Category Archives: Historical

MEMORIAL DAY FOR THOSE WHO SUFFERED

27 Sunday May 2012

Posted by in Historical, Odds and Ends

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

My thanks to Stephanie Lane who posted one of the clearest messages on what it means for others to suffer in our name. Thank you, once again, Stephanie for the inspiration to add some of my own feeling. Please visit Stephanie’s post linked below. The following photo is from her post.

http://stephanielane2012.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/in-memory-andersonville-ga/ 

A MEMORIAL

It was two full days before Memorial Day,

“Decoration Day” as we children would say,

It was necessary that I check my old folk’s grave,

Clean up the stone, trim grass and stay brave.

 

And when I was through I looked far around,

There were many stories that lay in the ground,

I can’t tell you, personally, that I knew them true,

But I have some time to tell you about a few.

 

There is Richard, “Died in nineteen-forty three,”

The memorial words say he had been “Lost at Sea,”

And there is Jason, “Jay Bedford laid here to rest,”

Also written “He fell in the French Argonne Forest.”

 

York, Holderman – – – they and Whittlesey too,

Also fell there, other heroes, not simply just a few.

“Medal Of Honor” deep chiseled on each stone,

All men of valor, everyone made of flesh and bone.

 

There are Prisoners Of War many never returned,

Bones in an ash pit, remains twisted and burned,

Others came back, with many experiences unspoken,

Memories horrible, personalities temporarily broken.

 

The Andersonville horror spoken of so eloquently,

By “David Kennedy, Ohio Calvary”, firm yet gently,

“It takes seven men to make a shadow – Dear Statesman,”

Starving prisoners you never see, do you really hate men?”

 

Dysentery, water rare, leaves skin and bone,

Twelve thousand died only 460 “unknown,”

Providence Spring broke the “Dead Line Gate,”

Clearly marked now, but then; too little, too late.”

 

Charlottesville, Albemarle, and Winchester too,

In the Revolution were three, to name only a few,

Union’s Camps; Douglas, Chase, Fort Delaware,

Elmira Prison, a disaster, no one seemed to care.

 

Hell-hole, Andersonville, with daily burning sky,

Outdone by Blackshear, Danville, and Fort Pulaski,

Camps Pinckney, Ford, and the Florence Stockade,

Through human waste and bodies, one had to wade.

 

Allied camps, Axis Camps and UN Prisons,

Strange sounding names, unforgettable visions,

Korean camps named “Changsong on the Yalu,”

P’yong-yang, Kangdong, Pukchin to name a few.

 

Continue; Bagram, Camp Bucca, and I am afraid,

Camp Delta, internment, shame at Abu Ghraib,

As I continue my walk through the cemetery so green,

There are many more reminders everywhere to be seen.

 

There is “Bill” with a flag, “Joseph” remembered by DAR,

And a memorial for Jaime Green with a six pointed star,

A crucifix on the majority but everyone donated in equal,

Our heros, our POWs, and our MIA’s were all people.

 

There are two sides to every war and story,

They seem to start with power, “For Glory,”

But people who died, or suffered, in prison camp,

Remind us a State’s ego we never rubber stamp.

 

© Copyright – Waldo Tomosky

GENDER AND AGE DYNAMICS: Phase 9 of a Private Archaeology

22 Thursday Mar 2012

Posted by in Archaeology, Educational, Historical

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GENDER AND AGE DYNAMICS

The area of observed gender issues appear in the legal papers such as property deeds and wills. Lt. Col. Benjamin Birdsall’s will had been removed from the Chenango County Courthouse over 150 years ago and has not been returned. Therefore, there are no records of his thoughts or what he may have left for his heirs and heiresses. Likewise I have no copies of property deeds for this family although they surely may be reviewed in the Chenango County Courthouse if the need is evident sometime in the future.

