Information to Users

Home , Angelica Schuyler Church, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Schuyler family

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Artx>r, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “ALL THAT A GENTEEL FAMILY NEED REQUIRE”:

THE CHURCH FAMILY’S FRONTIER EXPERIENCE AT BELVIDERE,

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

Melissa Came Naulin

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Early American Culture

Spring 2000

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number 1398902

UMI*

UMI Microform 1398902 Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “ALL THAT A GENTEEL FAMILY NEED REQUIRE”:

THE CHURCH FAMILY’S FRONTIER EXPERIENCE AT BELVIDERE,

ALLEGANY COUNTY, NEW YORK

Melissa Carrie Naulin

Approved: J. Ritchie Garrison, Ph.D. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee

Approved: J. Ritchie Garrison, Ph.D. Acting Director of the Winterthur Program in Early American Culture

Approved: Conrado MrGerfjjjesdw, n, Ph.D. Acting Vice-Provost for Academic Programs and Planning

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A long-term research project is never a solitary endeavor, and I have accumulated

a multitude of debts over the last year as I researched and pondered the meaning of the

Church family’s home and experience on the western New York frontier. I first must

thank Robert and Marian Bromeley, Pam and Don Fredeen, and George and Cathy

Daggett for making this thesis possible. They were overwhelmingly generous in opening

their homes and their research files to me, and sharing the knowledge they have gained

from decades of living at Belvidere and exploring its history. I am especially indebted to

Pam Fredeen, who made my job infinitely easier by sharing her own research with me. I

never would have been able to get through even a fraction of the Church family letters

without her previous work transcribing these documents. She also patiently answered my

steady stream of questions, pampered me with delicious meals while I was at Belvidere,

and held the other end of the tape measure for hours on end. I can not express how

grateful I am.

Ritchie Garrison has served as an ideal mentor and his advice has greatly

improved this project. His patience and encouragement through the entire process has

been invaluable. He was especially brave to take on the challenge of seeing me through

my first attempt at measured architectural drawings.

ill

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I wish to thank the following people for their research assistance: the Winterthur

Library staff, especially Neville Thompson and Jeanne Solensky; University of Delaware

Professor Damie Stillman; the Interlibrary Loan staff at the University of Delaware,

Doris Feldbauer, Librarian, Angelica Free Library; Craig Braack, Allegany County

Historian; Robert Dorsey, Angelica Town Historian; Charlotte Hegyi, Archivist, Warren

Hunting Smith Library; Johanna McKinzey; Stuart Hobbs, Historian, Ohio Historical

Society; John Daskalakis, Museum Technician, Manhattan Sites, National Park Service;

Marcy Shaffer and Glenn Griffith, Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site; Peter Wisbey,

Curator, Genesee Country Village and Museum; and Wendy Cooper, Curator of

Furniture, Winterthur Museum.

I also thank the following people for granting me permission to quote from

manuscripts or use images held in their collections: Pam Fredeen, Belvidere Trust;

Charlotte Hegyi, Warren Hunting Smith Library; Margaret Heilbrun, The New-York

Historical Society; Mimi Bowling, The New York Public Library; Nancy Sylor, Angelica

Free Library; John Daskalakis, National Park Service; Michael Scorgie; Gary Watt,

Connecticut Historical Society; Edward Gaynor, University of Virginia Library; and

David Vecchioli, Morristown National Historic Park.

Finally, I thank my “fellow fellows” for a wonderful two years, thesis angst aside.

I am especially grateful to Catherine Dann, who assisted me on my measuring mission at

Belvidere. Most importantly, I thank my partner, Rich Scigaj, who has served as graphic

design artist, copy editor, computer repairman, and chief supporter for this project. His

love makes all things possible.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES...... vi

ABSTRACT...... x

TEXT:

Introduction...... 1

John Barker and Angelica Schuyler Church...... 8

Philip Church and the Acquisition of 100,000 Acres in Western New York 26

Western New York Background ...... 30

Philip Church’s Early Settlement of the Church Tract...... 35

Building Belvidere ...... 56

Life at Belvidere...... 74

Conclusion ...... 97

NOTES...... 102

FIGURES...... 122

APPENDIX A: Measured Drawings of Belvidere ...... 180

APPENDIX B: Church Family Genealogy...... 186

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 188

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES

1. “The Pioneer Settler Upon The Holland Purchase, And His Progress”...... 122

2. “Second Sketch of the Pioneer”...... 123

3. “Third Sketch of the Pioneer” ...... 124

4. Northern facade of Belvidere...... 125

5. Southern facade of Belvidere ...... 126

6. Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site...... 127

7. Riverfront view of Down Place ...... 128

8. Painting of Angelica Schuyler Church with child and servant...... 129

9. Exterior view of home designed by Joseph Bonomi for John B. Church...... 130

10. First floor plan of home designed by Joseph Bonomi for John B. Church...... 131

11. Second floor plan of home designed by Joseph Bonomi for John B. Church.... 132

12. “Map of Holland Land Company’s Preliminary Survey 1797”...... 133

13. “A Map showing the relative situation of a tract of Land belonging to J.B. Church

Esqr.”...... 134

14. Topographical map, Angelica Township, Allegany County,.New York ...... 135

15. Topographical map, Belmont Township, Allegany County, New York...... 136

16. Ca. 1862 image of “White House” ...... 137

17. Ca. 1900 image of “White House” ...... 138

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18. “Plan of three Floors to a House belonging to Phillip [sic] Church Esqr.” 139

19. First floor plan, The Grange...... 140

20. Basement and second floor plans, The Grange...... 141

21. Front elevation, The Grange...... 142

22. Detail of stonework at Belvidere ...... 143

23. Detail of capital and comice on Belvidere’s southern portico...... 144

24. Maria Silliman Church sketch of northern facade of Belvidere, 1831 ...... 145

25. Front door of Belvidere...... 146

26. Ca. 1862 image of southern facade of Belvidere ...... 147

27. Ca. 1862 image of northern facade of Belvidere ...... 148

28. Attributed Maria Silliman Church sketch of southern facade of Belvidere 149

29. 1856 image of Belvidere from Allegany County wall map...... 150

30. Ca. 1862 image of Belvidere from across the Genesee River ...... 151

31. Gate and wall at Belvidere...... 152

32. Drawing room comice, Belvidere...... 153

33. Triple hung windows, drawing room, Belvidere...... 154

34. Belvidere’s carriage bam ...... 155

35. Detail of carriage bam ...... 156

36. Framing of carriage bam ...... 157

37. First floor plan of Belvidere, 1831 ...... 158

38. Tripartite windows in southwest chamber, Belvidere ...... 159

39. Fireplace in southwest chamber, Belvidere...... 160

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40. Arched hallway leading to southeast chamber, Belvidere...... 161

41. Fireplace in southeast chamber, Belvidere ...... 162

42. Stone pier in basement, Belvidere...... 163

43. Middle garret room, Belvidere...... 164

44. Southwestern garret room, Belvidere ...... 165

45. Silver card tray...... 166

46. Tea table ...... 167

47. Clothespress...... 168

48. Detail of clothespress...... 169

49. Sleigh bed ...... 170

50. Sofia...... 171

51. Angelica Park Circle...... 172

52. Former Allegany County courthouse...... 173

53. First Methodist Church, Angelica Park Circle ...... 174

54. St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Angelica Park Circle...... 175

55. Detail of front door of St. Paul’s...... 176

56. Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church, Angelica Park Circle ...... 177

57. Angelica Grange (former Presbyterian Church), Angelica Park Circle ...... 178

58. Baptist Church, Angelica Park Circle ...... 179

Appendix Figures:

59. Measured drawing, Belvidere basement ...... 181

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60. Measured drawing, Belvidere first floor...... 182

61. Measured drawing, Belvidere first floor addition ...... 183

62. Measured drawing, Belvidere second floor...... 184

63. Measured drawing, Belvidere garret ...... 185

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT

Images of crude log cabins and primitive living conditions dominate Americans’

inherited understanding of life on the western frontier. The survival of Belvidere, a grand

neoclassical-style stone and brick mansion built on the western New York frontier in

1808 therefore comes as surprise. Belvidere’s atypicality begs interpretation. Who built

this home, and why? Were its occupants able to live the genteel lifestyle that Belvidere

was designed for, despite its frontier location?

Using Belvidere’s surviving material evidence in conjunction with documentary

sources, this thesis explores the ideals and experience of the Church family, who built

and lived at Belvidere for over eighty years. I trace the Churches’ elite family

background, the circumstances behind Philip Church’s acquisition of the 100,000-acre

tract of land in western New York where he built Belvidere, and his settlement tactics. I

conclude that Belvidere was built both to serve as a sufficiently genteel home for a

wealthy, fashionable family asserting their position of power within the community, and

as an advertisement to help Church sell his land to wealthy prospective settlers.

In constructing an expensive home in the latest transatlantic style on the frontier,

the Churches expressed their faith in their ability to maintain a comfortable, elite lifestyle

despite their frontier location. The Churches were able to import the necessary material

goods and furnishings to pursue this ideal, defying traditional notions that fashionable

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. consumer goods were not available on the frontier in early years. Their project to recreate

the elite urban lifestyle they were accustomed to before moving to Allegany County

ultimately failed though because they were unable to attract genteel people to settle there.

