Cultural Landscape Report for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 29.86/4: M 36 Cultural Landscape Report FOR Martin Van BuREN Nahonal Historic Site FEOeHAL Site History, Existing Conditions, and Analysis PUBLIC A1 Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation National Park Service Cultural Landscape Report FOR Marun Van BuREN Nauonal Historic Site Site History, Existing Conditions, and Analysis prepared by David L. Uschold Research Scientist and George W. Curry, Project Director Faculty of Landscape Architecture College of Environmental Science and Forestry State University of New York Syracuse, New York Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation National Park Service Boston, Massachusetts June 1995 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS IVIembers and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/culturallandscapOOusch FOREWORD Landscape implies far more than high-style aesthetics; it is a document of the shared aspirations, ingenuity, memories, and culture of its builders. J.B. Jackson President Martin Van Buren purchased his New York estate, Lindenwald, in 1839 for political as well as personal reasons. Politically, Van Buren understood that his rhetoric promoting the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and agrarian pursuits would gain credibility if he were engaged in agriculture himself. Personally Van Buren was familiar with this property from his youth, and knew that if he not win re- election in 1840, Lindenwald would make an excellent base for continued political pursuits and a glorious retirement experimenting in horticulture. This place in his native village of Kinderhook tells us much about him. After loosing his re-election bid again in 1848 Van Buren retired from politics to be, as he listed himself in the 1850 census, a "farmer." He was a very successful farmer and enjoyed entertaining at his "sweet Lindenwald." The staff of the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site is pleased to have this Cultural Landscape Report. This report was prepared through a cooperative agreement between the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry and the National Park Service. The collaboration on this project was particularly satisfying to the park staff and we give special thanks to Research Scientist David L. Uschold and Professor George W. Curry of the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Nora Mitchell and Heidi Hohmann of the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. This report will form the foundation for development of a plan to manage the cultural landscape and the historic setting which is critical to the interpretation of Martin Van Buren and his "sweet Lindenwald." We look forward to the day when the overall environment at the site will bespeak of the culture of Martin Van Buren in the mid-nineteenth century in Kinderhook. 1 Contents Foreword iii Acknowledgments vii List of Illustrations ix Introduction 1 I. Van Ness Period 1 II. Van Buren Period 3 III. Wagoner Period 59 IV. deProsse Period 77 V. National Park Service Period 109 VI. Statement of Significance and Site Analysis 155 Conclusion 1 87 Endnotes 189 Appendices Appendix A: Completed NPS Reports Appendix B: Landscape Feature Table Appendix C: Repositories Consulted and Results Appendix D: Individuals Consulted Appendix E: National Register of Historic Places nomination Form Appendix F: Miscellaneous Graphic Documentation Appendix G: Plant Lists Bibliography Vita Acknowledgments The development of this cultural landscape report was a cooperative effort between the National Park Service North Atlantic Region, the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, and the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry Faculty of Landscape Architecture. Many individuals helped make the completion of this report possible. Special thanks to Nora Mitchell, Manager, and Heidi Hohmann, Historical Landscape Architect, both of the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, for their guidance and support throughout the project. The staff at Martin Van Buren National Historic Site provided invaluable guidance and assistance. Special thanks to Bruce Stewart, Superintendent, who passed away during completion of the report. Thanks also go to Phyllis Ewing, Acting Superintendent, and Richard Oullette, Chief of Maintenance. Special thanks go to Judy Harris, Museum Technician, and Michael Henderson, Curator, currently Supervisory Staff Curator, North Atlantic Region. Thanks also need to be given to Christine Capella-Peters, Field Representative, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, and to Scott Shannon, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture, Matt Potteiger, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Donald Leopold, Associate Professor of Environmental and Forest Biology, all of the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Special thanks go to William deProsse Jr. and his sister Jeanne B. Akers. The deProsse family owned and lived at Lindenwald from 1917-1957. William and Jeanne provided invaluable assistance in documenting the property. List of Illustrations Figure 0.1: Context map: Kindertiook, New York (Uschold, 1993. 