The only tangible things remaining of Benjamin Birdsall, other than his list particulars (inventory at death), is his gravestone are the accomplishments of his offspring.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=50874637

 

COMPARISON

Gender comparisons, for this report, are better addressed as a comparison between the years ‘1792’ and ‘2012’  rather than between the Henry Birdsall family and the Benjamin Birdsall fam ily. As a starting point in 1792:

Madame d’Autremont contracted for her 300 acres in Greene, Chenango County, with Charles Felix Bue’ de Boulogne “while yet in Paris”, ( ‘From Rafts to      Railroads’, by Cochrane, 2nd printing 1991).

The power of attorney under which the contract between Madame d’Autremont   and William M. Morris via agent de Boulogne, for 300 acres became lost. However, the contract was later upheld.  (“The Story of Some French Refugees”, by L. Murray, 2nd edition 1917)  and (Wendell Common Law Reports, NY, page 82, Vol. 7)

The above facts indicate that women were allowed by  law to hold property rights, both in post French Civil War Paris as well as in New York State. However, it must be stated that Madame d’Autremont was a widow at that time and may have had more property rights than a married woman. As an example of this:

“This indenture made the twenty ninth day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifteen Between Peter B. Garnsey and Polly his wife  the town of Norwich County of Chenango and state of New York of the first part and Henry Burdsil (sic) now of the town of Greene and County aforesaid of the second part [sold for $700, 100 acres.” (Book of Deeds “V”, page 346, Chenango County Clerks Office, dated 4/29/1815)

The above document contains the fact that Polly Garnsey, Peter’s wife, was a co-owner of the property, yet Henry was not required to place his wife, Abashaby, on the deed as co-owner.  The presence of Polly as an owner may have been a result of Peter, being legally and financially prudent, placing Polly on the deed for financial protection from possible future debts.

Additional documentation in subsequent pages of the same book:

 Book of deeds “V”, page 348:

Chenango County

What exactly does the above indicate?  It may indicate exactly what is on the surface of the document; that is, that the law and  legal process are protecting women from selling property, which they own (or co-own), while under duress from their husbands. On the other hand why would such a law be necessary?  Was it a common practice for men of that time to make their wives sell property that the wife was entitled to?  Did some women who owned property (through whatever means) then become married only to find themselves threatened by a husband forcing them to sell the property against their will? The answer appears to be an obvious ‘yes.’

Another set of documents that raise gender issues are the papers surrounding the Last Will and Testament of Henry Birdsall dated June 3, 1836. (Chenango County Surrogate Court Record “60A”, with copies for review in Appendix L,  Archived Documents)

Henry, an obviously God-loving or God-fearing man, who dearly loves his wife, and has spent the least 60 years of his life with her leaves his beloved  “ONE GOOD COW” ?

(Current common property laws have changed in New York so that man and wife hold property as equal owners and the rights of the deceased’s ownership reverting to the survivor.)

One must hasten to recognize that a combination of society/culture/class made proper arrangements for widows. This may be observed later in the documents surrounding Henry’s death. Henry’s wife, Abashaby (“Basheba” on her gravestone), who lived with Henry, was quickly taken in by (assumedly) one of her daughters who had married and moved to Broome County (probably North Fenton or Chenango Forks) which can be seen on the following transcribed document:

(The strike-through is transcribed exactly as they appear in the original document)

From the above death certificate it can be seen that James Burroughs, who had written this document (See copy in Appendix L, Archived Documents), assumed that Abashaby still resided in the Town of Greene, Chenango County. That is where she resided when Henry died.

However, she had moved to the Town of Chenango, Broome County sometime within the 2 -3  month period after Henry’s death.

Additional observations regarding gender are those of education and privilege. These can also be found on Henry’s Last Will and Testament.

Henry’s wife and daughters had to wonder why their culture placed them in a position of not receiving any real property or ‘real’ status. Their status appears to have been limited with respect to the men. This becomes apparent when their husbands had to be notified of ‘who received what’ in Henry’s legacy

(‘Citation of Notification’ to be discussed later in this section).

