Bundy Museum Radio Station WBDY 99.5 FM (“TRASH FROM THE PAST”)

Tags

99.5 FM, ANSCO, Archaeology, Binghamton NY, Bundy Museum, Chenango Canal, Chenango County NY, Early Settlers, Endicott NY, Greene NY, IBM, WBDY Binghamton NY 99.5 FM

WBDY is an FM Radio Station that is located in the Bundy Museum in Binghamton, NY.

The Bundy brothers started The Bundy Company in Binghamton. One of them was an inventor; he invented a time clock that would record a worker’s arrival and departure times. The Bundy Company was melded two other ideas; Herman Hollerith’s data recorder machine (which operated on punched cards) and another inventor’s (Dr. Alexander Dey) time recording machine.

This triad became International Time recording Company and was eventually renamed International Business Machines in 1924.

 

IBM was born in Endicott, New York; about five miles west of Binghamton. It has, however sadly, closed its home base except for a few hundred office workers.

Bundy Museum is home to the history of Binghamton. It has dozens of old time clocks, a tribute to Rod Serling; “Twilight Zone” Binghamton born creator and legendary screenwriter, as well as a building set aside for the ANSCO Camera Business.

WBDY became interested in my very first blog; “INTRODUCTION (To a private archaeology on a public blog).” Therefore they interviewed me to determine how I came  to write about a family that migrated from Salem, NY (very near the Connecticut border) to the newly opened “Indian Territory” in Chenango County, NY.

The interview starts at 33.30 minutes in the following audio recording.
The first 33 minutes discuss another archaeology project which is currently occurring in Binghamton, NY.

 

AS I WANDERED #35 d’AUTREMONT

Tags

Angelica NY, Chenango County NY, d'Autremont, France, French Revolution, Madame d'Autremont, Reward in Gold, Tallyrand, The French Asylum, Train Robery

She first came to the wilderness of New York.

After four years it was enough.

Then she went to an asylum in Pennsylvania; a political asylum.

And finally, back to New York; however, this time, in a genteel society.

That is the whole story of Madame d’Autremont; well – – – almost all of the story.

There was trouble in France in the 1790’s. Madame d’Autremont  was part of the royal court.

She decided, along with several other families, to purchase land in the new United States. Several thousand acres were purchased in the County of Chenango, New York. A road was cut and a village of sorts established. However the life was a little rough for these effete.

An escape from the hell of the wilderness appeared.

Another group from France had established an asylum, supposedly for the Queen of France, for a place to escape from the revolution.

Madame d’Autremont and her cohorts in Chenango county bought a few boats, followed the current of the Chenango River to where it met with the Susquehanna River in the new village of Binghamton.

From there they, once again, followed the current downstream. They passed Tioga Point where the river turned southward to Towanda. A few miles farther and they were relieved to reach the asylum.

Due to a series of legal and human disasters Madame d’Autremont lost her thousands of acres in Chenango County.

At “Asylum” they stayed for a period of time. The French Diplomat Talleyrand traveled to the asylum and met with Madame d’Autremont and her sons.

Talleyrand took Louis Paul d’Autremont back to France with him. That son was able to reclaim his mother’s land in Chenango county.

Madame d’Autremont sold that land and repaired to Angelica, New York were she and her sister lived out their lives.

I hope that was the end of the story but recently I am beginning to wonder.

OK, OK. It is another railroad story. So sue me.

©W. Tomosky♠

The Birdsall Family Cemetery

Tags

Abram Storms, Archaeology, Birdsall, Birdsall Family Cemetery, Chenango Canal, Chenango County, Chenango County NY, Greene NY, Henry Birdsall, Thomas Tew, Town of Greene

 

MY DEEPEST APOLOGIES FOR THE FUZZY PHOTO OF THE MAIN CHARACTERS’ GRAVESITE.

 

A LIST OF GRAVESTONES AND NAMES IN BIRDSALL FAMILY CEMETERY

OBLISQUE:, four sided

First side of oblisque;

John Birdsall Died May 3, 1881, 63 years, 2mos, 2 days

Hanna; No information

Next side of oblisque

Henry Birdsall, Died February 9, 1879, 87 years, 9mos, 25 days

Third side of oblisque

Margeret, Died February 10, 1869, 80 years, 21 days

Fourth side of oblisque

Mary J. dau. Of J & H.J.Birdsall, Died Aug 9, 1864, 8 years old

STONE: Ezra Richards, Died Sept 2, 1848, 18 years, 5 mos, 18 days

STONE: Abram Storm, Died November 22, 1849, 80^th year

              Eve, Died Dec. 16, 1837, 63^rd year

                  NOTE: There is another stone for Eve, same data except for age which is 62 years, 2mos.

STONE: Margaret, Wife of Samuel Allen, Died December 4, 1831, age 96 years

STONE: Jane Birdsall, February 27, 1856, age 30 years

STONE: Margarett  – – – -wife, of   – – -sall (stone broken, piece missing

STONE: Mary Jane, daughter of John and Jane Birdsall, Died August 8, 1866, 8 years, 8 mos., 12 days

STONE: Polly E., Wife of Lockwood Montross, Died June 23, 1856, Age 47 years, 6 mos.

