Colonial Land Grants
in Dutchess County,
N.Y.
A Case Study in Settlement
by William P. McDermott
n 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 Ingrossed by Particular Persons, a Great Part whereof remain Uncultivated." The board threatened forfeiture of land grants which did
not "plant Settle and effectually Cultivate, at least three Acres of
Land for every fifty Acres, within three years, after the 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,
I
The Hudson Valley Regional Review, September 1986, Volume 3, Number 2
~
.S!
.a
Aertson,
Roosa, Elton
o
--- --PawlinY-4.f-
--
Sanders & Harmanse---l-4-Beekman
SchuyleL----I1+-
---
Cuyle~
-----
Philipse
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 Gran lS 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.'d o
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
Nonh Ward
Middle Ward
South Ward
Total
1714
1727
1737
9
22
18
49
121
7.
62
253
197
160
161
518
Source: Boo k o f the Supervisors of DUlchcS$ Cou nt y 1718-1737
little more than a decade. Population cominued to grow steadily
until t he 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 171 4 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, Ora nge, 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
Period
1688- 1703
1704 -1714
17 15- 1727
1728- 1737
Number of
families at
the end of
each period
Number of
families added
each period
12
49
253
5 18
37
204
265
Average number
of families
added eacb ),ear
_75
3_36
15.69
26.50
also been seuled at an early d ate, did not panicipate as full y in the
po pu latio 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 CO UIll )' is compa red to t he 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 t ha n that of Alba ny and Westchester, its rate of growth
exceeded t hat 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
129
8
5
13
253
5 18
30
89
22
Total number of settlers
Offspring of previous settler
Brother, cousin or nephew
Total
Newly arrived settle rs
Total number of settlers added
75
88
8
38
III
63
154
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 includ ed 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 slig htly less than 30
percent of the total popu lation in Dutchess in any given period.
These , then , we re t he 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 Du tchess County, N.Y.
9
thereby providing a strong base for future population growth through
natural increase. Although the large landowners' ability 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 fa milies 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 settlemen t 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 na me,'·20
The final purpose of this study is to determine where in Dutchess
County settlement occurred. This discloses wh ich of the pate nt 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 p recincts they, for the most part, did follow
pate nt lines. As a result the 1737 and 1739 assessment rolls were
compared to determine o n 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 Beekma n Patents granted to Henry Bee kma n
played a major role in the settlement of Dutchess County in the
earliest years. The number of famil ies o n 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 o n the fo llowing major patents was quite
poor: Great Nine Partners, Little Nine Partners, Philipse Highla nd
and the Oblong. Only about 14 percent of the popu lation of the
county settled on these patents. Although accounting for only 15
percent o f 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 o f 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 corrido r was not
settled evenly. Settlement probably clustered near the villages of
10
Tlu I/UWOII Vallq Rtgitmal R IWitw
TABLE IV
Assessment Roll for 173 7 Separated into Place of Residence in
1739
Precinct &: (Patent Name)
Not listed in 1739
Beekman (Henry Beekman)
Fishkill (Ro mbout)
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
Number of residents
.B
92
II I
.0
13
70
129
15
SIB
Fishkill , Po ug hkeepsie , a nd Rhinebeck. Confirmation o f this narrow
pauern of settlement is obtained froOl the description o f Dutchess
County roads exta nt in 1737. T he principal north-south road , in
places barely mo re tha n a trail of blazened trees. hugged the Hudson River as it traversed the le ngth o f the county. From this road
the re we re several shorter road s to landings on the Hudson, the
main commercial connection between Dutchess and Albany to the
no rth and New York City to the sOllth . Additio nally. there were two
road s fro m Beekman's inte rior patent. T he road from a small settlement in existe nce since 1722, called Poughquag, bro ught settlers and
their produce to the landing o n the Hudson Ri ve r in Fishkill Precinct. Approved in 1732, a new road, o nly a footpath in some places,
traveled fro m Dover in Beekma n's interior pate nt nea r the Connecticut line to the la nding o n the Hud son in Po ughkeepsie, Also, an
earlier road fro m this area had been built with its terminus on the
Hudson Ri ver in Bee kman's Rhinebeck Patent. And a new road ,
altho ugh no t yet com pleted in 1737 , WaS opened from Dover
thro ugh the southern portion o f the Great Nine I)artners Patent to
Po u g hkee psie .~s
Apparently, Henry Beekman (died 17 17) and son. He nry Jr., had
developed a successful method for auracting and reta ining settlers.
Thou gh aba ndo ned by the New York government in 171 2, the Palatines p rovided a solid base o f settlers for these two la nd grants.
Colo nel Peter Schuyler a ppears to have had little more than speculative interests; he sold all his land in Dutchess CoU11ly only a few
Colo ni al Land Cranu in Dutchess Count y. 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 bee n 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 d evelo p commercial enterprise. However, little activity was apparent by 1737 . In fact, o nly o ne member o f the owners of
these three patents, Hen ry Filkin o f the Creal Nine Panners, may
have ever set his foot o n Dutchess soil .