This issue of status had to be apparent when it became obvious that, although their father apparently loved them, they were relegated to second class citizens.

Documented, here, for all to see, at the end of the last will and testament, a woman (apparently James Burroughs wife or daughter), Ann Burroughs, had the status and capacity to sign her name as a witness.

What was true in the culture of others was surely not true in the culture of Henry and his family. This is not to be misconstrued as the actions of a vengeful old man. Just the opposite, for Henry’s will leads one to see the caring he has for his wife, daughters and granddaughters. It was Henry’s obvious belief that they will be taken care of by their husbands, and, that in their culture the men will be making all the financial decisions.

 

The end of Henry’s Will documents the power and authority of other women in their community (Ann Burroughs as an example). Feminine power was the privilege of education and class.

A final document found in the Chenango County Surrogate Court file “60A” was a “Citation” which was circulated to those who received real or personal property as a result of Henry’s Last Will and Testament. This “Citation” was a document stating that the heirs had been notified and it ensured that this notification had been acknowledged. The document exemplifies the fact that the husbands of Henry’s daughters had at least an equal status (if not higher) for being notified of the daughter’s legacy in the will.

With regards to the dynamics of “Age” it has been noted above that the elderly widow, Abashaby, was absorbed into the home of one of her children. This method of caring for the elderly appears to be substantiated by the fact that other elderly people left their homes some years prior to their deaths. See the section of this report on “Maps”.

The descriptions of who lived in which Birdsall home during what years documents the fact that the elderly left their homes prior to their deaths. The location of these elderly can easily be seen in the ‘census’ documents in Appendix A. Quite often the reader can observe that the last person listed in the household is a widow or widower.

The only document that shows a direct change of this ‘family care of the elderly’ occurred just prior to the turn of the century. Epinetus Birdsall, Henry’s grandson and son of Horace, became a resident of the “County Home” and died there in 1893.

Conclusion of Gender and Age Dynamics

The rights and status of women have changed significantly in the period between “1792” and “2012”.

In the 1800’s  there were apparent dichotomies in the status of women. This can be observed in the ownership of real property by the wife of a lawyer (Polly Garnsey).

Another example is the example of a woman (Ann Burroughs)  signing the “Last Will and Testament of Henry Birdsall”.

At the same time Henry’s daughters were required, by citation, to notify their husbands of their inheritance. These dichotomies were the apparent result of class, status and education as well as the family culture of the Henry Birdsalls.

The responsibility of caring for the elderly has also changed significantly during the same period of time. ‘Family care’ was replaced by ‘county care’ and has now progressed on to ‘private care’ in institutions owned by profit makers.

© Copyright – Waldo Tomosky

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS: Phase 7 of a Private Archaeology

18 Sunday Mar 2012

Posted by in Archaeology, Educational, Historical

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

                                    ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

The economic conditions that Henry Birdsall and his family experienced were at first controlled by nature, later by public policy, and in the end by economical depression that was the unintended consequence of a series of public policies.

Henry Birdsall moved his family to Greene about 1812, settled on the east side of the Chenango River and purchased the property on April 29, 1815 from Peter B. and Polly Garnsey.

(For documentation see Appendix G, Property Specific Records)

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS CONTROLLED BY NATURE

The economic conditions that the Henry Birdsall family encountered over the first few years were the results of their own productivity; however the economics were drastically effected by nature. Clearing enough ground to plant a few grain products/tubers and building shelter for the family and animals must have utilized all of Henry’s time. It would seem natural that the family would have had at least one gun that would help them harvest the abundant deer, turkey and bear. However, guns were not present on Henry’s itemized list of personal property upon his death.