STONE: Joseph, Son of Moses and Harriet Hamilton, Died June 15, 1823, 1 year, 10 mos.

STONE: John Montross, Died September 1, 1851 age 22 years, 10 mos.

STONE: Rachel E. Wife of Norman Baldwin, Died August 8, 1860, 23 Years, 1 mo.

STONE: Isaac Marshall, Died February 9, 1861, Age 80 years, 5 mos.

STONE: Hester, Wife of Isaac Marshal, Died November 9, 1849, Age 67 years

STONE: In Memory of Henry Birdsall, Died September 23, 1837, Age 79 years, 1 mo., 27 days

STONE: Basheba, Wife of Henry Birdsall, Died September 23, 1848, Age 92 years, 11 mos.

STONE: In Memory of Johnson Birdsall, Died July 23, 1827, Aged 33 years, 6 days Note; The “son” appears to have been added after the text on the stone was originally cut.

STONE: Augusta, Daughter of Wm. & ??? Lounsberry, Died March 26, 1813, Aged 1 year, 12 days.   Note, this is the earliest buriel in the cemetery and may be the only true date of when the Birdsalls first arrived on their new land.

STONE: Rosaline, Daughter of D.E. & Emeline Travers, AE. October 25, 1842, 1 year, 5 mos., 15 days

STONE: Clarissa, Wife of Peter Woolwever, Died July 14, 1843, AE. 54 years, 3 mos., 15 days.

NOTE: The bronze oblisque appears to have been manufactured in 5 pieces with each side brazed to the next at the corners. A four sided pyramid then appears to have been brazed to the top. I relate this information for those who may be attempting to date different manufacturing methods of grave markers.

 

 

 

Henry Birdsall’s Family Tree

Tags

Abashaby Birdsall, Abram Storms, Amos Parsons, Archaeology, Chauncy Rogers, Chenango Canal, Chenango County, Chenango County NY, Chenango Forks, Deborah Birdsall, Dutchess County NY, educational, Eliza Birdsall, Emma Rosell, Emma Tuthill, Epinetus Birdsall, George McClellan Birdsall, Gloudy Hamilton, Greene NY, Henry Birdsall, Horace Birdsall, Jean Guillaume deBesse, John BIrdsall, Margaret Birdsall, Maria Birdsall, Mariah Birdsall, Merritt, Nathan Birdsall, Oliver Hoyt, Polly Birdsall, Rachel Birdsall, Sarah Birdsall, Thomas Tew, Town of Greene, Triphosia Birdsall, Tryphose

This family tree has been generated from wills, deeds and cemetery records as well as from visits to the small Birdsall Family cemetery. There are several holes in this tree that could be filled in with additional effort. Other documents such as newspaper entries and census data could be used to verify data listed elsewhere in this blog.

Henry Birdsall and Abashaby Birdsall established residence in the Town of Greene about 1812. They brought with them several of their children.  They had previously resided in Westchester County, Town of Salem, NY.

NOTE:   Legends –

 % indicates that the person’s NAME came from Henry Birdsall’s will.

 # indicates that the DATE/NAME came from North Fenton Cemetery Records.

* indicates that the DATE/NAME came from a Birdsall Family Cemetery stone.

 Othere sources cited individually.

Due to not knowing exactly which lineage Henry Birdsall originated from I am assigning him as first generation with the superscript of ¹. His descendants will be assigned their proper generation number (superscript designation) as they appear in the tree.

Henry ¹ Birdsall, born ~ 11/29/1758, died 26 Dec 1837, age 79 married Abashaby¹ (Basheba), born ~ 10/1755, died 9/23/1848, age 93        %, *

Henry¹ and Abashaby had Children, all born in Westchester County:

Hester², daughter, born ~ 1783, died 9 Nov 1849, married Isaac Marshall, he born     ~1780,     died 9 Feb 1861        %, *

Fanny², daughter, born  ?,   died  ?, married Tyrus Page, he born ?, died ?    %

Abashaby², daughter, born ~1790, died 21 Oct 1854, married Oliver Hoyt, he born ? died ?     %, #

Rachel², daughter, born ?, died ?, married Gloudy Hamilton (son of Amos), he born ?, died ?      %

Deborah², daughter, born ~ 1798, died 1881, married Amos Parsons, he born 1792,  died 1841       %, *

Eliza², daughter, born ?, died ?, married Chauncy Rogers, he born ?, died ?

Horace², son, born ~ 1799, died 1850, married Tryphose (Triphosia), she born ~ 1802, died 13 Jun 1871          %, #

Henry², son, born ~ 15 May 1791, died 9 Feb 1879, married Margaret, she born ~19 Jan 1789, died 10 Feb 1869      %

Polly², daughter, born ?, died ?, married a Merritt, he born ?, died ?      %

     Horace² and Tryphose had children

              Epinetus³ (Epantus), born ~ 1826, died 28 Nov 1893, married Sarah, She born ?, died ?