Because they refused to socialize with people they felt were beneath them, the Church

family suffered from loneliness in their remote home. Owning expensive and fashionable

goods had no purpose when the “right” people did not see and appreciate them.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Introduction

The settlement of the western frontier is one story that most Americans assume

they already know. We imagine poor, yet hardworking farm families tempted by the

allure of fertile land to leave civilization behind and begin the slow process of taming the

wilderness. Architecture has always played a large part in this mythic image, as the

crude log cabins we associate with pioneers have come to symbolize the entire frontier

experience. This traditional story of frontier development is visually depicted in

engravings published in Orasmus Turner’s 1850 book, History o f the Holland Purchase.

(Figures 1, 2, and 3). These scenes depict progressive views of a typical western New

York pioneer farm, complete with a log cabin and its subsequent improvements.

Orasmus Turner’s illustrations do not prepare us to discover Belvidere, an 1808 brick and

stone mansion built in what is now Allegany County, New York during the first decade

of European-American settlement west of the Genesee River. (Figures 4 and 5). In light

of our inherited notions of frontier life and architecture, how do we understand this

structure, built by wealthy landowner Philip Church on his 100,000-acre wilderness tract

that bordered the Holland Purchase just to the east? Why would a well-educated lawyer

who had been raised in the most advanced urban centers of both Europe and America by

a wealthy, genteel family choose to make his home in a remote area plagued by bitter

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. winters, wolves, fleas, and disease? What kind of lifestyle did Church expect tomaintain

in these conditions?

Reconstructing Philip Church’s mindset is not a simple task. A historian’s

immediate impulse is to search for documents either written by or referring to Church.

While such records do exist, and are helpful, material culture scholars have taught us to

consider the surviving physical evidence that can be connected to Church. This approach

is especially fruitful in this case, since Belvidere, Church’s home of over half a century,

survives along with some of his belongings and the landscape he helped design. Once we

learn to “read the language” of material objects, such sources can both correlate

observations gleaned from written documents as well as offer insights into aspects that

the latter evidence fails to address. For example, as Dell Upton has written,

“Architecture is a way of defining relationships - of the self to others, of parts of the

community to other people, and of people to their physical and cosmic environments.”1

Understanding the implications of the spatial design of Belvidere, can therefore provide a

clearer portrait of Church’s self image, as well as his perceived relations with other

members of his household and community. The most complete picture of Church’s

intentions emerges only by working back and forth between both written and material

evidence.

The concept of context is crucial to the interpretation of Church’s actions and

surviving material artifacts. As historical archaeologist Ian Hodder has written, “an

object as an object, alone, is mute,” but when it is considered in light of its context,

“artifacts do speak.”2 Similarly, architectural historian Bernard Herman declares,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “artifacts achieve meaning only in context.”3 The story of a wealthy family leading a

genteel lifestyle complete with a beautiful home, large servant staff, plentiful leisure

time, and elaborate parties, does not seem particularly unusual until the location of the

Churches’ activities is considered. If Philip Church had built Belvidere in an urban

center such as New York City or Philadelphia, our understanding of it and its owners

would be radically different. It is therefore crucial to explore the Church family’s

background and identify what Allegany County, New York was like during the time of

their residence. What type of homes and lifestyle were the Churches accustomed to

before moving to the western New York frontier? Who were the Churches’ neighbors in

Allegany County? What did their houses look like? How did Belvidere compare?

The story of Philip Church and Belvidere is a part of the history of the

development of the western frontier, yet it does not fit neatly into any of the various

development models offered by American historians. All frontier historiography

inevitably begins with the work of Frederick Jackson Turner. In his classic 1893 paper,

“The Significance of the Frontier in American History,” Turner argued that when

Americans moved to the western frontier, they experienced “a return to primitive

conditions” from which they emerged slowly over time.4 Turner emphasized settlers’

isolation from established eastern civilization and described “men of capital and

enterprise” arriving only after the early pioneers had labored for many years and created

viable villages.5 As William Wyckoff points out, Turner’s model does not work for

western New York where “connections with the East were fostered from the beginning,

and the ‘men of capital and enterprise’ were the first and not the last figures to arrive on

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the scene.”6 Wyckoff has been among those historians who have challenged Turner’s

views and argued that there were multiple and disparate types of frontiers. Thus

scholarship is now available that details the particulars of the “federal frontier,” the

“speculator’s frontier,” the “urban frontier,” and the “developer’s frontier.”7 hi general,

these studies have contradicted Turner by focusing attention on the role of capital and

commerce in frontier development. These scholars have concluded that settlers were

more likely to affirm eastern ways on the frontier than reject them.

Philip Church’s experience in Allegany County most closely fits William

Wyckoff s description of the “developer’s frontier,” in which a large landowner was

responsible for providing an orderly system of land disposal, promoting the land, and

investing heavily in frontier towns and services. WyckofFs focus on the Holland Land

Company, a large conglomeration of wealthy Dutch investors, and their agent, Joseph

Ellicott, who settled the westernmost section of New York State, does not however

adequately explain the inevitable personal implications that arose when a single wealthy

individual owned a large area of land and personally supervised its settlement. The

model provided by the Holland Land Company of a group of wealthy men who do not

live anywhere near the land they own relying on a local employee to institute their

instructions was certainly more common than a single resident landlord, but examples of

the latter situation did occur. Men in New York whose situations paralleled Philip

Church’s include William Cooper, who served as owner and patriarch of thousands of

acres of land in Otsego County, and brothers James and William Wadsworth, who

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. supervised their family’s landholdings in the fertile northern plains of the lower Genesee

Valley.8

Church, Cooper, and the Wadsworths all tied their economic health to their

abilities as land developers. As a result, they shared the same challenge ofmaintaining

their elite class status and its accompanying expectation of a refined lifestyle despite

living on the frontier. Their ownership of an abundant array of genteel goods such as

carriages, slaves, and fine furniture in the very earliest years of settlement in their

respective frontier territories defies our traditional understanding of the frontier as

“primitive.” These men all used material symbols of wealth, including fine clothes,

fashionable houses, and expensive belongings to maintain the lifestyle they were

accustomed to before moving to the New York frontier as well as to establish their

position of power within the communities they founded.

Material culture students have long been accustomed to understanding ownership

of expensive, genteel belongings as bids for status and power. While this interpretation

holds true for these New York frontier “lords,” their positions as land developers adds

another dimension to their consumption of elite goods. Church, Cooper, and the

Wadsworths were all struggling to sell land in a very competitive national and

international land market, and their finances depended on their success in doing so.

Simply put, these men had to increase the population figures of their settlement in order

for land prices to rise. Setders came, but the majority of people interested in Allegany,

Otsego, and Livingston Counties, the respective domains of the three families, arrived

with little cash in hand and requested land on credit. These developers therefore rarely

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. saw Immediate profit from their investments, but committed themselves to long-term

development projects for their region and helping their impoverished settlers to prosper.

The ability to pay cash on down payments made potential settlers arriving with money

very desirable. Possibly more importantly, Church, Cooper and the Wadsworths wanted

to attract families of wealth who could invest in the community and increase the civility

o f their ventures. They also undoubtedly craved neighbors with whom they could

socialize.

To help accomplish their goals of attracting genteel people to their land, Church,

Cooper and the Wad worths all built grand homes that they hoped would inform

prospective settlers with money about the possibilities of living on the frontier. In doing

this, they were, in Dell Upton’s borrowing of Louis Sullivan’s term, “’annotating’ social

action by creating appropriate settings for it.”9 As Richard Bushman has argued, elite

people in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries designed their homes especially for

genteel entertainment.10 Thus the grand halls, dining rooms, parlors, and spectacular

views in Church’s home Belvidere, Cooper’s brick mansion Otsego Hall, and the

Wadsworths’ elegant home, The Homestead, can all be seen as attempts to provide for

genteel behavior on the frontier. These New York land developers therefore created

refined material environments both to maintain their class status and to serve their many

promotional strategies.

Of the three families I have been discussing, the Churches arrived at their frontier

home with the most elite connections. Philip Church was the son of John Barker Church,

a prominent money man and recent member of the English Parliament. His American

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. wife, Angelica Schuyler, was regarded as the most fashionable hostess in New York City

after her return from a fourteen-year residency in Europe in 1797. In addition, Church

was the nephew of the United States’ famed first Secretary of the Treasury Alexander

Hamilton, and the grandson of Albany patriot and statesman General Philip Schuyler.

Philip Church’s wife, Anna Matilda Stewart, was the daughter of General Walter Stewart,

a prominent Revolutionary war officer who often entertained George and Martha

Washington in his Philadelphia mansion. Philip lived in New York City before moving

to Allegany County, but had been raised primarily in London and Paris and was therefore

familiar with both the highest American as well as European styles and fashions.

Despite being hundreds of miles away from the urban sources of most fashionable

goods, Philip and Anna Matilda Church expected to maintain the privileged lifestyle they

had been accustomed to as children and young adults in their new home in western New

York. While the family managed to compensate for their inconvenient location by

developing advanced personal and commercial networks to secure the stylish material

items they desired, the problem of attracting polite people to their home to share in

genteel performances proved to be a more difficult dilemma. Both Philip and Anna

Matilda encouraged people of their own social class to settle permanently on their

landholdings, but without much success. Their commitment to exclusivity meant that the

family was restricted to socializing intimately with only a few upper-class families that

lived along the Genesee River. The Churches were more successful at enticing

temporary visitors to Allegany County. A seasonal pattern of visiting developed that

filled Belvidere with guests throughout the summer and fall but left the family lonely

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. during the winter and spring. Thus, while the Churches built a mansion home and filled

it with the requisite objects of gentility, their endeavor to maintain the lifestyle they knew

in their native cities ultimately failed.

