- thing by way of Treaty in the Controversy," appointed Joseph Dwight, Esq., Colonel Bradford, and Captain Liver- more a committee to view the lands west of Sheffield and Stockbridge, and report the exact state of affairs there. In the report of the doings of this committee it is narrated that they met Robert Livingston upon the ground in April, 1753, and that it was mutually agreed that all proceedings should be held in abeyance, awaiting a final adjustment of the boundary ; but that notwithstanding this, in July " Mr. Livingston, with above sixty men, armed with Guns, Swords, and Cutlasses, in a very hostile and riotous man- ner, entered upon part of said Lands in the possession of Josiah Loomis, Cut down his Wheat and carried it away in his Wagons, and destroyed above five acres of Indian Corn."
The account given by Mr. Livingston, however, was ma- terially different. He related that having met the com- mittee and explained the tenure by which he held the lands, showing his boundaries, and that the extent of his patent was nineteen miles and thirty rods eastward from Hudson's river into the woods, they all proceeded to Taghkanic, where they found a great number of people were collected, to whom the committee recommended that they remain quiet and satisfied until the settlement of a division line, and that such as were tenants should pay their rents hon- estly to the landlord. It was his belief, however, that the committee were insincere in this, desiring only to quiet him for the time being, so that they could afterwards execute their scheme without his presence or interruption ; and that after his departure to his manor-house they secretly gave orders for the survey of the tract petitioned for by William Bull and others ; which, he added, was accordingly done by seven New England men, assisted by the sons of four of his tenants, and they took possession by the construction of a tree-fence. And that as to the matter of Josiah Loomis, he
was a tenant at will, and had been ordered to leave the manor two years before; whereon the said Loomis had begged leave to stay long enough to raise one more summer crop, after which he promised he would remove. Instead of which he prepared to put in still another crop, which Mr. Livingston, on being informed of the fact, plainly declared to him that he should never reap ; in accordance with which warning he (Livingston) at harvest-time " went with a Suf- ficient number of people, and did accordingly Cutt Down and Carry away that crop, as it was Lawful and right for him to do."
These occurrences were followed by many similar ones, acts of aggression and retaliation committed by both parties; not of great moment, except as showing how the temper and animosities of the contestants were gradually wrought up and increased until they became ripe for more serious ontrages.
A man named Joseph Payne was arrested in 1753 by Mr. Livingston for the alleged destruction of about eleven hundred trees near the Ancram furnace, and was imprisoned in the Albany jail in default of bail to the amount of one thousand pounds, which was afterwards furnished by Col- onel Lydius, at the instance of the Boston government. This occurrence was the eause of much bitterness of feel- ing and many recriminations. On the 19th of July in that year a party of men, of whom Captain David Inger- soll, of Sheffield, was said to be a ringleader, claiming to act under authority from Massachusetts, entered the house of Robert Vanduesen, taking him and his son Johannes as prisoners to the jail at Springfield upon charge of being members of the party who despoiled the crops of Josiah Loomis. Nine days later the governor issued his proclama- tion ordering the arrest and imprisonment of these rioters, upon which Michael Hallenbeck (who was said to be one of the number) was arrested and imprisoned in the jail of Dutchess county. Concerning this arrest the general court of Massachusetts reported (Sept. 11, 1753) to their gover- nor that " Michael Halenbeck, whom they (the New York partisans) supposed to favor the taking of the Van Dusars, has been apprehended and closely confined in Dutehess county jail (it is said to be in a dungeon), and the most un- exceptional Bail refused," and it was voted that the gover- nor be desired as soon as might be to write very particu- larly on this affair to the governor of New York. This Governor Shirley did, and in due time received the reply of Governor Clinton, dated Oct. 1, 1753, assuring him " that Michael Hallinbeck, who was lately confined in the Gaol of Dutchess County, made his Escape from thence with several other debtors. Nor can I think he met with any severe Treatment while there. It must be a mistake that he was confined in a Dungeon, there being, I am told, no such Place belonging to that Gaol; and as to Bail being re- fused for his Appearance, in this, too, I imagine your Gov- ernment has been misinformed, for, as he was committed on the Proclamation I issued, with the Advice of the Council, he could not have been admitted to Bail but by Applica- cation to the Chancellor or to one of the Judges of the Supreme Court, and I am well assured no such Application was ever made."
The Indian irruptions of 1754, at Hoosick and Stock-
39
HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY, NEW YORK.
bridge, had caused the organization of several military com- panies in the vicinity of the border and within the disputed territory. There were at least two of these in Sheffield, commanded by Captains David Ingersoll and John Ashley, one at Taghkanie, with Michael Hallenbeck as captain, and one at Claverack, under Robert Noble, a tenant of Rensselaerwyck ; all these being under commission by the governor of Massachusetts ; while Robert Livingston, Jr., and Direk Ten Broeck, holding respectively the commissions of captain and lieutenant from the governor of New York, commanded a company made up of men living on both the Livingston and the Van Rensselaer manors. These com- panies, especially those of Noble and Hallenbeck, were not provided with a full complement of muskets, but the defi- ciency in this particular was made good by the use of pikes, cutlasses, and hatchets, which perhaps answered all the purposes of firearms. It was chiefly to meet the exigencies of Indian attack that these bodies were organized,* but it is found that they were used to no small extent as agents of intimidation, and even of bloodshed, in the bitter quarrel of which we write.
The disaffection which first appeared among Livingston's tenants had now spread to those of the manor of Van Rensselaer, the proprietor of which, in an affidavit made at Claverack, Feb. 22, 1755, deposed " that one Robert Noble and severall other of his Tenants within the said mannor had Entered into a Confirmation with some Boston People, and disclaimed being any Longer Tenants to or under him, and gave out and pretended to hold their Lands and pos- sessions within the said Mannor under the Boston Govern- ment, and that they had taken Clark Pixley, one of the Constables of Claverack in the said Mannor, and by force of Arms, and had Carried him thence, and one John Mor- ress, prisoners into Boston Government, and also had been Guilty of other Outrages and Threatenings upon severall other of his Tennents, in order to force and Compell them to Join in opposing the Deponent's Rights and Title in the said Mannor; .... and that he was informed that his Excellency Governour Shirley had given the said Robert Noble a Commission to be Captain of a Company within Claverack in the Manor of Rensselaerwyck, and that he had also appointed and Commissionated several other Mili- tary Officers to Doe Duty and Have Jurisdiction Within the said Mannor, and also in the Mannor of Livingston."
The cause of the capture of Clark Pixley and John Morris does not appear. They were seized on the 7th of February, by Robert Noble and a part of his company, and were taken to Springfield jail. On the 11th, Sheriff Abra- ham Yates, Jr., with a posse, and accompanied by John Van Rensselaer and his brother Henry, set out from Clav- erack, and proceeded towards Noble's house, for the pur- pose of effecting his arrest. On their way they saw and captured Thomas Whitney, one of the party who took Pix-
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.