                        Epinetus³ and Sarah had children:

                                        George McClellan⁴, born ~ 3/1865, died 22 Jan 1867  #

                                         Maria⁴ (Mariah), born ~ 1822, died 12 Jul 1856 #

                                                Maria had child Emma Rosell ⁵, born 1850  same person named Emma Tuthill listed in 1855 census as living with mother Maria & grandmother Triphosia

      Henry² and Margaret had children:

            John³, born ~ 1 Mar 1818, died 3 May 1881, married Hannah (Jane or HJ), she born 1821, died ?      *

            John³ and Hannah had children:

                      Clarissa⁴, born 10 Apr 1847 (from Chen. Cty. Vital records), died ?, married a Delamarter, he Born ?, died ?.    (from deeds)

                       Alice⁴, born 15 Jun 1848, died 19 Feb 1929,married Theodore Turner, born ?, died 24 Feb 1929 (from deeds)

                                    Alice⁴ and Theodore Turner had children:

                                                    Floyd B.⁵ Turner, born ?, died ?.

                                                     Carrie J.⁵ Turner, born 1871, died 25 Feb 1929, married Johnson E. Burrows, he born 1863, died ?.(from deed and #)

                                                         Carrie J.⁵ and Johson Burrows had children:

                                                                               Walter T.⁶ Burrows

                                                                                Alice R.⁶  Burrow (from deeds)

 

            Polly² and a Merrit had children:

                        Steven³, born ?, died ?.    %

                        Alice³, born ?, died ?       %

                        Abigail³, born ?, died ?   %

                        Polly³, born ~ 1809, died 23 Jun 1856, married Lockwood Montross, he Born ?,  died ?.     %, *

                                        Polly³ and Lockwood Montross had children:

                                                John S.⁴ Montross, born ~ 1829, died 1 Sep 1851  *

            Deborah² and Amos Parsons had children:

                        Henry³, born ~ 1839, died 1858     *

                        Alvah³, born ~ 1829, died 1872 *

A DISCLAIMER:  Although my apparent interest in the Birdsall family may lend some to think I am related I must clarify that I am not.

This is the end of the series of archaeological research posts on the Birdsalls.

The next series (starting this week) will be discussing the life of a neighbor of the Birdsall family, prior to his living in New York State;

JEAN GUILLIAUME De BESSE (John Bessac)

CONCLUSION: To a private archaeology

Tags

Abram Storms, Archaeology, Benjamin Birdsall, Birdsall, Birdsall Cemetery, Chenango Canal, Chenango County, Chenango County NY, Chenango Forks, David Davis, Dutchess County NY, educational, Greene NY, Henry Birdsall, History, Hudson Valley, Jean Guillaume deBesse, John BIrdsall, Juliand, Lt. Col. Benjamin Birdsall, North Fenton, Oyster Bay, Preston Manor, Quaker, Revolutionary War, Thomas Tew, Town of Barker, Town of Greene

CONCLUSION

Before anything else in this conclusion I must admit that despite the gathering of historical documents, and in conversation with a resident of the Village of Green, I continue to be plagued by one simple fact; one document and one conversation identify Henry and Benjamin Birdsall as brothers.

 I remain to be convinced of that.

 It is documented that Benjamin was raised a Quaker and rejected his creed, therefore his rejection of pacifism. He did this in order to join the Revolutionary Forces. The remainder of Benjamin’s life and continuity of his descendants then holds true; i.e., mutual benefits in all endeavors, “one for all and all for one, no matter the risk”.

If Henry and Benjamin were indeed brothers, then Henry was a Quaker and this would explain the culture he carried and passed on to his kin.  Pacifism appears almost as a given. Brotherhood with neighbors and in-laws appears to be a given. BUT, I have no direct proof that Henry was a Quaker. AND, Henry could have been a Quaker without being Benjamin’s brother.

Despite the above facts there appears to be too large of a gap between Henry’s culture and Benjamin’s culture. There is no mention of business or social activities between the two. Henry and his son(s) could not write their names (and therefore it is assumed that they could not read). Benjamin’s sons could read and write. Henry’s family tended to migrate locally and Benjamin’s tended to migrate across the USA. There is no commonality in lawyers names on legal documents of the two. If they were brothers, why would they settle so close to each other and not continue the relationship?

Despite that burning question let us get on with the conclusion. We have sufficient documentation, copies of historical records, excerpts from historical books and theory from archaeological books and articles, and last, a smattering of artifacts.

Louann Wurst, 1999, tells us that “The wealthy farmers were publicly conspicuous in their use of material culture.”  I do not see the Henry Birdsalls as being terribly wealthy but they were not terribly poor either. I do not see the Henry Birdsalls as being publicly conspicuous in their material culture. From this I must assume that the Henry Birdsalls were somewhat introverted, and that appears to be born out in their daily work and lives.

They could have easily traded raw unworked stone for a finished “grand monument” in their family cemetery. Their family cemetery is reverent and simple and the stones progress in design as the century progressed in time.

Birdsall Family Cemetery

Wurst (1999) also states that “[wealthy farmers] occupied a highly visible place in the community through their presence in the local “vanity press” histories, the use of large ostentatious gravestones, and the construction of large, costly Greek Revival style homes.”

