CHAPTER XIX.

ANTI-RENT TROUBLES.

Pages 117-181

[Page 171]         

     Troubles over the payment of rents to the Lords of the Manors, and later to their descendants, had existed for a full century before the final settlement of the matter.  The disputed boundary line between New York and Massachusetts which had caused a border warfare among the inhabitants of the contested districts, was probably occasioned as much by the discontent of the Manor tenants, as by the controversy between the provinces.

     The Government of New York claimed that its eastern line was the Connecticut River, on the basis that the Dutch actually possessed this river before any other European people knew of its existence, that they had a fort and garrison there, had traded with the Indians, and purchased of them nearly all the land for a hundred miles on both sides of the Connecticut.  Massachusetts set up rival claims, setting the boundary lines [page 172] of her possessions westward at least as far as the Hudson River, although she confessed that she "had for a long time neglected the settlement of the West Bounds; they lying very remote from Boston."

     About the middle of the eighteenth century, tenants who had neglected to pay their rents until they had reached a considerable amount, became defiant, deciding in future to hold their lands as owners and no longer tenants, under authority to be secured from the government of Massachusetts Bay.  This was the beginning of long hostilities between the provinces.  During the controversy houses were burned, wheat was cut down and carried away in wagons, and acres of corn were destroyed.  Acts of retaliation were committed by both parties.  Secret surveys were made by New England men, and possession of land surveyed in this way, was taken by the construction of tree-fences.

     Tenants refusing to leave farms after being ordered to go, found their crops harvested and carried away by their landlord and his assistants.  Hundreds of trees were destroyed and crops ruined by the rioters, and arrests followed, both parties growing more and more [page 173] bitter as the trouble continued.

     There were threats to take the Lords of both the Livingston and Van Rensselaer Manors dead or alive.  Organizations of military companies intended for protection against the Indians, were used in the tenant-warfare, representing tenants or landlord, according to the composition of the company, the Captains of the Anti-rent party holding their commissions from the Governor of Massachusetts, while Robert Livingston, Jr., and Dirck Ten Broeck held theirs from the Governor of New York.  The disaffection begun on the Livingston Manor, but spread to that of the Van Rensselaers.

     Robert Noble, a tenant of Rensselaerwick, held one of these Massachusetts commissions, and transformed his house into a kind of fort, with loop-holes for muskets, and garrisoned by about twenty men under his command, claiming to hold their land under the Boston government.  Some of their neighbors were taken prisoners unlawfully by the company, and upon a visit from the Sheriff he too was made prisoner, and confined in the Sheffield jail.  The rescuing party led by John and Henry Van Rensselaer found the Noble [page 174] house deserted, and before their return a tenant named Riis, an Anti-rent sympathizer was killed upon the Livingston Manor.

     For this event each party accused the other, one pleading self-defense, and the other unprovoked assault.  Further arrests followed, and the bitterness became intense, particularly against the Lord of Livingston Manor, who in the end ejected many tenants who refused to pay rent.  Serious riots ensued, resulting in several killed and wounded.  Under Governor De Lancy's authority, a number of rioters were arrested and held in prison for about two years, with the effect of quelling the Anti-rent disaffection for a considerable time, and the proprietors and Manors settled down to a peace long destroyed by the Anti-rent disturbances.

     A partial settlement of the boundary line was made at this time, but it was not until the spring of 1773, that the partition line of the jurisdiction of the two States, was entirely established, which made the dividing line as nearly as possible, twenty miles from the Hudson River.  The commission appointed to decide upon the matter was composed of John Watts, William Smith, and Robert R. Livingston on the part of [page 175] New York, and John Hancock, Joseph Hawley, and William Brattle for Massachusetts.  The agreement of the commissioners received the approval of the Governors of both States.

     The settling of the Boundary line between the two States however, did not entirely do away with the tenant uprisings.  Twice in the next thirty-five years the Anti-renters took the war path, repeating each time the lawless acts of arson, destruction of grain, and taking of human life.

     The Revolutionary War for a time quieted the more turbulent spirits, though it was often suspected that the so-called Tories were at times those actuated by a desire for personal vengeance.

     The Anti-rent feeling arose again strongly in 1790, not only in Columbia but in adjacent counties.  The farmer-tenants on the Manors held that they and their ancestors had already paid in rents, far more than the worth of the land, even including the buildings and improvements which they themselves had made, that the system of perpetual lease-holding was degrading and inconsistent with the principles of Republican government, or with self respect.  On the banks of the [page 176] Hudson river they were subjected to a system of land tenure which had been overthrown in England in the thirteenth century.