In this thesis, I will explore the privileged background of the Church family and

their attempt to recreate elite social structures on the frontier. Their successes and

failures provide new insight into the nature of the early American frontier and its

possibilities. Although the Churches certainly do not fit Frederick Jackson Turner’s

model of poor farmers, their experience does confirm Turner’s thesis that the frontier

itself had a transformative effect on its residents. The story of the Church family and the

land they owned is not one of sequential progress toward the ultimate victory of

civilization. Rather, “civilization” arrived early in Allegany County, but it atrophied

amidst the realities of frontier conditions.

John Barker and Angelica Schuyler Church

An understanding of Philip Church’s family background is essential to the

interpretation of the mansion he erected on the New York frontier. His father, John

Barker Church, was bom in England to Richard Church of Great Yarmouth, Norfolk and

Elizabeth Barker of Lowestoft, Suffolk. The parish register at Lowestoft records the

baptisms of six Church children, four of whom survived infancy. John Barker was the

youngest sibling, and was baptized on November 9, 1748. He was named for his

mother’s wealthy brother who later established his nephew in business. Sometime during

his twenties, John Barker Church immigrated to America where he adopted the new name

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of John Carter. Scholars have long speculated on the reasons why Church fled England

and changed his name; their suggestions have included that he supported the cause of

American independence against his family’s wishes, that he had killed a man in a duel,

that he did not like the apprenticeship to a merchant house that his uncle had set up for

him, that he was fleeing impending imprisonment for gambling debts, or that he was

escaping an arranged marriage.11

John Barker Church was a notoriously active gambler throughout his life, and

there is some contemporary evidence to support the hypothesis that gambling debts

inspired his escape. In 1779, militant American patriot Isaac Sears wrote a letter to

General Horatio Gates in which he stated that before arriving in America, Church had

gambled away £10,000 given to him by his Uncle Barker. According to Sears, Church

had also entered into a partnership with another man, but then took 5000 guineas of the

pair’s money and faked his own death before fleeing from England. The rumor that

Philip Schuyler, Church’s father-in-law, was to be appointed Quarter Master General of

the American forces and that he would choose Church to be his assistant prompted Sears

to divulge this information, as he thought Congress should know the truth about “John

Carter.”12 A defamatory biography of Church published in England when he was later

serving in Parliament states that he went bankrupt in 1774 as a result of Stock Exchange

Speculation and gambling debts and adds further veracity to Sears’ claims.13

Whatever the true circumstances of his flight from England may have been, it is

known that Church, then Carter, had reached America by July 1776, when he was

appointed Commissioner of Accounts by the new American government. Carter’s first

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. assignment was to go to Albany, New York to audit the accounts of the Northern

Department of the American army. It was in Albany that Carter became acquainted with

Philip Schuyler and his family. On November 29, 1776, Carter wrote a letter to Schuyler

in which he asked that his compliments be paid to Mrs. Schuyler and “the young

ladies.”14 Carter therefore must have been previously introduced to the Schuyler

daughters, the eldest of whom, Angelica, Carter would elope with the following June.

Philip Church’s mother, Angelica Schuyler, can be credited with inspiring her

parent’s marriage: Philip Schuyler wed Catherine Van Rensselaer on September 7, 1755

and Angelica was bom on February 20, 1756, less than six months later. Both of

Angelica’s parents were descended from the most prominent Dutch families of old New

Netherlands. In addition to the Schuylers and Van Rensselaers, Angelica’s family tree

included the Van Cortlandts, DeLanceys, Claveracks, and Livingstons. Philip Schuyler’s

patroon predecessors left him owner of extensive landholdings throughout the Hudson

River Valley. His military career began in the French and Indian War as a captain in the

militia, but he soon became involved in the Albany commissariat under Colonel John

Bradstreet, deputy quartermaster general for the British forces. Schuyler also entered the

political arena at an early age, first serving on the Albany city council in 1756 when he

was twenty three years old.15

Angelica grew up in Albany, living first in a double house on the comer of State

and South Pearl Streets that her parents shared with her paternal grandmother, Cornelia

Van Cortlandt Schuyler. In 1763 when Angelica was seven, the Schuyler family moved

into their new Georgian brick mansion on a bluff overlooking the Dutch Church pasture.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (Figure 6). Philip Schuyler personally selected English wallpapers in London for the

house, and commissioned New York City cabinetmakers and upholsterers to provide the

furniture. Angelica was therefore raised in one of the most fashionable houses in Albany.

She attended an elite seminary in New Rochelle, and was educated in the genteel arts that

women of her class would be expected to know such as dancing and needlepoint.16

Letters that Angelica wrote to her father before her marriage when he was away serving

as Major General of the Northern Department of the American Forces reveal her to be

well educated and very interested in the particulars of the war effort. They also

demonstrate her mother’s reliance on her, as it was Angelica who wrote to her father after

hearing of a local Indian plot to kill Schuyler when Catherine was too distressed to pick

up a pen.17

Mrs. Schuyler’s confidence in her daughter was undermined by Angelica’s

decision to elope with John Carter on June 23, 1777. Both Schuylers were furious, and

were only reconciled with the newlyweds through the intervention of Catherine’s parents,

John and Angelica Van Rensselaer. On July 2, Carter reported on the tense meetings

between he and Angelica and his new in-laws to Walter Livingston. At the first reunion

of both couples at Green Bush, the John Van Rensselaer’s home, “the General scarcely

spoke a dozen Words all the Time, [and] Mrs. S was in a most violent Passion and said

all that Rage and Resentment could inspire.” Philip Schuyler explained the reasons for

his disapproval in a letter to William Duer, who was later Assistant Secretary of the

Treasury under Alexander Hamilton: “[Because I am] unacquainted with his Family, his

Connections, and Situation in Life the match was extremely disagreeable to me...but as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. there is no undoing this Gordian Knot... I frowned, I made them humble themselves[,]

forgave and called them home.” 18 The Schuylers may have not have been nearly as upset

about the marriage if they had known that “Carter" actually came from a very wealthy

and established family, but his mysterious past, English heritage, and surreptitious

method of marrying their daughter did not endear Carter to them. It could not have

helped the situation that Schuyler’s leadership of the Northern Army was being

questioned at exactly this time as a result of his disastrous defeat at Ticonderoga just the

month before. Schuyler was soon after relieved of his command, and replaced by Horatio

Gates.

Marrying Angelica Schuyler was an opportunistic coup d’etat on Carter's part. By

aligning himself with the highly respected Schuyler family, Carter could downplay his

own checkered past. He immediately set out to support his new bride in the wealth she

had been accustomed to, but cut off from the wealth of his own family, Carter looked to

Philip Schuyler’s coffers for support. On July 3, the day after the Schuylers’ cool

reception of their daughter and new husband, Carter wrote to James Milligan, “Mrs.

Carter requests you to buy her 5 or 6 Pounds of Hyson Tea, be the Price what it will and

also a set of strings for her Guitar and two setts of upper G Strings.”19 Having received

the desired items two months later, Carter informed Milligan that Philip Schuyler would

be responsible for the debt: “Mrs. Carter is very much obliged to you for the Guitar

Strings, the General will pay you for them when you come here, and any other sum you

have been so kind as to lay out for me.”20 Whether or not Schuyler had agreed to assume

Carter’s debts in addition to his married daughter’s is not clear, but knowing the initial

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. antagonism that existed between Schuyler and his son-in-law, it seems safe to assume

that Carter was being presumptuous.

John and Angelica Carter did not stay in Albany long after their marriage, perhaps

partly to escape her parents. Carter wrote to Milligan on September 8, 1777, “Wearied

out with the Disputes and Bickerings that attend the Discharge of our office I have

determined to remain no longer in Commission, and have this Day sent my

Resignation.”21 The very next day, the Carters left for Boston. As he had done in

Albany, John Carter quickly made his way into the circles of the most prominent

American patriots in Boston, making fast friends and fierce enemies among them. He

began to underwrite marine insurance in association with John Hancock. During their

residence in Boston, John and Angelica welcomed their first two children: Philip was

bom on April 14, 1778 and Catherine (Kitty) followed a year and a half later on

November 4, 1779.

Despite his British birth, Carter remained loyal to the American cause

throughout the Revolutionary War and did not hesitate to seek out ways to profit from

those who did not. In 1779, he asked his father-in-law to let him know when confiscated

Tory estates, presumably in New York, were to be sold. He told Schuyler that “if you

meet with a good Purchase you will oblige me much by making one for me to the amount

of Ten or Twelve Thousand pounds York money.”22 Carter’s greatest opportunity came

when Jeremiah Wadsworth asked him to enter into partnership with him in the summer of

1780 to supply the troops of America’s new ally, France. Wadsworth had been serving

as commissary general of the American forces since April 1778, and was handpicked by

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Washington to keep the French soldiers happy. It is likely that Philip Schuyler was

somehow involved in Wadsworth’s decision to invite Carter to join him, in light of

Schuyler’s strong connections within the commissary department.