We have looked at the gravestones and home sites of the Henry Birdsall family and neither are ostentatious. However, in comparison are the gravestones of Benjamin Birdsall’s descendants (see Appendix H, cemetery records and photos), and what you can read about them in the “History of Greene”, or peruse the background of “Maurice Birdsall, banker, [who] obtained plans from I.G.Perry [famous Binghamton, NY architect], and from them built, in 1873, what was the most expensive residence built in the village to that time. It far exceeded the estimated cost of $8,000- – -“, as stated in “Echoes of the Past”, Mildred Folsom, 2nd printing 1991.

A second anomaly of the Henry Birdsall compound is the scattered sheet midden (garbage strewn) in close proximity to the side door of the last existing home on the eastern side of Stillwater Road . This is not what one would expect at the turn of the century (‘1890’s). Yet the artifacts do date to that time. Epinetus is the last Birdsall living in that home.

Newspaper records place his death as occurring on November 28th, 1893 in Preston, NY. The County [Poor] House records show a bill for one “Nathan” Birdsall who died on November 28th, 1893 in Preston, NY as well as a bill dated November 29th, for Two Burial Cases and Outside Boxes, one set for Margaret Hicks and one for Nathan Birdsall.

Aside from the bureaucracy renaming poor Epinetus to “Nathan” it is most likely that Epinetus could no longer take care of himself either physically or mentally while at home. If his mobility was limited he would surely be throwing his garbage out the side door. However, the “Brunswick Pattern” of discards indicates a low percentage of bone; exactly what was found in the scatter pattern found at Epinetus’ house. South (1977) stated that the lack of bone was a conscious decision; bone and other garbage that would attract animals was thrown far away from the home. Was Epinetus more mobile and thoughtful than it would appear or did someone else live in the home after Epinetus?

Sian Jones (1999), writing about ethnicity states “[Textual sources] rather than being taken at face value, – – should be considered in terms of the social and political contexts in which they were produced, the positions and interests of the authors and the audiences – – and the roles that texts play in – – cultural identity”

I hope that these concerns have not only been taken into consideration, but also stated throughout this paper. I would hasten to add that I, the author, should also be questioned as you are reading this material. My vantage point should not be your vantage point. However, I hope that my vantage point has enlightened your knowledge of the Henry Birdsall family.

Sian Jones (1999) has made the point that “Shared habitual dispositions provide a basis for the recognition of commonalties of sentiment and interest, and the perception and communication of cultural affinities and differences, which ethnicity entails.”

Hence, my reason for including the narrative about the friendship between Henry Birdsall and Abram Storms. They, although possibly unconsciously, recognized the similarities and differences in their ethnicity. John Bessac and David D. Davis’ ethnicity  would also play a part in this discourse. Henry and Abram would likely “mentally misstep” when attempting to assimilate what they heard and saw about each of the distinct and different ethnic backgrounds of John Bessac and David D. Davis.

Sian Jones reflects these missteps as ” – – taken for granted modes of behavior. Such exposure to the arbitrariness of cultural practices, which had hitherto been taken as self-evident and natural, permits and requires a change in the level of discourse – – -.”

Henry and Abram had to think differently to conceive what Davis and Bessac were ethnically displaying. This was surely a learning experience and possibly some minor cultural adaptations took place on the part of Henry and Abram . . . . . and possibly on Davis and Bessac also.

Cook, Yamin and McCarthy, Historical Archaeology, 1996, state that the term “socioeconomic status – – – appears to have found its way into the discipline [of historical archaeology] without any critical evaluation of its assumptions. Among these is the assumption that social status and economic status are somehow equivalent, or that the two concepts cannot or should not be analyzed separately from one another.”

Obviously I have fallen into that trap as this paper discusses social status, social levels, economic levels and socioeconomic levels all in one section on class and ethnicity. I have attempted to break that section down into subsections describing each of the above. I hope that I  have not confused the reader.

That would leave this conclusion with more questions than answers. However, thanks to Wurst’s article on “Internalizing Class”, other methods were made available that give us a sense of who Henry and Benjamin were, whether they gave cultural continuity to their descendants, and the way this continuity played in the face of a farm economy that was changing into a capital economy.

The whole has been broken down into its manageable parts and analyzed.      

It is now up to the reader to reassemble those parts back into a whole that tells a story about two families, separated by culture (and possibly not by birth), who each wove their way through life in very different ways.  However different, each family left the world in better condition that they found it; and that is our inheritance whether you are a descendant or an unrelated observer, such as I.

THERE WILL BE SIX OR SEVEN MORE POSTS THAT WILL ACT AS THE APPENDICES; Historical documents and photos.

© Copyright – Waldo Tomosky

CLASS AND ETHNICITY: Post 10B of A Personal Archaeology

Tags

abstraction of extension, abstractoin of levels of generality, abstracton of vantage point, Archaeology, Benjamin Birdsall, Birdsall, Chenango Canal, Chenango County, Chenango County NY, class, dialectical research, educational, ethnicity, Henry Birdsall, Louann Wurst, NSF, public policy, spatial research, surface artifacts, temporal research, Town of Greene

POST 10B   CLASS AND ETHNICITY (Continued)

An early apology.  I found that I could not cut and past the matrices necessary for this post. Therefore I had to copy my PC screen and past it to the post. This leaves the some of the matrices looking divided. I must ask you to join them together mentally. This should not be too difficult considering that the words within the intersections logically join them together. My deepest apologies in advance.