Quite remarkably, among the items of personal property was listed a bible, but neither Henry or Henry [Jr.] could read. Does this combination of the absence of one item of survival, a gun, and the presence of one item of conspicuous religious beliefs, a bible, tell us more than what is on the surface? If Henry and his male heirs were pacifists, which this combination may point out, this ethnic trait may have placed self-limitations on the manner in which they approached various economic opportunities. This aspect of ethnicity, possibly Quakerism, which we will discuss in another section of this paper, could have wide ranging consequences on the micro-economy of the family.

At this point in the life of the Henry Birdsall weather conditions were synonymous with economic conditions. As mentioned in the section on Modes of Production Henry did raise rye, wheat, potatoes, and corn. He also tended to cows, calves and pigs. When the weather was playing to his favor the economic conditions were enough to survive.

In 1816 a phenomenon occurred that could terminate the Birdsall family for good.

“NOTE: The year 1816 has been known as the ‘year without a summer.’ It was the coldest year ever known, with frosts or snow each month of the year. No crops matured and prices of provisions soared. The average price of flour was $3 per barrel. People suffered with hunger and near famine resulted. Old seed corn from the 1815 crop sold in 1817 for $5 per bushel but, fortunately, bumper crops were harvested in 1817 – – -.” (See Appendix F, Greene History)

Some fresh game may have helped the family get through that winter because although they may not have owned a gun there were passenger pigeons. These pigeons would serve as food and as a product that could be sold in order to get them through these poor economic times.

“Netting [passenger] pigeons was a popular sport and the game birds were brought [to Binghamton] and sold. They were caught in nets fastened to two bent saplings which         were released at the right time to hold the catch. The merchant who did not have a large stock of dressed birds in barrels or strung by their bills on a string for display, was rare. They were considered excellent meat and townspeople bought four or five at a for pigeon pies.” 

(“Rafts to Railroads”, by Mildred English Cochrane, copyright 1967)

{Also;  See Map Section, “Pigeon Hill”, 1 mile south of Birdsall farm}

Henry had purchased the property for cash in 1815 as there was no mention of mortgage. If this is true then his harvest in 1815 was free and clear. This would not only have placed Henry in a good position for surviving but may have placed him in an advantageous one for making a high profit in 1817. One can not help but to wonder, though, if Henry would have thought first of high profits or thought first of helping a neighbor by giving him seed grain and then negotiating price at a later and less critical time in the year. (See previous section on “Mode of Production” regarding debts owed to Henry by relatives and neighbors)

The yellow fever epidemic of 1822, which killed 2,500 in New York, appears to have little effect on Henry Birdsall and his family. (See Appendix K, page K8, Making of America, “Historical Collections of New York State, Past and Present”, by John W. Barber, 1851, pub. by Clark, Austin & Co., Broadway)

(THE UPSIDE OF ECONOMICS CONTROLLED PUBIC POLICY)

Economic conditions in the 1830’s improved drastically with the advent of the Chenango Canal, a much debated subject during the late 1820s and 30s. Political action committees made up of prominent citizens along the Chenango River continued to press for the construction of the canal realizing that it would bring economic life to their areas. Short term economic advantages were available from the construction and long term economics were touted, expecting benefits from the continuing trade. The current New York State Governor at that time was Enos T. Throop. His concern over the exhausted condition of the general fund and his foresight with regards to the upkeep and short life of the canal would not make it feasible. Gov. Throop predicted that competition from railroads would drastically shorten the expected life of the canal. (See Appendix K, Making of America, “Lives of the Governors of the State of New York”, by John S. Jenkins, 1851, pub. by Derby and Miller, Auburn).

The approval for the canal was given after Governor Marcy was elected. Economic benefits that have been documented show the following influx of money to Henry Birdsall, his family and neighbors:  

Henry Birdsall           $30.00 for moving a barn from the path of the canal

                                  $133.31 for building a new fence

Thomas Tew *          $62.50 for building a sluice around lock #34

Gloudy Hamilton *   $464 for building a wooden culvert on a creek

                                    $212.62 for building a new fence

Chauncy Rogers *      $?/per day  as a workman on repair of a dam

 David D. Davis        $139.28 for constructing a sluice around lock #29

                                   $164.25 for constructing a new fence

TOTAL =    at least $1,206

* Henry Birdsall’s sons-in-law

Not taken into consideration is the money that Henry Birdsall, his family and his neighbors may have made for selling the real estate for canal right-of-way as it passed through their land.