Wadsworth and Carter thus began the difficult task of getting adequate and

satisfactory supplies to the French forces. Initially Carter worked out of Newport, Rhode

Island, but then began to travel with the French troops as they moved. Between 1781 and

1783, Carter lived in Boston, Providence, Hartford, Williamsburg, Baltimore, and

Philadelphia, and often took his family with him. Wadsworth and Carter apparently

outfitted the French so well that they made it difficult for the American troops to get the

supplies they needed. This situation may have prompted the decision to ask Carter and

Wadsworth to also supply the American army in June 1782. In October of that year,

George Washington wrote to Major General Benoit Joseph de Tarle reassuring him that

Carter and Wadsworth’s new responsibility for provisioning the American army would

not interfere with their efforts on behalf of the French army.23 The advantage of

supplying the French was that they paid their debts in silver and gold rather than

devalued American paper currency, and they paid promptly. Wadsworth and Carter

compensated themselves liberally from the French payments, and both made a fortune.

In 1783, Carter reported that the partnership had netted £34,685.24

The French troops returned home in late 1782 and both Carter and Wadsworth

traveled to France in the summer of 1783 to request final payment for their services from

the French government. Wadsworth had his son Daniel accompany him abroad, while

Carter brought his entire family, which by then had grown to five members with the birth

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of namesake John Barker in 1781. Carter apparently visited England first, as he had

resolved his differences with his English family by late October and had reassumed his

proper surname, Church. Jeremiah Wadsworth explained the change in a letter to

Hartford merchant Peter Colt on October 24,1783: “Mr. Carter has found all his friends

and relatives well [.] a most cordial reconciliation has taken place between them and his

uncle [Barker] is perfectly amended. He therefore assumes his real name John Barker

Church- The firm of the House will in Future be Wadsworth and Church.”25 The pair

continued their business even after being paid by the French, and tried to negotiate an

American monopoly on the sale of tobacco in France the following year.26 After this idea

failed, Wadsworth returned to America in 1784 while Church remained in Europe. The

pair ended their partnership in July 1785.27

John and Angelica Church alternated residency between Paris and London until

1785, when they claimed England as their permanent home. The Churches’ London

home, The Albany, was located on Sackville Street. Angelica’s poor health inspired the

couple’s escape to the seaside town o f Yarmouth in the early fall of 1784, and to Bath in

December 1785/ January 1786. Concern for his wife’s health may have played a part in

John Church’s decision in the spring of 1786 to purchase Down Place, a country estate

located west of London in Berkshire. Down Place was situated directly on the bank of

the Thames River between Windsor and Bray. The house as it stands today has an L-

shaped river front, of which only the shorter section of the L, seen at the right in Figure 7,

probably dates to the period of the Churches’ ownership. This section of the house is

Georgian in style. The central doorway on the river side of Down Place is flanked by two

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. bows, and the bows in turn each have a French door with a curved stone staircase leading

down to the ground. In his book The Buildings o f England: Berkshire , Nikolaus Pevsner

also records that this section of the house has “a pretty [interior] staircase with carved-

tread ends.”28 Sometime during the early nineteenth-century, a nine-bay Georgian

addition was added at right angles to the original house, and an even later Gothic wing

extends this stretch of the house even further.

The Churches typically retired to their “pleasant villa”29 during the summer and

fall of each year. For John Barker Church, the appeal of owning Down Place seems to

have had more to do with its symbolic significance establishing him as an English

gentleman of means with both a London townhouse and a country estate than his actual

enjoyment of living there. He was much happier amidst the bustle and diversions of the

city. It was Angelica who really cherished Down Place and the “quiet of the country.”30

She shared this love of country living with Thomas Jefferson, whom Angelica had met in

Paris during her visit there in December 1787 and January 1788. Jefferson wrote to

Angelica in July 1788 “Our friend Madame de Corny has been country-mad ever since

you were here. I suspect you bit her; for I know that this is your rage also, and that tho'

you are in London now, your heart is always in the country.”31 Though Jefferson never

apparently made it to Down Place, many of his Paris friends such as Maria Cosway did.

Angelica served as hostess at Down Place to many international friends, including a party

of four Italian men in the fall of 1786. In planning the visit, D’ Ageno suggested to

Angelica that he and his three Mends would arrive on November 13 and “see something

of your buildings, and Garden. We shall set at your Table for dinner, and after that, we

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. propose ourselfs to visit the observatory, for seeing Planets and Stars, with the famous

Telescope of Mr. Hercheil, and then come again to your House for the remaining part of

the Evening, where I hoped to have a little playing before supper, either at Tric-Trac or

Wist.” After spending the night, D’Ageno wanted his party to take a walk with Angelica

the following morning, visit nearby Windsor Castle, and then return to London (about a

four-hour trip) after dinner.32

While Angelica was enjoying walks in her garden at Down Place with Mends, her

husband was likely to be found in London.33 John Barker Church was a member of the

“Carlton House Set” which included painter Richard Cosway, noted Whig Charles Fox,

playwright Richard Sheridan, and the Prince of Wales, the future George IV. This group

of men was well known for their liberal enjoyment of wine, women, and gambling.

Church was especially fond of the gaming tables, which caused his father-in-law, for one,

great distress. Philip Schuyler wrote to his wife from New York City in 1790 that “I am

sorry to inform you that by accounts by the packet from England Mr. Church continues to

games altho he and another person have lately won eighty thousand guineas from Charles

Fox and another and the money paid. I would much rather he had lost ten thousand upon

condition that he never more gambled for in fact a gamesters estate is but a precarious

thing.”34

While London directories officially list Church’s profession as a merchant, he

continued the practice he had established in America of being involved in almost every

type of moneymaking activity possible. He loaned money freely, invested in everything

from art to bank stocks, and of course, continued playing cards. The Churches certainly

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. knew how to spend money as well, throwing elaborate balls in London, sponsoring John

Trumbull’s painting career (see Figure 8), sending their children to top schools in

England and France, and helping many of their French friends escape their native country

during the French Revolution. The Churches for example are credited with financing the

failed attempt to free Lafayette from prison at Olmutz in 1794 and allowing Talleyrand to

escape to the United States after a warrant was issued for his arrest in Paris. They also

wrote numerous letters of recommendation for French refugees to their friends in

America, especially the Hamiltons.

Although John and Angelica Church were certainly members of some of the most

elite circles in both Europe and America, they typically find their way into the historical

record only through their connections with Alexander and Elizabeth Hamilton. Hamilton

was the Churches’ brother-in-law, having married the second eldest Schuyler daughter,

Elizabeth, on December 14, 1780. Bom just a year and a half after Angelica, Elizabeth

was extremely close to her elder sister, and their continued intimacy after their respective

marriages is not at all unexpected. Angelica’s relationship with her sister’s husband,

however, raised more than a few eyebrows during her own day. Hamilton was a well-

known philanderer and his numerous affairs often incited comments from his peers. John

Adams once wrote that he was disgusted with “the profligacy of his [Hamilton’s] life -

his fornications, adulteries, and his incests.”35 Adams’s last accusation undoubtedly

refers to the widespread rumor that Hamilton held more than brotherly affection with his

wife’s sister. Although definite proof has never been found, most Hamilton biographers

acknowledge that Angelica Church was probably one of Hamilton’s many mistresses.36

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hamilton’s alleged affair with Angelica Church does not seem to have impaired

his friendship and business association with her husband. John Church’s relationship

with Hamilton was crucial to his extensive financial activities, for as a privileged insider

within the small circle of men who governed the early United States, Hamilton could

inform his brother-in-law of the government’s pending actions. Through Hamilton,

Church managed to keep his fingers in almost every possible moneymaking pie in

America during the fourteen years he resided in Europe, whether it be speculation in land

and government securities, or investment in new banks and ships. Shortly after departing

for Europe, Church granted Hamilton power of attorney for his American affairs, a

charge that kept Hamilton more than busy as he bought and sold land, stocks, and

securities on Church’s behalf. For example, Hamilton arranged for Church to buy at least

250 shares of stock in Robert Morris’s proposed Bank of North America in 1784, making

him one of the largest shareholders.37 At the same time, Church was apparently also the

driving force behind Hamilton’s efforts to create a bank in New York City, with the idea

that Church and his then partner Jeremiah Wadsworth would buy enough shares to have

controlling interests.38 Accordingly, Church and Jeremiah Wadsworth were made two of

the first members of the Bank of New York’s board of directors.

While John Barker Church reveled in being back in his native English society,

Angelica became increasingly more homesick. In 1790, she confided to Alexander

Hamilton that “I cannot now relish the gay world, an irresistible apathy has taken

possession of my mind, and banished those innocent sallies of a lively Imagination that

once afforded pleasure to myself and friends -but do not let me pain your affectionate

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. heart, all will be well and perhaps I may return to America.”39 Angelica repeatedly

talked of returning home, especially in her letters to the Hamiltons, but her husband’s

successful quest to serve in Parliament was realized by 1790, tying the family to London.

Church bought the “rotten” borough of Wendover for £6000, entitling him to represent it

in Parliament. Church was a staunch Whig and Francophile, a political orientation that

proved increasingly untenable through the 1790s when England went to war with France.

Church finally gave up his seat in 1796 and began making preparations to return to

America, much to the delight of his wife.