ABSTRACTS OF EXTENSION

The following set of matrices are those that would assist in breaking down relationships and processes.  The subject of extension must also delve into how people may unconsciously have extended their class/ethics to their children and subsequent generations.To what degree might the agent (person making change) have been willing to:

            I would therefore suggest that the readers review all of the data found in the appendices and then modify or add to the above questions if they so choose.

            COMPARISON

            Social/Ethnicity

            The comparison of the two families with respect to social class and ethnicity is simply that Benjamin Birdsall and his descendants operated in a different social structure than Henry Birdsall and his family.

            Benjamin’s family obviously operated in a wider social structure than Henry. However Henry may have operated at a deeper social level. I am obviously defining a two-dimensional concept of social relations.  I am very reluctant to establish levels of social structure, without establishing depth.

            However, one would establish levels of socioeconomic structure;  Low, Middle,  and Upper Class    (and other intermediate levels if one so chooses).

            Henry’s social level appears to be one of spiritual-kinship and there may be no higher social level when one considers the continuity of humankind. Benjamin’s social level appears to lean more towards a socioeconomic level and therefore, in my opinion, does not have the depth of Henry’s singular social level. Allow me to explain.

            If one is considering ethnic/culteral continuity in Henry’s strategy (albeit unrecognized by him as a strategy), his practices supported that continuity, a continuity that demotes conflict and promotes interpersonal relationships on a purely social and spiritual level.

            If one is considering social/economic continuity in Benjamin’s strategy (and I am sure that Benjamin would have a conscious strategy) his practices supported that continuity, a continuity that faces conflict head on and promotes interpersonal relationships on a mutual-benefit basis.

            Socioeconomic Levels

            Regarding socioeconomic levels Henry appears, from the inventory of personal property established at his death, to have accumulated more than Benjamin. The anomaly in this comparison is that Benjamin’s Last Will and Testament is missing. Any real property would have been listed in that document. Therefore Benjamin’s economic accumulations may have been based in real-estate, and that may well have been quite significant.

            Economic Continuity

            On the other hand Benjamin’s family appears to have expanded their economic holdings while the economic holdings of Henry’s family appear to have dwindled.

            Due to the luck of the draw it also appears that Benjamin’s descendants had a continuity of male heirs while Henry’s descendants leaned more towards female.  The Birdsall name, carried on by Henry’s male heirs, died out within three generations. The Birdsall name, carried on by Benjamin’s male heirs, expanded and grew. This may lead to a perception of economic growth supported by the continuity of the family name. Only additional studies would carry this to a sufficient end.

© Copyright – Waldo Tomosky

CLASS AND ETHNICITY: Post 10A of A Personal Archaeology

Tags

abstraction of extension, abstractoin of levels of generality, abstracton of vantage point, Archaeology, Benjamin Birdsall, Birdsall, Chenango Canal, Chenango County, Chenango County NY, class, dialectical research, educational, ethnicity, Henry Birdsall, Louann Wurst, NSF, public policy, spatial research, surface artifacts, temporal research, Town of Greene

CLASS AND ETHNICITY  (10A)

Well there he goes already. He is now introductiing “sub-posts.” What the heck is going on now?  Allow me to explain.

How does one go about FACTUALLY determining the class and ethnicity of people who lived two hundred years ago?

The problem is magnified by the fact that only a smattering of artifacts are available to make this determination.

Perhaps a few ideas selected from various studies may help us.

“A common scenario can be defined as follows:  historical research is undertaken to identify the occupants of a property; these occupants are identified by class (i.e., occupation or income); this class is then ‘tested’ archaeologically based on the cost of ceramics or sometimes meat cuts, assuming a direct relationship between cost and status.”

Louann Wurst, critiques the above statement in her article: “Internalizing Class in Historical Archaeology”, Historical Archaeology, 1999, Wurst references; Miller 1980, 1991,; Schultz and Gust 1983; Shepard 1987

This concept of identifying class and ethnicity, as Wurst continues, has taken us to the point where “class as a dynamic concept has ossified”. In other words the study of the dynamics of class has been petrified by ideology. Preconceived notions of class, based on artifacts imbuing ideology, is not dynamic.

Allow me to explain. Anyone trying to identify a class or ethnicity of people must be careful not to use their own points of reference. This is easily (and often) done when looking at artifacts that may tie in with the observers own ideology. Or it may occur due to other preconceived notions.

I am not saying that the observer should abandon everything that he or she has learned. I am saying that we have to be careful about ideological creep.

Wurst offers a solution;

“Dialectical research ^* focuses on the whole of real lived experience – – – the simple recognition that all thinking about reality begins by breaking it down into manageable parts.”

* Dialectical research:

Researching the process of change in which its fulfillment is realized by its opposite.

A simpler way of stating this is to look at the problem from both sides, not just your point of view. And maybe there are several other points of view to take into consideration.

Example:    The study of a marriage, where husband and wife, as they change, with and for each other, over the years, results in their fulfillment of each other. The change of one, for better or worse, is often offset or enhanced by a change in the other.