An additional economic advantage that has not been quantified in the documentation is the amount of stone that was removed from the quarries. The first quarry (lower elevation) is 10 meters wide by 50 meters long. The depth varies but an average depth would be about 3 meters.  Calculations yield about 1,500 cubic meters of stone that have been removed. The second quarry (higher up the dug road) is 15 meters wide by 30 meters long consisting of three shelves, each being 3 meters deep. These calculations yield another estimated 2,250 cubic meters of stone.  Utilizing a 50% waste factor yields a total of over 1,800 cubic meters of stone, a sizable economic prize for Henry and the workers that extracted it, not to mention the money earned for cutting it to size and laying up the walls of the lock.

Multiply this by the number of locks and aqueducts located between Greene and Chenango Forks for an idea of how the canal affected the economy in this small area.

Regarding materials such as the raw stone from the quarries and what is listed above as a minor portion of what canal construction did for the immediate community, there is the following that depicts the additional lifting of the economy for those along the canal route:

“Most of the material used was purchased locally, but many immigrant laborers were employed to supplement local labor. Farmers with their teams welcomed the opportunity to earn $1.50 per day”   (See Appendix F, Greene History)

Henry Birdsall died in 1838, soon after the canal opened. His sons Henry and Horace continued to live on the farm as the canal boats eased on past their homes.

Economic opportunity continued to emanate from the repairs to the locks. Lumber and stone continued to be needed for these repairs. Horace died in 1850, 12 years after his father, and Henry [Jr.] lived until 1879.

Henry [Jr.] was able to see the total life of the canal as the economies tended to “Rise and Descend” just as the title of Michelle McFees book describes it. (See Appendix J, Miscellaneous Book Extracts)

The Canal SUCCOMBS TO THE RAILROAD

(THE DOWNSIDE OF ECONOMICS CONTROLLED BY PUBLIC POLICY)

In 1869 Maurice Birdsall (Grandson of Lt. Col. Benjamin Birdsall) as President of the Greene Railroad Company was engaged in a bitter dispute with the Smithville (Flats) Railroad company. Ethical misconduct and bribery by officers of the Smithville company almost cost Greene the loss of a railroad through their town.

Considering the deteriorating business state of the Chenango Canal, this would have been a blow to Greene’s economy. (See Appendix F, Greene History)

This particular public policy, based more on individualistic capitalism than on government action, brought the railroad to Greene. This was an economic boom to the village and rural families alike. A village rail station was built on the east side of the river and dairy stops were built between the village of Greene and Chenango Forks.

The bad news for Henry Birdsall’s descendants was that the railroad crossed to the other side of the river a mile north of them. The railroad served almost everyone in the Township of Greene except for the few families located on the southern 2 -3 miles of Stillwater Road.

This was an economic blow to the Birdsalls. Their canal transportation to Greene and Binghamton was gone and the railroad would not serve them. Their goods had to be transported by team four miles north or south; and then loaded onto the train.

Economic opportunity in the form of working for wages in the factories of Greene and Binghamton was not available on a daily basis. A trip to Binghamton would require them to find rental rooming for the week. Any wages made would be degraded by the cost of “room and board”.

Most likely it would be just as profitable to work the farm and raise a few animals. The new economy worked against the descendants of Henry Birdsall in this southeastern corner of Greene, however, it worked well for the descendants of Lt. Col. Benjamin Birdsall who lived in the village and did business there.