The Churches’ frequent travels and their friendship with the leading figures of

England, France, and America provided their six children with a privileged, if unusual,

upbringing. According to his father, Philip was “intimate with all the first people in

France” by the time he was seven years old and could do impersonations of Americans

such as General Horatio Gates.40 He was also sent to school by this age, as his father

mentioned in a December 1785 letter that “Philip is come home for the Holidays.”41 One

year later, Church reported that he was sending Philip to Eton after Christmas, although it

is not clear whether this would have been Philip’s first year or whether that is where he

was the previous year as well.42 Orasmus Turner, the first major historian to write about

western New York, recorded many of Philip Church’s reminiscences derived from

personal interviews conducted in the late 1840s. Turner discusses in his book History o f

the Pioneer Settlement o f Phelps and Gorham’s Purchase, and Morris’ Reserve what it

was like for Philip to be an American attending an elite British school soon after the end

of the American Revolution:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. His school-fellows at Eaton, were generally the sons of the nobility, and of high tory blood, and their boy partizanship could hardly tolerate the sentiments of a representative of the disenthralled colonies. French politics was soon introduced, and the young American, following the lead of his father, was inclined to be a French republican; manifesting upon one occasion a little exultation over the fate of Louis XVI, he provoked the bitterest resentments of his school-fellows.43

Enjoyable or not, Philip attended Eton for six years, and later entered Middle Temple to

study law. As the son of a member of the British Parliament, Philip was also allowed to

sit in on parliamentary debates. Philip’s sister Catherine (called Kitty) was also being

formally educated by at least the age of eight, attending Abbaye Royale de Panthdmont,

the most fashionable convent school in Paris. Thomas Jefferson’s daughters Martha

(Patsy) and Maria (Polly) were classmates of Kitty Church’s in Paris, and Jefferson took

care of Kitty during school breaks since the Churches were then living in London. In

1794, Angelica also mentioned having a private tutor for her children that would

accompany the family to America when they returned.44

Although it appears that John Barker Church neither built nor lived in it, surviving

architectural plans reveal that Church commissioned London architect Joseph Bonomi to

design a home for him in New York City. Dated 1797, the plans are labeled “Design of a

House now building at the City of New York in America by John Barker Church Esq.”

These plans provide significant insight into the architectural sophistication of Church’s

taste, and his expectations for the proper arrangement of domestic space. First, Church

had chosen one of the most prominent architects working in London in the 1790s to

design his American home. Joseph Bonomi (1739-1808) was bom in Italy, but moved to

London in 1767 where he began to work with the most famous English neoclassical

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. architect of his time, Robert Adam.45 Bonomi’s design reflects the most current

architectural taste of the 1790s in Regency England, characterized by plain wall exteriors

combined with unusually shaped interior rooms.46 Bonomi’s plan calls for a flat-walled

exterior that is relieved by a central curved exedra on the garden front and a one-story

columned piazza on the entrance front. (Figure 9). The seven-bay house was probably

intended to be stuccoed, and a balustrade stands at the perimeter of the flat roof. The

service quarters for Church’s home were completely detached from the main block of the

house, and connected only by a corridor. The main house was intended to absolutely

dwarf the connected wing, whose two-floor plan including the roof did not even reach the

height of the main house’s first floor. This was accomplished by sinking the servant

wing partially underground. The spatial design of John Barker Church’s home

symbolically represents his attitude towards his staff. By physically removing them

outside of his home, he would not have to see them or the work they performed. As

Bonomi juxtaposed bedrooms next to workspaces such as the kitchen and laundry, he

also clearly intended for servants to live in this secondary space as well. Not only did

Church try to hide the evidence of both the existence and labor of his staff from the

interior of his home, but from the exterior as well by submerging part o f the building

underground. The dominant relationship of master over his slaves and servants was

therefore physically represented in Bonomi’s proposed home for the Churches.

In contrast to its modish facade, the floor plan for Church’s intended house was

more conservative. (Figures 10 and 11). During the last years of the eighteenth century,

elite English families fundamentally changed their thoughts about the proper relationship

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of nature and social discourse.47 Accordingly, architects began to place the main

entertainment rooms of grand homes on ground level, reserving the second floor for

private family bedchambers. Church’s intended house followed the older designs by

creating a circuit of entertainment rooms on the second floor. Both drawing rooms and

the principal bedchamber were located here, and public access was encouraged via a

grand staircase. Despite its conservative plan, Bonomi’s design for Church did include

many modern amenities such as bathrooms, plentiful closet space, and warming stoves

near the dining room.

Church’s desire to build according to current aristocratic London architectural

designs reveals his desire to visibly express his knowledge of international fashion and

social connections in England’s former colony. What prevented him from following

through on his plan is a mystery. It is possible that Church was deterred by the fact that it

would been much more expensive to implement Bonomi’s plan in New York City than in

London, where labor wages were much lower. Whatever the reason, the Churches moved

into an already existing home located at 52 Broadway that Alexander Hamilton secured

for them. Just as they chose the city they were to live in after their return from Europe by

the location of the Hamiltons, they also apparently chose their house by the same criteria.

The home they moved in to was not new, but it was located just a few doors down from

the Hamiltons, who lived at 26 Broadway.

Although they did not choose to build a grand London home, documentary

evidence reveals that the Churches did import European customs and interior furnishings

to their New York City residence. Impatient with his delay in selecting a home for them

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. previous to their move, Angelica scolded Hamilton, “my dear and naughty Brother, it will

be impossible for me to Charter a Vessel for how can I bring out furniture when I do not

know the number of rooms my house contains I?]”48 We know therefore that Angelica

planned on bringing her London furniture home with her to New York and we can

assume that she did. Letters written by visitors to the Churches’ New York home reveal

that in decorating their home, entertaining, and dressing, the Churches followed the latest

London, rather than New York, fashions. Josephine du Pont, a French emigre who had

grown up amidst the society of Versailles, reported to her friend Margaret Manigualt in

Charleston, South Carolina, that she attended “two lovely balls at Mrs. Church’s” in 1800

and was very impressed by “the excellent appearance of her home.”49 Du Pont was

surprised by one of Angelica’s decorating decisions though: “I cannot swallow the fact

that in Mme. Ch’s superb salon there is not a single inch of mirror.”50 Margaret

Manigault provided the answer to this mystery in her next letter when she informed du

Pont that “glasses were out of fashion in England as ornaments for a Drawing room.”51

Angelica was therefore decorating her house in the current style of London, which struck

those fluent with New York fashions as strange.

It seems ironic that after fourteen years of bemoaning her residence abroad,

Angelica Church would spend her first years back in America playing up her European-

acquired manners, dress, and furnishings. She clearly understood the social advantage

that her recent exile could provide. According to du Pont, Angelica and her eldest

daughter Kitty “find there is no salvation outside of London and Paris” and Mrs. du Pont

frequently had to “defend American customs” to them. As proof, du Pont wrote that

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Angelica “makes it a habit of receiving while lying down in her bedroom, which I cite to

show how she flaunts this country’s customs.”52 Others besides du Pont also found fault

with Angelica’s imported European dress and manners. Prominent Massachusetts

Federalist Harrison Gray Otis called her the “the mirror of affectation” after having

dinner with her,53 and Walter Rutherford’s comments on one of her dinner parties

included his disdain for “a late abominable fashion from London, of Ladies like

Washwomen with their sleeves above their elbows, Mrs. Church among them.”54

Although some may have disapproved, Angelica Church’s fashion statements in dress,

manners, and interior decoration created her reputation as the best hostess in New York

City.

The Churches also continued the genteel practice of escaping to the country

during the summer as they had done in England. Angelica would have been familiar with

this pattern since her childhood, when Philip Schuyler routinely transported his family

north to Saratoga to stay at his 1900-acre estate. Schuyler was an ardent advocate of the

benefits of the country, especially for its healthful environment. He wrote to his daughter

Elizabeth Hamilton in August 1802, “I hope you keep your Children as much as possible

in the country, as the city at this season is generally injurious to the health of Children.”55

The Hamiltons were definitely “in the country” during the summer and autumn of 1798

when they shared a rented house in Harlem Heights with John and Angelica Church. In

1800, the Churches switched their view of the Hudson River for “a very pretty country

house on the East River,” where Josephine du Pont reported they had settled at the end of

June in that year. John Barker Church had not gained any more affinity for the country

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. since England apparently, as du Pont remarked that “the husband spends almost all his

time in town. The brothers run, and the three women are scarcely entertained.” The

“boredom” that du Pont described Angelica and her two daughters experiencing in the

country would also prove to be the fate of the Church women in the family of one of

those “running” brothers, Philip Church.56

Philip Church and the Acquisition of 100,000 Acres in Western New York

When Philip Church returned to New York City with his parents in 1797, he was

nineteen years old. As the eldest son, Philip’s relatives had watched him carefully since

his boyhood in the expectation that he would take on important work when he matured.

When Philip was twelve, Alexander Hamilton wrote to Angelica, “I shall by the first

direct opportunity begin a correspondence with Philip. I have serious designs upon his

heart and I flatter myself I am not a bad marksman.”57 Philip Schuyler also took a keen

interest in his namesake, suggesting books for him to read and instructing Angelica in

1790 to ‘Tell Phill that I will strive to live until I have heard that he is in parliament and

has made a forcible speech there.”58 Philip’s family connections virtually guaranteed him

access to any prestigious profession of his choosing. He had begun to study law at

Middle Temple in England, and continued this direction in New York in 1797 by

working first in the law office of Nathaniel Pendleton, and then that of his Uncle

Hamilton.