But wait, how about the children’s point of view? Children certainly have an impact on a marriage. There are many other points of view that can be looked at to determine how a marriage survived or did not survive. The same is true for historical archaeology.

Therefore, there must be several ways of looking at a 200 year old family to determine their class and ethnicity.

Wurst’s point is earnestly taken and may well be the solution to a dilemma facing this study. That dilemma is; how does one go about identifying ‘class or ethnicity’ with a limited collection of artifacts? The artifacts available for this site are very limited.

They are severely limited in two ways:

Temporally (time period): they only cover 10% of the total period of the 100 year occupancy, approximately 1890 to 1900

Spatially (geographical distribution): they only came from 25% of the total homesites that existed.

STATISTIC TOTAL for the site/time period: 10% of the time period for 25% of the homesites equals a statistical 2.5% of the available data. That is only 2 ½% of all that may have been available. It does not give much credence to the study.

The insignificance of the artifacts becomes worse when you consider that only “surface artifacts” were selected. What are we to do?

            Wurst’s statement regarding “breaking it down into manageable parts” has an additional appeal.

Sir Isaac Newton used the same concept in calculus. Calculus is the breaking down of a problem into manageable parts. Calculus also includes a concept of ‘limits’, that is; a ‘lower limit’ defines where the problem begins and an ‘upper limit’ that identifies the endpoint.

In this study there is no formula (or artifacts) to identify gender, work, class and ethnicity.

This research depended on documentation for the study of spatial (geographical) and temporal (time period) ‘limits’.  Therefore the title of the original paper became:

“The Birdsalls – the calculus of two classes;  a comparative study of class, work, gender and continuity in two nineteenth-century family settings; Rural and Village”

As Wurst states “- – the content of commonly named relations such as family, kinship, the forces and relations of production, class, or ideology [must have] reference to concrete empirical phenomena – -.”  Wurst may have missed one major relationship in this collection of dialectical forces; and that relationship is Public Policy. Public Policy has two dialectical parts, those who make (or enforce) public policy and those who are impacted by (or resist) the results of that policy.

The success or failure of any public policy is dependent not only on its acceptance, but also on the level of its acceptance. Public policies that have been marginally accepted are, most likely, of no value to those who made that policy and a definite detriment to those who have to live by it.

Therefore attaining some level of acceptance ends up being a give-and-take scenario where the whole, or fulfillment, may be exactly what was intended; or in some sad cases, what was unintended. Most likely the answer lies somewhere between the two.

The collective public policy, as we know it today, has been dialectically pushed and pulled by a variety of  conservative and liberal “think tanks”, public action committees, research papers funded by corporations, research papers funded by the National Science Foundation and some research papers funded by the  state. All of these modify our individual modes of living to the point where most of us could hardly imagine.

Public policy in nineteenth century Chenango County was pushed and pulled by local agents of change. However, the effects on the average resident was not much different than today. This study has dealt with the comparison of two families deeply affected by public policy and the ways in which their family culture embraced or struggled with its effects.

The study of class and ethnicity however, is defined in the “breaking it down into its manageable parts.”  Therefore, I will not use the “events” to describe the classes but will use events as the ‘trigger mechanism’ that ignites reactions. These reactions may then be used to define class and ethnicity.

Calculus is an abstraction. The calculus of class is likewise an abstraction. The advantage of abstractions is that it assists us in removing preconceived notions and ideology. As human beings we are never free of preconceived notions or ideology; however, we should always recognize them for traps that they can become.

How would we use Wurst’s definition of three abstractions? First, let us review them:

A Summarization of Wurst:

“1. The abstraction of extension:  abstracting relations or processes that extend from events rather than events or results themselves.

Example:   What may the actions that people pursue based on a specific event?

2. The abstraction of levels of generality:    abstracting the level of a person’s uniqueness. What is generally true about this person?

• abstracting people as a level in a particular context
• abstracting people within the context of capitalism
• abstracting levels of a class society
• abstracting all that humans have in common
• abstracting the base needs of humans
• abstracting the material part of nature

3. The abstraction of vantage point: abstracting the point of view or the vantage point of each side of the same relation. Dialectical relationships represent the whole and both sides must be examined.” 

            I propose using matrix diagrams to break down these abstractions into manageable parts. These will define processes, levels and points of view.

Each person represented in the matrix has a chosen limitation. These limitations are:

• Willingness (a self-imposed limitation)
• Ability (a natural limitation)

Willingness is modified by how that person wishes to act or how that person has been taught to act.

Ability is modified by a persons mental or physical capabilities and may also be limited by the available opportunities.

This ends the first post. What have we discussed?

First, due to our natural leanings to see others as being part of our own world it is necessary to leave some of our pre-conceived notions at the doorstep.

Second, we must not look at the actual events of the time period but rather the possible reactions of the players to those events.

Third, we must find the best way to make the research unemotional. I believe using a matrix may allow us to look at these events and players unemotionally.

 (HEY CAPTAIN – – -This is Dr. Spock – –  Beam My Unemotional Self Up).