The economy of the Birdsall farm appears to have dwindled along with the dwindling number of small farms that were eking out a living during that period; to wit;

“Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth- Century Domestic Site Archaeology in New York State” edited by John P. Hart and Charles L. Fisher, Published by NYS Museum, 2000

“The Farmhouse View: The Porter Site, by Sean M. Rafferty

Page 128         [First paragraph under heading “Nineteenth-Century Farming”]

“The nineteenth century saw profound changes in the lives of New York farmers, as technological innovations sparked a shift toward industrial farming. This undercut the family-based rural farmers who had dominated agriculture until the mid-nineteenth century. Construction of the canal system and railroads made it easier and more profitable for farmers to get the products to urban markets (Barron 1984:3), but also resulted in a shift of agricultural production away from New York State. The growth of urban industrial production with wage-paying jobs stimulated a migration from rural areas to urban centers (Gibb 1994); many took the opportunity to escape from the routine of the family farm, while others remained to carry on the farming tradition. Some farmers were adversely affected by shifting markets,  while others actually saw an improvement in their economic situation (McMurry 1995). All were forced to make choices in order to adapt to changing circumstances, and these choices can be analyzed from their material consequences and from documentary evidence.

Epinetus Birdsall, grandson of Henry, died in Preston, NY in the year 1893. No known relatives lived in Preston. However, this is the home of the old “Chenango County Poorhouse” now operating as Preston Manor. Records of his death in this institution reflect a “Nathan” Birdsall. It has been proven through other records that Epinetus and Nathan are one and the same person.

Epinetus had been renamed by the state!

(THE Implications of Gender on Economics)

We will see from the last will and testament of Henry Birdsall that the women of the family inherited some nominal amount of money while the male heirs inherited the real estate. (See Appendix D, Surrogate Records)

By 1890 there were not many male descendants of Henry remaining. As noted above, Henry’s two sons Horace and Henry [Jr.] had died in 1850 and 1879 respectively. John (Henry [Jr.]s son) died in 1881. The remaining male descendent of Henry Birdsall who still carried the surname was Epinetus Birdsall. Epinetus had one son George McClellan Birdsall but he had died as a two year old infant in 1867.

The remaining members of the family were females who took on the husbands surname. Therefore, the remaining members of the family had surnames of Turner, Delamarter, and Burrows. The real estate shifted back and forth between these remaining members. Each shift included a division of the property or a repackaging of previous divisions. This continued on until 1929 when a tragedy occurred.

Three members of one family, the mother, father and a daughter all died within one week of each other. The property ownership shifted, once more removed to another level from the original Birdsalls. This occurred at a time when money was scarce and times were tough.

(THE EFFECTS OF THE ECONOMIC DEPRESSION)

The depression and the devaluing of farm property that accompanied it placed the Birdsall property in a difficult position; not being able earn enough to pay for itself.

The oil rich City of Bradford, Pennsylvania dispatched a trustee, Jack Cleaves, who saw a potential value deep in the earth of Chenango County. This city, operating as a capitalistic entity, recognized a cluster of economically desperate people who had title to this potentially valuable land. The City of Bradford bought the property, withdrew the gas, oil and mineral rights {in perpetuity} and promptly sold the surface rights to a Broome County resident.

(For documentation on the above three paragraphs see Appendix G, Property Specific Records)

(THE SAME ECONOMIC ERA EXPERIENCED IN THE VILLAGE)

Lt. Col. Benjamin Birdsall continued to be an active agent in various capitalistic pursuits. For example; founding businesses that took advantage of the more stable economy based on the needs of the residents in the village; a clothing works and a grist mill on the Genegantslet River.

His descendants were active agents in getting approval for the canal and establishing the company that founded the railroad.

Activities, that may well have been planned around these transportation links include:

  • a bank,
  • a butter depot,
  • various real estate dealings
  • professional services

(See Appendices C & F, Newspapers and Greene History, respectively)

Comparison:

Henry Birdsall and his descendants worked within the economy that was given to them. Their economic condition was tied to their original modes of production: farming, quarrying, and miscellaneous labor intensive activities. They appear to have made a conscious decision to keep a continuity in their lifestyle and, in fact, struggled, economically, in order to maintain that lifestyle.