In 1798 however, war with France seemed imminent, and the United States

government began to organize a provisional army. Alexander Hamilton won the coveted

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. appointment as Major General and Inspector General, making him second in rank only to

George Washington. One of Hamilton’s very first actions as Major General was to write

to James McHenry, then Secretary of War, to recommend that his nephew Philip be given

a captaincy in the infantry. “He is the eldest son of his father, has had a good

education[,] is a young man of genuine sprit and worth—of considerable expectation in

point of fortune. I will esteem his appointment to this grade a personal favour, while I

believe that it will consist with every rule of propriety.”59 Hamilton also wrote to

President John Adams to secure this nomination, which was finally made on January 8,

1 7 9 9 6° just four dayS later, Hamilton appointed his nephew to serve as his personal

aide-de-camp.61 Philip did serve in the 12th Infantry under Lieutenant Colonel William

Smith, but only until the end of 1799, at which time Hamilton retained him exclusively to

assist him.

When the United States’ hostilities with France subsided and it became clear that

war would not be declared, Philip Church was faced with a decision about his future.

This time it was Philip’s father who supplied his next job. In 1799, John Barker Church

proposed establishing a business partnership with his son to settle a 100,000-acre tract of

land in western New York he had determined to acquire. This request was not a total

surprise, as John Barker Church had involved his son in his land speculation activities as

early as age 19. In August 1797, Philip Church had written to an uncle that “I have just

began to learn surveying as I expect to go some time this month to the Susquehannah to

survey some of my father’s lands.”62 The new land was part of the Morris Reserve in

New York State and had been mortgaged to Church by Robert Morris in 1796 in order to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. secure an outstanding debt of over $80,000. Morris’s original debt to Church dated back

to at least April 1792, by which time he had bought 100 shares of stock from Church in

the Bank of North America for £100 sterling/share. Morris had secured this original

£100,000 debt with “an Estate in Philadelphia.” In the next few years though, Morris’s

business affairs collapsed. As his financial prowess waned, he and Church made several

negotiations concerning the terms of the debt. When Morris wanted his Philadelphia

estate back because he planned to built a mansion home there, he offered Church many

different forms of collateral for the loan including lands in Pennsylvania and stocks in his

North American Land Company. Church, however, made it clear he would only accept

Morris’s New York lands as security.

Church’s interest in the opening of the New York frontier seems to have

originated during talks with Robert Morris’s son. Robert Morris Jr. traveled to Europe in

early 1792 as his father’s agent to try and find a European investor willing to provide

Morris Sr. with a loan of £100,000 sterling with part of Morris’s New York lands as

security. It comes as no surprise that he sought out John Barker Church on his mission.

Land speculation offered one of the best moneymaking opportunities in the new republic,

and Church was eager to participate. He agreed to buy nine townships from Morris Jr.,

the price of which was probably deducted from Morris Sr.’s outstanding debt to him.

Church asked Philip Schuyler to personally inspect these lands for him and give him his

opinion on whether or not he should keep them or sell them for other property.

Schuyler’s response was extremely favorable, and he suggested that John and Angelica

build a summer house there.63 A few years later when Morris was searching for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. something he could offer Church as security for the money he still owed, they settled on

100,000 more acres of Morris’s New York land. (Figure 12). This mortgage was

executed on May 31, 1796 and secured Morris’s remaining debt to Church of $81,679.44

plus 6% annual interest.

Predictably, Morris failed to pay his first scheduled interest payment to Church on

January 1,1797. Morris at this point offered to sell the 100,000 acres to Church, but the

latter refused. When Church returned to America in the spring o f that year, he began to

take action to recover his money. Despite Morris’s pleas with Church to be lenient with

him, Church filed suit in Chancery court to force Morris to either pay him the interest he

owed him or hold a foreclosure sale on the mortgaged New York State land to pay the

debt. After Chancellor Robert R. Livingston ordered Morris’s New York property to be

seized in November of that year, Morris finally responded. With the help of Philadelphia

merchant Samuel Sterret, he paid Church $10,821.63, the amount of interest that had

accumulated, and the suit was dismissed in March 1798. Morris however was forced into

debtor’s prison in 1798, and Church brought another suit in 1799 to try and recover what

he could on the principal of the debt.64

By this point, there was nothing Morris could do to stop his New York land from

going to auction. The problem for Church was that the market for this land had dropped

precipitously in the last few years of the 1790s. Realizing that he would not recover

much cash from the foreclosure sale, he decided instead to bid on the land himself and try

to recoup some of his money by settling the land. Thus, he recruited Philip to take charge

of this new endeavor, and it was Philip who traveled to Canandaigua, New York to attend

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the foreclosure sale. John Church’s fears about the land market were confirmed when

Philip managed to acquire the entire 100,000-acre tract for just $4,000. Philip took the

deed for the land in his own name on May 6, 1800, but he used his father’s money to

purchase it.65 For better or for worse, Philip Church had wedded himself and his

financial future to the development of western New York State.

Western New York State Background

The opening of western lands to settlement was one of the most important

processes taking place during the early Federal period of American history. In the Treaty

of Paris ending the American Revolution, Britain agreed to recognize the Mississippi

River as the western boundary of the new United States of America. The treaty therefore

eliminated the Proclamation Line of 1763 that had reserved land west of the Allegheny

Mountains for Native American tribes. This opportunity to expand excited both land-

hungry farmers and wealthy speculators alike. One of the most coveted regions of

potential expansion was the “Genesee Country,” situated in present day western New

York. A battle for control of this fertile area was nothing new. Native American tribes

had been fighting each other here for hundreds of years, and when the Europeans arrived

in the seventeenth century, they took sides and continued the battles. The French aligned

themselves with the Huron and Algonquin tribes of lower Canada while the English

wooed the six tribes of the Iroquois confederation who held the region below the eastern

Great Lakes. Britain’s victory in the French and Indian War of 1754-1763 gave them

jurisdiction over the region, which they in turn was turned over to the Americans in 1783.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Iroquois tribal homelands became a war zone during the Revolutionary War

after the British convinced the Six Nations to assist them in fighting the American

patriots. The natives were reluctant combatants; when hostilities first broke out, Mohawk

spokesman Little Abraham asserted that “The determination of the Six Nations is not to

take any part; but as it is a family affair to sit still and see you fight it out.”66 Indian

leaders eventually gave in to the solicitations of longtime friend Sir William Johnson, and

began attacks on American frontier settlements. Commander-in-chief George

Washington acted decisively in 1779, ordering a full one-third of his Continental army to

march westward under the command of Generals John Sullivan and James Clinton to

crush the Tory-Indian allies. “The immediate object is the total destruction of the

settlements of the Six Nations and the capture of as many persons as possible,”

Washington ordered, hoping to drive the Iroquois out of the region for good.67 Sullivan

and Clinton thus conducted a devastating punitive campaign, burning and pillaging as

they went. After suffering a resounding defeat at Newtown (Elmira), the English and

Indian forces retreated to the British fort of Niagara. Sullivan pursued them until he

reached the Genesee River, where, with winter approaching and supplies dwindling, he

turned around. The testimonies of Sullivan’s soldiers praising the superior quality of the

land they encountered in the Genesee Country can largely be credited with igniting the

“Genesee fever” that prevailed in the years immediately following the Revolution.

As anxious as many were to begin buying land in the Genesee Country, settlement

was delayed while negotiations over its ownership took place. The United States

government concluded a peace treaty with the defeated Iroquois Indians at Fort Stanwix,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. New York in 1784 which established western New York as United States property, but

gave the Indians the right to profit from the sale of their conquered homelands. Both

Massachusetts and New York claimed this area on the basis of their original royal

charters, and the dispute was not settled until December 16, 1786, at the Hartford

Convention, hi the Hartford agreement, New York retained political jurisdiction over the

region while Massachusetts was authorized to sell the pre-emption rights to the land.

This meant that the person or persons who bought New York land from Massachusetts

would have the right to negotiate with the native tribes for the land.

Massachusetts was interested in making a quick profit from the sale of the New

York lands in order to help pay off its debts from the recent war. Its leaders therefore had

no interest in supervising the settlement of the land themselves, and sold the pre-emption

rights to the entire six million acre-area in 1788 to the company headed by Oliver Phelps

and Nathaniel Gorham, two Massachusetts residents. Phelps and Gorham agreed to pay

the state £300,000 in devalued Massachusetts securities, or about three cents an acre, in

the next three years. Phelps and Gorham’s first task was to secure the Indian title, and

they prompdy called a meeting with Iroquois leaders. At Buffalo Creek in July 1788,

Phelps and Gorham secured the right to about 2.6 million acres of land lying east of the

Genesee River in exchange for $5000 and a $500 annuity. Surveying of this tract began

shortly afterwards, and followed the practices established in the federal Land Ordinance

of 1785, thus creating six-mile-square townships. Phelps and Gorham finally opened a

land office at Canandaigua in the spring of 1789 to sell the surveyed lots, but sales were

not nearly as rapid as they had anticipated, and most buyers needed credit. Having

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. expended a great deal of cash on gifts for the Indian tribes and surveying, Phelps and

Gorham were also hurt by the federal government’s plan to assume state debts, which

raised the value of the Massachusetts securities with which Phelps and Gorham had

agreed to pay their debt. On June 9, 1790, they were forced to return to Massachusetts

the land they had not yet gotten the Indian title for, which constituted more than half of

their original purchase.