© Copyright – Waldo Tomosky

GENDER AND AGE DYNAMICS: Phase 9 of a Private Archaeology

Tags

Archaeology, Benjamin Birdsall, Birdsall, Chenango Canal, Chenango County, Chenango County NY, Chenango Forks, educational, Greene NY, Henry Birdsall, History, Lt. Col. Benjamin Birdsall, North Fenton, Town of Greene

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

CULTURAL CONTACTS: Phase 8 of a Private Archaeology

Tags

Abram Storms, Archaeology, Benjamin Birdsall, Birdsall, Chenango Canal, Chenango County, Chenango County NY, Chenango Forks, David Davis, educational, Greene NY, Henry Birdsall, Jean Guillaume deBesse, Lt. Col. Benjamin Birdsall, North Fenton, Revolutionary War, Town of Greene

CULTURAL CONTACTS

 Henry Birdsall was a farmer in Greene who appears to have struggled to keep the modern world out of his family compound. It was a compound in the truest sense due to the quantity of homes and the continuity of the modes of production. There were three homes and all apparent means of production could be accomplished on the property or in very close proximity. This continuity in the face of the ever-changing world around the Henry Birdsall family appears to have almost created a culturally impenetrable wall.

But before we move too fast we should inspect a few other areas of Henry’s life and the life of his descendants.

Cultural Contacts in a Social Setting

Let us first review Henry’s neighbors. There was Abram Storms, a man who Henry was most likely to have visited for advice or in emergencies. Abram settled in the immediate area prior to Henry and therefore would have been well settled and knowledgeable about the area. The Native Americans at times still passed through the land on hunting excursions. Abram Storms would know best how to approach them, or if they should even be approached. The weather in the Chenango Valley could be almost cataclysmic when the northwest winds swept off the western ridges, dipped down into the valley, and then swept up the eastern ridge, a rise of 400 feet in a distance of 1000 feet. Even today these winds appear to create a Bernoulli affect that rips down the most mature of trees. This same weather pattern causes a rainstorm in the valley and, simultaneously, a snowstorm on the ridge. Abram Storms could advise him about the dangers of these woods, when to work them and when to avoid them. Abram Storms was the man famous for hauling a set of grinding stones from Coxackie to Greene. He surely must know how to handle a team of oxen and would be a source of assistance in the event that Henry’s teams could not handle a specific job alone. And then there was that subject that may or may not have been discussed; Abram took part in a war, the Revolutionary War, and Henry had not. Abram may have killed; and Henry, most likely, could not.

ABRAM STORMS GRAVESTONE

Abram is buried in Henry’s family cemetery. What better way to honor a good friend and neighbor than to be buried near each other. This alone substantiates the premise that Henry and Abram must have spent a lot of time working together and conversing together, learning from each other, depending on each other and exchanging ideas and thoughts, some that may have been personal, political, or spiritual in nature.

And then there was that French fellow named Jean Guilliame deBesse; or called John Bessac by most. What a delight he must have been!  He was a gentleman first and foremost. Henry must have been drawn to him for that reason alone. They both had their own worlds but would make room for each others. John Bessac would honor Henry’s, just because that was John’s gentle nature. Henry would honor John’s because that was Henry’s creed; “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Jean Guilliaume De Bessac's History in Library of Congress

John loved the land and the river as much as Henry did. And so did Abram Storms. But again, Henry did not engage in a war. Abram did and so did John, serving under Count Rochambeau. One can almost see these three gentlemen, each from a different world, each with their own creeds and backgrounds, each with their own thoughts on peace and war, exchanging viewpoints. The evening hours, after chores were completed, would have been a joyful time for Henry to walk up to John’s home, pick him up and then go visit Abram for an evening discussion.

How could anyone know about that other neighbor, David D. Davis?  Could he take time from his busy schedule? A highly productive fellow but quite an intense one also. Davis would probably join in from time to time but it appears that he may have been temperamental when least expected. Who could have imagined that he would pick up stakes and join the gold rush?

Who would have imagined that upon his return from California to Greene, he would commit murder upon his wife and brother-in-law, and then, put the gun to himself and end his own life? Surely some of this intense nature was obvious to others, even if not understood.

(For the above four paragraphs please see Appendices B and F, Historic Books and Greene History respectively)

I hope that the above narrative brings to light that multiple cultures were present in these one-on-one (or three-on-three) conversations and work sessions when these men helped each other. Each of these men may have gone back to their own homes 99.99% as pure, culturally, as before the day started. But over time, each of them must have gained new insights and at times engaged in new cultural ideas, even if ever so slightly. Henry and Abram may have sampled some pork or vegetables that John had cooked, French style. Henry and Abram may have listened to John as he read from his French books and translated to English for them. And John must have been learning the ways of the land from Abram. John and Abram exchanging war stories as Henry listened and wondered what would make men do such horrible things to each other. And Henry, at times, telling John and Abram what others had taught him from the bible; that prized possession that they saw displayed so proudly on that rough-sawn table near the entrance to his home.

Cultural Contacts and Conflicts

The Chenango Canal opened up new opportunities for Henry and his descendants to earn a living. It also brought new ideas and concepts from far-away places. Some of these ideas were very welcome and other cultural trappings may have been frowned upon within the Birdsall compound. However, with the canal lock right in the middle of their property, these cultural contacts, both acceptable and unacceptable, were present.