1 SUNY CESF). Figure 0.2: Location map: Lindenwald, Kinderhook, New York (Uschold, 2 1993. SUNY CESF). Figure 0.3: Lindenwald ownership chronology (Uschold, 1993. SUNY 4 CESF). Figure 1.1: KinderhookPatentMapof 1686, illustrating area patents of 1686 14 and a 1780 overlay of land allotments of smaller farms (Collier, A History of Old Kinderhook , 124). Figure 1.2: Environmental context: Van Ness Period (Uschold, 1993. 15 SUNY CESF). Figure 1.3: 1805 Map: Produced as a result of the will of Peter Van Ness in 17 1805, this demonstrates the division of Kleinrood between John and William Van Ness (Photographic copy on file, MVB NHS). Figure 1.4: Kleinrood: 1780-1805, Peter Van Ness farm (Uschold, 1993. 18 SUNY CESF). Figure 1.5: Kleinrood: 1805-1839, John Van Ness farni and William Van 18 NessAViUiam Paulding farm (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF). Figure 1.6: 1797 Peter Van Ness house (DSC, National Park Service, n.d.). 20 Figure 1.7: Carriage bam, 1937 (Photo # CLR-403. On fUe, MVB NHS). 21 Figure 1.8: Farm office, 1936 (Photo # CLR-401. On file, MVB NHS). 22 Figure 2.1: Environmental context: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. 33 SUNY CESF). Figure 2.2: Setting: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF). 34 Figure 2.3: Topography & Hydrology: Van Buren Period (USGS, 1976. 36 Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF). Figure 2.4: c. 1841 sketch map of Lindenwald (Martin Van Buren Papers, 37 Syracuse University). , 1 Figure 2.5: c. 1843 sketch of Lindenwald main house (Photo # CLR-201 38 photographic copy. On file, MVB NHS). Figure 2.6: Farm cottage and red hiUside bam, c. 1900 (Photo #CLR-002. 39 On file, MVB NHS). Figure 2.7: Black hay bam, c. 1940 (Photo #CLR-471. On file, MVB NHS). 39 Figure 2.8: Lindenwald main house, pre- 1849 (DSC, National Parte 40 Service, n.d.). Figure 2.9: Lindenwald main house, post- 1850 (DSC, National Park 40 Service, n.d.). Figure 2.10: South gate house, 1993 (Photo # CLR- 1510. Uschold, 41 SUNY CESF). Figure 2.11: North gate house, c. 1945 (Photo #CLR-426. On file, MVB 41 NHS). Figure 2.12: Buildings and Stmctures: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. 42 SUNY CESF). Figure 2.13: Pear orchard north of main house, front portion of north 44 orchard, c.1900 (Photo # CLR-31 1.5. On file, MVB NHS). Figure 2.14: Vegetation: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF). 46 Figure 2.15: c. 1843 sketch of main house (Photo # CLR-201, photographic 47 copy of original drawing. On file, MVB NHS). Figure 2.16: c.l849UpjohnRenderingof Main house (Photo #CLR-202, 47 photographic copy of original painting. On file, MVB NHS). Figure 2.17: Front garden at entrance to main house, c.1913 (Photo # CLR-302. 49 On file, MVB NHS). Figure 2.18: Spatial Organization: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY 50 CESF). Figure 2.19 : South entrance drive and road to farm cottage, c. 191 3 (Photo 5 #CLR-301. On file, MVB NHS). Figure 2.20: Circulation: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF). 52 Figure 2.21: Water Features: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF). 53 : Figure 3.1: Agriculture use (com field) of front lawn, c. 1905 (Photo 60 #CLR-303. On file, MVB NHS). Figure 3.2: Front lawn and main house, c.1913 (Photo #CLR-304. 61 On file, MVB NHS). Figure 3.3: Well house, c. 1920 (Photo # CLR-423. On file, MVB NHS). 62 Figure 3.4: Wood shed, c. 1900 (Photo #CLR-004. On file, MVB NHS). 63 Figure 3.5: Wood shed, c. 1940 (Photo #CLR-4 16. On file, MVB NHS). 35 Figure 3.6: Wagoner garage, 1969 (Photo #CLR-429. On file, MVB NHS). 65 Fi gure 3.7 Front garden and front lawn, c.1913 (Photo # CLR-006. 67 On file, MVB NHS). Figure 3.8: Entry drive, road to farm cottage, and garden fence, c.1913 69 (Photo # CLR-301.5. On file, MVB NHS). Figure 3.9: Frontviewof main house, showing curved trellis, c. 1895 70 (Photo #CLR-3 12. On file, MVB NHS). Figure 3.10: Viewofmainhouse, showing rectangular trellis and lawn 70 swing, c.1913 (Photo # CLR-308. On file, MVB NHS). Figure 3.11: Viewofmainhouse, showing hitching posts, c. 1900 (Photo 71 #CLR-311. On file, MVB NHS). Figure 3.12: View along Post Road, showing front fence and gates to entry 72 drive, c.1895 (Photo # CLR-315. On file, MVB NHS). Figure 4.1: Setting: Bimey (1917-1925) and deProsse (1925-1957) 79 ownerships, deProsse Period, (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF). Figure 4.2: Setting: deProsse (1925-1957) and CampbeU (1957-1973) 80 ownerships, deProsse Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF). Figure 4.3: Rear porch on main house, 1937 (Photo #CLR-450. On file, 81 MVB NHS). Figure 4.4: Enlarged rear porch on main house, 1936 (Photo # CLR-463. 82 On file, MVB NHS). Figure 4.5: Campbell front porch on main house, 1974 (Photo # CLR-530.