It was at this point that Robert Morris began to invest heavily in western New

York lands. Bom in England in 1734, Morris had established his reputation as a superior

merchant in Philadelphia. The credit he established in his private business was so

extensive that after being recruited by Congress to be Superintendent of Finance in 1781,

he distributed “Morris notes” backed by his own personal credit to replace the almost

valueless currency of the new American government After his plan to monopolize the

tobacco trade between France and the United States failed in the 1780s, Morris found

himself almost bankrupt In desperate need of cash, he turned to land speculation to

redeem himself. Struggling to escape their own financial woes, Phelps and Gorham

sought a purchaser for 1.3 million acres, which was equal to about half of the land they

still owned after returning to Massachusetts the 3.3 million acres of land which they had

not secured the Indian title for. They reached an agreement with Morris for this land on

August 7, 1790 in which he agreed to pay £30,000 Massachusetts currency plus interest.

Morris, like the state of Massachusetts, was searching for quick money, and never

intended on taking over the difficult process of supervising settlement on his new lands.

Instead he hired Gouvemeur Morris and William Temple Franklin to find a European

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. buyer for the entire tract. Robert Morris had high hopes for this land; he wrote to

Gouvemeur Morris that the sale of this tract would “be the means of extricating me from

all the embarrassments in which I have been involved, but also the means of making your

Fortune and mine.”68

Morris’s optimism was realized in February 1791 when Franklin arranged to sell

the former Phelps and Gorham lands to a group of Englishmen called the Pulteney

Associates for a profit of over $213,000.69 Even before he learned of this sale though,

Morris was plotting to acquire the land lying largely west of the Genesee River that

Phelps and Gorham had reconveyed to the state. This was accomplished on March 12,

1791 when Morris agreed to pay £100,000 Massachusetts currency for this land, to be

divided into five tracts. Again Morris looked abroad to find this land’s next owner,

selling four of the five tracts to Dutch investors this time working under the name of the

Holland Land Company. Although this deal with the Dutch was conducted in 1792,

Morris remained involved in this land for many more years because of his agreement to

extinguish the Indian title and finance the initial surveys of the area. The former of these

responsibilities did not take place until September 1797, when a treaty was finally signed

at Big Tree (Geneseo). Less than six months later, Morris found himself in debtor’s

prison, largely as a result of his mismanagement of the one tract he had reserved for

himself in western New York, part of which went to John Barker and Philip Church.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philip Church’s Early Settlement of the Church Tract

When Philip Church purchased the 100,000 acres that would become known as

the Church Tract, neither he nor his father had ever seen the land. Philip first ventured

west in the summer of 1801 on a reconnaissance mission of his new property. He met up

with Major Moses Van Campen, best known for his heroism in defending western

settlements from British and Indian attacks during the Revolution, in McHenry Valley

(now Almond). Although eighteen miles away from the boundaries of Church’s land,

McHenry Valley was at that time the closest European settlement to it Needing the

advice of a veteran woodsman and a skilled surveyor, Church engaged Van Campen to

accompany him on his exploratory trip. Evert Van Wickle, John Gibson, John Lewis, and

Stephen Price also accompanied Church and Van Campen on this mission. Beginning in

the southeast portion of his tract, Church and his party thoroughly explored the land,

evaluating existing waterways, the quality of the soil, the type of vegetation, and the

nature of the terrain. Church undoubtedly had second thoughts about his purchase once

he actually saw what he owned. Located in what is now referred to as the Southern Tier

of New York State, the Church tract primarily consisted of densely forested, rugged

uplands — a far cry from the fabled flatlands of the lower Genesee Valley. For a

privileged twenty-three year old raised primarily in the largest cities of Europe and

America, the utter isolation of this wilderness land must have been striking.

Church and his group disbanded when they reached the northwest comer of the

tract. On his way back to New York City, Church stopped in Geneseo to see James and

William Wadsworth, two brothers who had been working since 1790 to settle the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Genesee Country lands originally purchased by their cousin Jeremiah Wadsworth, John

Barker Church’s former business partner. It is likely that Church sought the advice of the

more experienced land developers on this visit. After spending the winter of 1801/1802

back in New York City making preparations for settlement, Church returned to his land

sometime in 1802. Probably previous to his second trip, Church had asked surveyor

Evert Van Wickle, one of the members of his original scouting expedition, to select a

location for the settlement’s principal town. Van Wickle chose a valley watered by a

tribuatary to the Genesee River in the eastern part of the tract about two miles from the

Genesee River itself, and Church named the new town and the creek that ran through it,

Angelica. Church’s decision to honor his mother by naming the first settlement in the

family’s new land after her may well have been a tribute to her love of the country.

Church looked to the example of the other western New York land developers in

deciding on his own course of action. Oliver Phelps’s success at Canandaigua had

proved the efficacy of developing a “city-town” as a way of attracting settlers, and thus,

raising land values. As part of this plan, Phelps invested heavily in necessary services

such as saw and grist mills, stores, and taverns. Good roads into the town were also

crucial.70 Charles Williamson, local agent for the Pulteney Associates, began with

Phelps’s basic premise for his own development scheme, but then carried it out on a

much more extravagant scale. Williamson hoped to attract settlers of significant wealth

to the Genesee Country, for which a town equipped with just basic services would not do.

He therefore pouted Pulteney money into places like grand hotels, theaters, and even a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. race track that he hoped would provide an element of “civilization” to the western New

York frontier.

The failure of Williamson’s so-called “hothouse” methods caused land agents like

Robert Troup who succeeded Williamson to be more conservative in their investment

choices. Joseph Ellicott, local agent for the Holland Land Company which owned almost

all of New York west of the Genesee River, initially hoped that private capital and state

money would fund needed items like roads and mills. Ellicott quickly came to realize

that in a competitive land market, “improvements...are in fact the greatest Inducements

towards encouraging Persons to purchase and settle.”71 Subsidizing mills, road

construction, and artisans with Holland Land Company funds was therefore, according to

Ellicott, “an evil that must be submitted to, in order to produce an Advantage that will

more than Counter-balance the Evil.”72

Like Ellicott, Philip Church realized the necessity of initial investment, and he

drew heavily on his father’s accounts to finance his early building projects in Angelica.

A sawmill, log land office and store were built in 1802 with Church funds, followed by a

gristmill in 1803. In addition, Church undoubtedly funded the first two roads into

Angelica, the first being cut from Almond in 1802 and the second connecting Angelica in

1803 with the site Church had chosen to build his future home upon.73 Church was on

hand to supervise activities in the summer, but spent these early winter seasons back in

New York City finishing his law studies.74 Church must have also been courting Anna

Matilda Stewart in Philadelphia at least part of these winters as well, as their engagement

was official by May 1804.75

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It did not take long for Church to realize that his job as developer would not be an

easy one. “There are so many difficulties and delays in an undertaking of this kind in a

country so perfectly new,” Church lamented to his father in June 1804.76 The reality of

frontier life clashed sharply with Church’s expectations. He discovered for example that

because settlers lacked cash, he could not sell boards from his sawmill for $10 per 1000

feet in either Hartford (Avon) or Canandaigua, even though boards were scarce in both

communities. A frustrated Philip explained the situation in a letter to his father:

All the money made in the country is expended for necessities at the storekeepers who transmits for drygoods at New York so that there is seldom much cash in the country. When the people talk of purchasing anything at a fixed price they mean to pay you in merchandise and articles of various kinds upon which they set their own value.. .this kind of payment is commonly called paying in hair, pins, and indigo - in other words in every kind of trash.

As a merchant’s son raised in both European and American urban centers, Philip Church

was accustomed to a cash economy. The type of barter transactions typical of cash-poor

rural areas was foreign to him. Church entered the milling business to provide an item he

saw a need for in frontier communities, but he obviously expected to receive cash for his

product rather than payment in kind.

Church refused to alter his expectations to the realities he encountered. Instead of

adjusting to the common practices of his community by agreeing to participate in the

dominant barter economy, Philip Church apparently simply refused to sell his boards to

people who needed them unless they could pay cash. A letter written by Angelica

resident Marie D’Ohet D’Autremont in March 1806 reveals that Church had drastically

reduced his asking price for his boards since 1804 to $4 per 1000 feet rather than the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. earlier price of $10. He had not compromised on his insistence for cash payment though,

as Madame D’Autremont wrote that Mr. Church “refused to sell any.” The

D’Autremonts were in need of boards to build a house, but because they could not pay

cash as Church demanded, they looked to other sawmills located “20 or 25 miles from

here” on “bad roads” to obtain them.78 Church therefore showed much greater reluctance

to work within the parameters of frontier realities than other New York land developers

such as William Cooper, Oliver Phelps, James and William Wadsworth, Charles

Williamson, and even Joseph Ellicott, who all accepted payment in kind for land and

goods. Church’s behavior may at first appear to be pure stubbornness, but was probably

the result of his own pinched financial status and his inability to invest as heavily in

development as some of his competitors who were backed by greater wealth.