Lt. Col. Benjamin Birdsall and his descendants were active agents in transforming the economy around them, and thereby, transformed themselves, intentionally or not.

© Copyright – Waldo Tomosky

 

MODE OF PRODUCTION: Phase 6 of a Private Archaeology

16 Friday Mar 2012

Posted by in Archaeology, Educational, Historical

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Henry Birdsall’s mode of earning a living was from farming. The land that he had purchased was configured like the farms cut out of the Hudson Valley territory. That is, it was long and narrow, giving the owner access to the river for transportation, access to flat lands for growing crops, and lastly, having a large upland section that could be used for lumber or grazing.

A history of Henry’s Farming Property

This land was originally in the hands of the Oneida and Tuscarora native americans. Subsequent to the Treaty of 1785 it was divided into eight townships, one being Greene.  A tract of 15,360 acres was granted to Malachi Treat and William W. Morris and subdivided by their agent Charles Boulogne. A portion of this was sold to Madame d’Autremont and other refugees from the French Civil War.

Madame d’Autremont and a few others lived on the land for a few years. Boulogne died without filing a power of attorney that he had from Morris and Treat. The land sale was therefore voided.

These refugees subsequently moved on to Asylum near Wyalusing, PA.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=53304924

Tallyrand visited the French Asylum and took one of d’Autremont’s sons with him as an aide. That son filed a suit to override the voided sale and won. The following is that petition to the French Courts.

International law stated that court decisions such as this in France were valid in the United States. The land was returned Madame d’Autremont.

A Chenango County lawyer, Peter B. Garnsey, purchased Madame d’Autremont’s portion of 300 acres. The deed states that these 300 acres could be selected from within a nine mile stretch southward along the east side of the Chenango River. Peter B. Garnsey sold a 100 acre section to Henry Birdsall. This 100 acres turned out to be approximately 170 acres and was not necessarily the property that Madame d’Autremont resided on during her short stay in Greene; 1792 – 1796. However it was most probably the property path:     d’Autremont to Garnsey to Birdsall.

(See Appendix G, “Property Specific Documents”)

Henry and his family made good use of the property. Some of the produce that they generated and the tools that they used in production were;

Rye and wheat at $5 per bushel, milk and cows valued at $13-$24 each, calves, a wind mill, dry casks for storage, hay at $  .25  per hundredweight, hay forks, potatoes at  $ .25 per bushel, grinding stones, plow shares (cast), vinegar and vinegar casks, round [spoke?] shaver, adz’, staple & ring [weaving or animal neuter device?], looms, harness, frowers[?],  iron wedges, corn, wagons, stored barrels of pork, tubs of lard, cedar storage barrels, and corn plows, hogs worth $7.80 each,  churns, tubs filled with butter, and brass kettles.

Henry also carried at least nine promissory notes which indicates that he also collected interest as a means of monitory production. Most of his notes were to family and neighbors making it apparent that he viewed this lending as a sign of support more than a main means of earning a living.

In addition to the above Henry also had two large quarries that were surely used for stone for the canal lock on his property and possibly for other nearby canal locks. In addition once the railroad was established Henry’s descendants had the opportunity to ship stone to  New York City. Upstate stone was in great demand for construction projects down state.