“During the construction of the canal, Irish, Scots and Welsh entered the region bringing new skills and ethnic diversity, and many of them stayed after the canal was built.”

PADDY’s REBELLION – – [after a work slow- down/stoppage on the canal at Deansboro, the militia was called out]

“with drums beating, flags flying, and plumes nodding.  [the workers wives won the first skirmish by pummeling the militia with rock-filled socks. The ringleaders were jailed that evening.]”

“Benjamin Parsons, of Chenango Forks, was a packet boat captain. He was fiery-tempered man, short and stocky, with black curly hair.”

“There were many quarrels between the Erie and Chenango boatmen. Simeon Walker and Sidney Delamarter (both – – famed for their fighting ability) won a victory over a gang of boatmen.”

“People working the boats – – to break the slow moving monotony in the southern part of the canal – – chatted with the local[s and] the lock tender – – -“

“Ausburn Birdsall [from Otsego, built] a sawmill to run on wastewater from lock           

#32, just below Chenango Forks. [Eight boatmen claimed that the water utilized by this mill encumbered their rafts and petitioned the Canal Board to have the mill removed].”

(CITATIONS:  See Appendices F and J, Greene History and Miscellaneous Book Extracts respectively)

The variety of people and their cultures were all around Henry and his descendants from the time the canal construction started until the canal closed. What the Birdsalls may have thought about these cultures and the events that surrounded them can only be surmised. One thing is obvious. With this beehive of activity surrounding them other cultures could not be avoided. The Birdsalls may or may not have struggled to maintain their own lifestyle and culture, however, the children in their formative years must have remembered and been affected by what they had seen.

What internal conflicts did they feel when balancing their Christian background against the violent manner in which the canal-men acted?  How could they possibly understand the conflicts between the State Militia and the Canal Workers? Did they understand that these conflicts, between the canal-men themselves, between the state and the workers, and at times between the canal-men and local businessmen,  were the results of each group attempting to maintain their own livelihoods? 

Cultural and Social Migration

The Henry Birdsalls tended to socially migrate towards North Fenton and Chenango Forks. Several of Henry’s descendants are not buried in the family cemetery but rather in the North Fenton Cemetery. The children and grandchildren carry surnames of families that also settled in the area, both north and south, but with the preponderance of movement being southward. Some census records show movement into Lisle, NY also.

The gravestones in the family cemetery speak volumes about their simple roots AND the cultural changes that impinged upon their lives. There are gravestones with Willows and others with the Fig design and lastly a cast bronze obelisk of quite modern design.

The Lt. Col. Benjamin Birdsall gravestone is rather simple, however his descendants cemetery plots are decorated with modern stones depicting the latest styles and displaying significant size.

A visual comparison of gravestones and grave sites can be seen in Appendix H, Cemetery Records and Photographs

An attempt to answer questions of cultural change will be offered in the section on Ethnicity, Class and Cultural Transformations.

COMPARISON

Henry Birdsall and his immediate descendants were pushed and pulled by the cultural tides that swept through their world during the construction and operation of the Chenango Canal. Conflict would tend to be an abhorrent concept to the Birdsalls. Yet here it was, observed and talked about, almost every day. This situation surely would have caused the Birdsalls to struggle to maintain their peaceful ways from being invaded by this conflict and vulgarity. They were not the agents of change but more likely the unknowing intended targets of change. And yet there was the obvious opportunity of enhancing their own lives by taking advantage of the monetary opportunities that arose from the construction and operation of the canal. Internal conflicts must have existed. We may identify families such as the Henry Birdsalls as unwilling agents of a new capital economy that replaced a rural farm economy; and the cultural modifications that accompany significant changes such as this. Cultural changes are reflected in the cemetery stone designs and the family center-of-gravity moving towards the villages (North Fenton and Chenango Forks among others).

Lt. Col. Benjamin Birdsall and his descendants also observed the cultural tides that swept through the village. However, quite unlike Henry’s family the Benjamin Birdsalls were very active agents of change. Their various enterprises were built around these changes. They actively pursued new opportunities and technological innovations that enhanced these opportunities (Stores, product depots, first elevator, first telephone). Cultural/Social changes are reflected in their upward mobility, both locally and in their westward movement from NY to TX (see section on modes of production), and in gravestone design and gravestone magnitude in the Canal Street Cemetery.

(See appendix H, Cemeteries, Photos)

© Copyright – Waldo Tomosky

MODE OF PRODUCTION: Phase 6 of a Private Archaeology

Tags

Abram Storms, Archaeology, Benjamin Birdsall, Birdsall, Chenango Canal, Chenango County, Chenango County NY, Chenango Forks, d'Autremont, David Davis, Dutchess County NY, educational, Garnsey, Greene NY, Henry Birdsall, History, Hudson Valley, Jean Guillaume deBesse, Juliand, Lt. Col. Benjamin Birdsall, Mode of production, Morris, North Fenton, Oyster Bay, Quaker, Revolutionary War, Thomas Tew, Town of Barker, Town of Greene, Treat, value of property, wages

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