Settlement o n the land within the Poughkeepsie preci nct see ms to
have succeed ed because of eady rentals and sa les to ind ividuals with
agricultural or com mercial interests. These patentees seem to have
come to Poughkeepsie to stay. Roben Sa nders and Mynd en Ha rmense (Van Den Bogart) encou raged settlemem th rough transfer o f
land prio r to 169 1 to tena nts, one of whom was Sanders' brother-inlaw, Baltus Barentse Van Kleeck.tl Also, Myndert Harmense built a
saw mill prior to 1699, thereby de monstrating his serious illient to
develop the la nd 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 ho mas Sanders, a mill owner and son of
the patelllee, Robert, was also recorded on the 1714 census. Contrast
the settleme nt plans o f these patentees with those of Colonel Pete r
Schuyler. True to his speculati ve style, he had completely d isposed
of his land in Poug hkeepsie by 1699.27 In fac t, o ne of Schuyler's
three sales was mad e to Robert Sande rs and Mynden Harmense. 28
Rombout Pate nt (Fish ki ll p reci nct) was awa rded in 1685 to Francis
Rombout (died 169 1), Cui Ian Verplanck (died 1684), a nd Stephanu s
Van Cortla ndt (died 1700). Settle melll 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 o f
Francis Ro mbolll, were the o nl 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 cha nged the ir initial plan from treating their
land as a leasehold to settling the la nd thro ugh a combi nation of
leaseho ld s and sales. 29 T he Verplanck and Va n Cortlandt heirs we re
slow to d evelop the ir ponions of the la nd gra nl. ~
Recently, limited success in settling large tracts o f land in New
York has bee n ascribed to problems related to j o 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 nu mber 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 fa milies at
o nce."M But factors other than availability of settlers accou nted for
the limited success of the Livingstons on the fam ily manor. For
example, the Livingstons offered small fa rms at higher rents than
other leaseholds. Also the fam ily's imperious attitude toward tenants
was less than appealing and probably discouraged some fam ilies 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 Alban y and Westchester. 4G
What accounts for the success of Henry Beekman J r.? Even as
late as 1737 the nu mber of fam ilies on Beekman lands equalled
almost half of the total number of fam ilies 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 d id 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.
ap parently 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, o nly 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 h ave 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 famili es 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 constituColonial 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 pro bably 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
o f 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 migrau ng 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 cou rse 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. T he Leltas mid Papn5 of CaldWGllada Coldell. Collec;tioll5. New York Historkal
Society, (Ne"' York. 19 18- 1923). I (1917). 2 1I. 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 ~I anor of Cortlandt and Its Tenants. 1696-1785." (Ph.D.
diss., Michigan State Unh'ersity, 1966),83 & 85.
' Sung Bok Kim. Landlqrd and T enallt ill Colonial New York. Manorial Societ y.
1664-1775 (Cha pel 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 .• 18491851 ). 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. America n Population Before the
Fed eral Census of 1790 (New York. 1932),94 . l l 5Wiliia m P. 1>Ic;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 Gree ne and Harrington. American Population. 98.
17 Dutchess County Tax Lists. 1730-1748. Adriance Memorial Library. Poughkeepsie. N.Y.
18 Gree ne 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 th e 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 an d 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 sligh tly enlarged ,,·hen it changed from wa rd 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 Schu yler 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. Reynold s. Poughkupsie: The Origin orul Meallillg of Word. Collections.
Dutchess Count y 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 co py of
which is in Adriance Memoria[ Library Poughkee psie. N.Y. Abo note Philip Van
Conlandt, heir of one of the owners of the Rombout Patent had only six te nants on
his share of the Cortland t Mano r in 1746. Ki m. Landlord and Tuuml in Colonial New
York,151.
JO
18
Reynolds. Eiglllemih Cenlury Ru()rds. 3·4.
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), 36·41J! 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 Livingston s' 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"ingsto n. February 29, 1734, Robert R. Livingston
Papers, New York Historical Society.
OJ Philip l. White, TM BuklOO tI.S ofNtw Yorh;'1 Politia (wd CQ""'ItTCt 1647-1877 (Ne w
York, 1956), 188-189.
16 Henry Beekman to Messu Capt. Frans la Roy. Peter Vieln. Peter Parmentier
and Mighil Peltz, Decembe r 29, 1743, Yearbook, Dutchess County Historical Society.
voL 12 ( 1927), 4 1-42.
t1 Henry Beekman to Henry Livingston. April 7. 1752, Yearbook, Dutchess Coum),
Historical Society, XII ( 192 1), 37- 38; Henry Beekman to Henry Li"ingston, Decem·
ber 19, 1744, Henry Beekman Mss. New York Historical Society.
+8 Ki m, w.wlord tl.w Tenant, 372 .
•9 William P. McDermott, "The Dutch in Colonial Dutchess: Declining NumbersContinuing Influ ence," Yearbook. Dutchess County Historical Society, voJ. LXX
( 1938), 10.
50 J. Wilson Poucher, "Dutchess County Me n of the Revolutionary Period- Henry
Livingston," Yea rbook, 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 Inte rest of the County in la ying Duties." Tilt LtlllT$ and
Papn-s ofCadwallatkr Coldm. I I, 268.
Colonial land Gra n15 in Dutchess Coumy. N.Y.
"