     These opinions circulated freely through the press, awakened the old feeling of resentment, and being fanned to a white heat, some of the people of Nobletown (Hillsdale) threatened the deputy sent to hold an auction, by reason of an execution against a man named Arnold, and the auction was postponed till the following Saturday.  On that day Sheriff Cornelius Hogeboom attended the execution himself, and after waiting till late in the afternoon for the arrival of his deputy, the people in the meantime having become more and more excited, postponed the sale once more, and with his two companions started for home.  Young Arnold, an Anti-rent leader, seeing the officers of the law about to depart, fired a pistol, at which a number of men dressed and painted like Indians, suddenly appeared and followed the Sheriff and his companions, firing as they advanced.  Part of the bullets passed between the two men, but Sheriff Hogeboom refused to spur his horse, saying that he was "vested with the law, and they should never find him a coward."

     [page 177] Soon after this the Indians dropped off, but young Arnold and a companion mounted one horse and caught up with the Sheriff, when one of them leveled his gun and lodged a bullet in the heart of Mr. Hogeboom.  With the exclamation "I am a dead man," the Sheriff fell from his horse, and was carried into a house near by.

     The feeling and sympathies of the whole community were deeply stirred by this atrocious murder.  Though twelve men supposed to have been implicated in the proceedings were arrested, Jonathan Arnold was never captured.  After a long trial held in Claverack in February 1792, those arrested were acquitted for lack of evidence.

     The widow of Cornelius Hogeboom died wholly of grief three months later.  Everything possible was done to quell the lawless spirit after this tragic event, and for nearly half a century no further Anti-rent troubles of any magnitude arose.  But the spirit of Anti-rentism was only smouldering, and broke out again in 1840.  Secret societies were formed extending through several counties, pledging themselves to protect tenants from arrest or eviction, and to guard their [page 178] property from sale.  As soon as a Sheriff came in sight, a band of men in calico dresses with faces painted as Indians, armed with pistols, tomahawks and guns, appeared on horse back and warned him away, threatening him if he proceeded to perform his duty.  Again there was lawlessness and tragedy until the leaders "Big Thunder" and "Little Thunder" were arrested.  Sheriff Henry C. Miller attempted to serve papers on the property of an Anti-renter, and was taken prisoner by "Big Thunder" and six other chiefs of his tribe, and his papers burned amidst the war-whoops of "Big Thunder's" followers and sympathizers.  This event awakened the deepest indignation.

     It was known that "Big Thunder" was to speak to the Van Rensselaer tenants in Smoky Hollow in the town of Claverack on a particular day.  He was surrounded by a body-guard in costume, and in this spectacular setting addressed a large audience of Anti-rent partisans, and others interested in the subject.  It was his most brilliant as well as his last speech, for during the excitement of the day, a young man named Rifenburgh was shot and killed.  It was said to have been an accident, but the authorities felt it was time [page 179] to prevent more accidents of the same sort, and "Big Thunder" was arrested on the night of his greatest triumph.  He made a desperate effort to escape but failed, and was lodged that night in the Hudson jail.  So great was the excitement over the threats of his followers, who, a thousand strong, had sworn to rescue the prisoners and burn the city of Hudson, that guards were stationed at the jail, and Hudson was patrolled at night for a month, while other arrangements were made for defense.  At the end of this time the danger was believed to be past.  Without a leader, and as the result of frequent arrests, the Anti-rent rioters had again quieted down.

     "Big Thunder" was tried and sentenced to life imprisonment in Clinton prison.  "Little Thunder" was never brought to trial.  There were no more attempts to resist the execution of the law in Columbia County, but in 1846 the Anti-rent party elected their governor (Young) and one of his official acts was to pardon the Anti-rent convicts, including "Big Thunder."  The final triumph of the Anti-renters came in 1852, when in the test case of De Peyster against Michael (De Peyster having purchased of Van Rensselaer interest [page 180] in land), the court was unanimous in its decision in favor of the defendant.  This case closed the Anti-rent controversy in favor of the Anti-renters, after a century of repeated bloodshed and riot, and since then "the entire soil of the Lower Van Rensselaer Manor has been held in fee simple by it occupants."

     "In the war against Great Britain in 1812-1815 Columbia county furnished a large number of troops, though few of them saw active service under hostile fire."  A military organization under Brigadier-General Samuel Ten Broeck existed prior to the war, and was still under his command at this time.  Among the commands mentioned as composing the brigade, was that of a "regiment of infantry commanded by Major Robert T. Livingston, having attached to it the troop of cavalry commanded by Captain Walter T. Livingston, and a regiment of infantry under command of Lieutenant-Colonel Jacob Rutsen Van Rensselaer attached to which was a troop of horse, commanded by Captain Killian Hogeboom."

     "The Light Infantry Battalion of Lieutenant-Colonel (afterwards promoted to Colonel and Brigadier-General) Jacob Rutsen Van Rensselaer, was ordered [page 181] to the defense of the city of New York, September 1st, 1814, and remained on the duty during the whole term of service.

      William A. Spencer, a son of Judge Ambrose Spencer, for many years a prominent resident of Columbia County, was a participant in the navel battle fought on Lake Champlain under Commodore McDonough, and was wounded in the fight.  The young man made a name for himself for gallantry as a midshipman in the Commodore's fleet.   

Buttons by www.grsites.com