The canal also yielded other opportunities for earning a living. The construction of locks, bridges and culverts was accomplished by local people. Henry’s son-in-laws, Thomas Tew and Gloudy Hamilton were contracted by the Canal Board to build a sluice on Lock #34 and a wooden culvert over a stream. David D. Davis, one of Henry’s neighbors, constructed a sluice around Lock #29. Tew, Hamilton and Davis made $62.50, $464.00 and $139.28 respectively for these contracts. Henry [Jr.?] was paid $30 to move his barn. Fence moving/building was also a means of earning money. David D. Davis was paid $164.25 to build a new fence, Henry Birdsall was paid $133. 31 for his new fence and Gloudy Hamilton was paid $212.62 for a new fence. Chauncy Rogers, another of Henry’s son-in-laws, was paid workers wages to repair a dam at Chenango Forks. John Rogers was the contractor working on the dam which was owned by S. Rogers. Chauncy was probably paid $17 or $18 per month which was a dollar less than those working in Binghamton. This discrepancy in wages caused job walk-offs as disgusted workers returned to their fields for harvest.

Henry Birdsall is also listed in the Binghamton Library Names Card file as applying for the position of Lock-tender in Chenango Forks, possibly the lock on his property. This must have been Henry [Jr.] as Henry [Sr.] was deceased at this time. [There is no source for this information other than this note on a card.]

Benjamin Birdsall’s mode of earning a living was from various enterprises. There was a quarry on the west side of the Chenango River and several enterprises on the Genegantslet River. Due to Benjamin’s Last Will and Testament being missing we do not know the extent of real estate that he held. At that time real estate appeared in the will and personal property was recorded as an inventory. From the following it can be gathered that Benjamin did hold some real estate until his death but his personal property was quite meager.

Benjamin’s mode of production can be seen in the following summary of his personal property: One yoke of oxen (out on loan) worth $50, one looking glass worth $1, one bureau worth $7, one cow, one bed and bedding, one table, necessary clothing for the widow of the deceased properly given to the widow by statute.

                                    Debts due to Benjamin when he died:

1.   A lease for a clothing works and privileges on the Genegantslet River to Arron Dewey and Nicholas B Slater for 30 years, payable starting June 1828, and continuing until paid at the rate of $100 per year. Mortgage to be secured by building and machinery on the premises. Said mortgage clandestinely got into the hands of one Joseph Pixley who claimed he owned the property. {Due to this confusion} there remains due two installments of $100 each and 4 months besides interest and it remains the decision of the estate as to follow this claim which is doubtful as to collection.     $255

2.  A lease for a grist mill on the Genegantslet River to Joseph Pixley of Waterloo in Seneca County for the term of 2 years at a rate of $200 per annum.. Some amount was paid but the remainder is questionable as the circumstances of said Pixley is doubtful.   $266.50

3.  Benjamin Birdsall {late Junior} occupied the Mill House on the Genegantslet belonging to  the deceased from the spring of 1824 without written or verbal lease rather known as the annual rent of $200.   $800

{Said Benjamin Birdsall is notoriously insolvent & it is doubtful whether any part of this amount can be collected from him.}

4.   A judgment on Bond of Atty. entered upon April 1821 in favor of the deceased against Morris S. Birdsall for the amount of:  $238    Costs=$10

{It has been said that this judgment has been canceled by the deceased afore his death, also that the said Morris Birdsall is in doubtful circumstances and it is doubtful whether this amount can be collected.}

5.    Two notes against Nehemiah Walker of Smithville in Chenango County. These notes are now outlawed and said Walker has taken the benefits of insolvency and is now poor. The collection of any part of these notes is very doubtful.          Value = $0

Comparison:

Henry Birdsall appeared to have several modes of production: farming, quarrying, and miscellaneous fill-in activities. These activities were labor intensive and did not allow for leisure except during the dark hours of evening or bitter cold winter days. Even then, the emergencies of new farm animals being born and the feeding and watering of stock in the dead of winter must have kept Henry well occupied.

Benjamin Birdsall, as a man of enterprise, worked his businesses at day and most likely to have been required to work the social circuit evenings and weekends. Contacts and opportunities came about during those times of social intercourse. People had to get to know each other quite well to entrust their invested money in each other’s projects. I am sure that social gatherings, where the males gathered together, were also places where a person learned ‘where not’ to invest his money.

© Copyright – Waldo Tomosky