Church knew that accessible transportation routes were critical to establish a trade

network and allow settlers to reach the Church Tract. Unfortunately for Church, the

Genesee River could not support long-distance travel or shipping because major cataracts

divided it into short sections. Additionally, the main road into western New York at that

time passed well to the north of the Church’s property. Because western New York

therefore did not have one dominant waterway connection that could serve as a profitable

avenue for trade, its early developers looked in all directions for potential market

connections. An 1804 promotional map issued by Church reveals that that he was

hedging his bets that the Susquehanna River that flew into Baltimore would best serve his

land. (Figure 13). Church noted on the map that “produce can be transported from

within 16 miles of the Tract, down the Susquehannah, in Arks, to Baltimore at 2 shillings

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. per Bushel.” This route never proved practical because it was really only navigable when

waters rose briefly in the spring and fall. In addition, the Susquehanna was not a good

option for importing goods.79

The 1804 advertising tract also reveals that Church was depending heavily on the

proposed building of a southern road that would connect the town of Catskill near the

Hudson River with Presque Isle on Lake Erie. In the spring of 1804, the New York State

legislature had approved the extension of the Kingston turnpike to Bath (forty miles to

the east of Angelica), and Church immediately began to lobby hard for its westward

continuation. As he placed the road on his 1804 map, the new state road would run

parallel to the popular Ontario and Genesee Turnpike Road located farther north, and

would cut directly through the Church property. Although Church boasted on his

propagandist map that this road “is already opened as far as this Tract,” he was

exaggerating. Technically, a road from Bath to Angelica had been cut, but a month after

he sent the flyer out to be printed, Church admitted to his mother in a letter that “the road

from Bath here is almost impassable.”80

Church's campaign to build a turnpike road from Bath to Lake Erie was his first

major effort at establishing a transportation route that would connect his property to

commercial markets in what would turn out to be a long career of championing

infrastructure development in New York’s Southern Tier. Church’s property was tiny

compared to the multiple-million acre tracts owned by the Pulteney Associates to the east

and the Holland Land Company to the west, and his efforts necessarily depended on the

cooperation of these two larger landholders. Unfortunately for Church, both Robert

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Troup, local agent for the PuUeney Associates, and Joseph Ellicott, local agent for the

Holland Land Company, did not consider the southern lands under their stewardship to be

a top priority for development. The quality of this land was generally far inferior to their

employer’s northern holdings and therefore attracted fewer settlers. Church’s property

however consisted almost solely of the less desirable uplands of southern New York,

making the development of the Southern Tier region an essential component of his

potential success.

Desperate to secure the turnpike, Church quickly turned to his connections to

recruit Troup’s support of his plan, asking both his father and his Uncle Hamilton, a close

friend of Troup’s, to talk to him about the matter. John Barker Church paid a visit to

Troup on July 4 at Troup’s New York City residence, which prompted Troup to write to

Philip that he was “not a little mortified that you should suppose” that he did not know

that it was proper for a large landholder to donate land for such projects. Troup

eventually agreed to support Church’s turnpike plan, and in March 1805, Troup and

Church became the major corporators of the new Lake Erie Turnpike Company. The

turnpike road was accordingly built as far as Angelica, but it did not extend westward

until after the War of 1812 due to Joseph Ellicott’s refusal to cooperate. When it was

finally completed later that decade, the Lake Erie Turnpike briefly served as a major

thoroughfare to the west, greatly increasing the population of the Southern Tier. The

completion of the Erie Canal in 1825 however rerouted western traffic north, and the

southern turnpike declined. It soon fell until disrepair and was finally taken over by the

state in 1831.81

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In addition to establishing infrastructure, a second key component of Philip

Church’s development plan was to separate his land from its current legislative divisions

and establish a new local political territory that centered on the Church tract. Because

local county and town governments were in charge of levying taxes and building roads,

New York State land developers each attempted to control the local governments that

would make decisions about the land they owned. When the Churches first purchased

their land, it fell under the jurisdiction of Ontario County, with the county seat located in

Canandaigua. In 1802 the Church tract became part of Genesee County after Holland

Land Company agent Joseph Ellicott successfully lobbied to have the western-most part

of the state, the majority of which the Holland Land Company owned, divided into its

own county. Ellicott established the county seat in his planned company town of Batavia

by offering to donate the money to build a courthouse and jail there.82 Just as Ellicott had

done before him to pursue the Holland Land Company’s interests, Philip Church sought

to separate his land from the Ellicott-dominated Genesee County. He was therefore

lobbying to establish Angelica as an independent town and the surrounding region as a

new county at the same time he was pursuing his infrastructure initiatives.

Church turned to his grandfather Schuyler, a long-time New York State senator,

for instruction on the proper procedure for carrying out his plans. By late June 1804, he

had already orchestrated a town meeting in Leicester, of which Angelica was formally a

part of, to discuss the potential separation. Church had secured a petition signed by

Angelica residents, and the division was approved at a Leicester town meeting.

According to New York State policy, Church then sent a certificate from Leicester town

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. officials approving the separation to the State assembly, along with the Angelica petition.

Throughout this process, Church routinely sent paperwork to Philip Schuyler to look over

and verify that he was doing everything correctly. As with the turnpike, Church’s

urgency is evident in his letters. Asking his grandfather to respond quickly to his

requests, Church wrote, “It is of the greatest consequence to us that an act should pass,

authorising the erecting of Angelica into a Town, as early as possible [in] the ensuing

session of the Legislature.”83 Church finally got his wish in 1805, when Angelica was

established. His next crusade was to create a new county that would separate his property

from Genesee County. This wish was also promptly realized, and on April 7, 1806, the

New York State legislature passed an act creating Allegany County, with the town of

Angelica encompassing the entire territory of the county.

Philip Church’s campaigns to establish the Lake Erie Turnpike Company and to

create Allegany County and the town of Angelica reveal how Church adeptly used his

family’s connections with the political and financial leaders of New York State to

achieve his goals. In addition to asking his father and Alexander Hamilton to talk to

Robert Troup to convince him to support the turnpike, Church also asked his grandfather

Philip Schuyler, possibly the most well-connected man in the New York State political

scene, to send him a copy of the recent act allowing the Bath turnpike. Schuyler’s advice

was also crucial in securing the new town of Angelica. Philip Church’s skillful

networking during the summer of 1804 suggests the possibilities of what Church could

have accomplished in the years to come with his family’s help. The death of Alexander

Hamilton on July 12, 1804 and then Philip Schuyler four months later on November 18

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. seriously thwarted this potential. Besides suffering a great personal loss, Philip Church

also sustained a severe blow to his development plans with the passings of the two most

powerful and politically connected men in his family. It is tempting to suppose that the

story of Philip Church and his efforts to develop New York’s Southern Tier would have

had a much happier ending had these two men survived longer.

Church’s difficulty in attracting settlers to his land prompted him to develop

multiple promotional tactics. Following the practice that James Wadsworth had

pioneered, Church hired men to travel to the settled eastern states and hold “Genesee

meetings” to promote migration to western New York.84 In early September of 1804,

Joseph McClure departed Angelica bound for Connecticut to serve on just such a

mission. On October 22, McClure wrote to John Barker Church from Brattleboro that he

had completed his trip through Massachusetts and was now in Vermont, although he

would be heading for New Hampshire soon. McClure must have been speaking to a good

number of people, as he was waiting for John Barker to send him more maps. He was

also able to report to his employer that “there will be a respectable number of Persons

from the county of Worcester in Masachusetts, and the County of Windham in Vermont,

to view the Country of Angelica.”85

McClure was also instituting a second advertisement technique on his trip by

placing newspaper advertisements for the Church land in New England papers. He

informed John Barker Church that he had arranged for an ad to be run in the

Massachusetts Spy in Worchester for six weeks, and that he planned to place another ad

in the paper printed near Walpole, New Hampshire, on his next stop.86 The Churches had

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. been using this method of newspaper advertisement since at least 1803, when Philip

placed an ad in a New York City newspaper.87 It is likely that he placed ads in other

major cities as well.

Church’s promotion methods of distributing handbills and maps, holding

informational meetings in New England and the Mid-Atlantic, building local services

such as mills and stores, and placing ads in newspapers followed the example set by other

western New York land developers such as Joseph Ellicott, Charles Williamson, and the

Wadsworths. In these efforts, Church, like his peers, struggled with the desire to attract

monied individuals who could pay for their property right away and bring an element of

refined living to the frontier, while facing the reality that most of his settlers were quite

poor. As one of Joseph Ellicott’s associates pointed out, placing advertisements for

western New York lands in the newspapers of urban cities was probably largely nothing

more than false optimism, as “but few persons who buy land read newspaper

advertisements.”88 The desire to attract a “better sort” of people remained strong though.

Charles Williamson had targeted wealthy Southern planters as potential New York

landholders, and Joseph Ellicott hoped to attract “monied” Germans living in

southeastern Pennsylvania.89 Similarly, Church admitted to his father that his objective

in sending Evert Van Wickle to New Jersey in the summer of 1805 was so that “he may

induce some people of property to settle among us.”90

At the same time, Philip Church was realistic about the types and numbers of

settlers he could hope to attract to his land. When Philip sent the 1804 map that included

his terms of sale for the land to his father to be printed, he noted

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. you will perceive I have altered the first two payments from one fifth to one eighth. I have thought this necessary as I have perceive[d] many poor persons do not settle here from their inability to make the first payment and a new settlement requires poor and industrious people rather than those settlers who will not work themselves but depend upon hiring others.91

By the time the map was printed, the Churches had relented even more, dropping the

required down payment to just one twentieth, or5%, of the total land cost. Church faced

the disadvantage that he was one of many land developers offering land in a very

competitive market in which a potential buyer had many options as to location and terms.

Despite aggressive advertising and negotiated sale terms, business for Church was slow.

In June 1804, Church told his father that Evert Van Wickle predicted they could attract

forty settlers a year to their property, while Church was less optimistic, writing “I think

however we shall not without great exertion average more than 30.” Placing the situation

in perspective for his father, Church noted that they would “be doing better than any

other settlement of the same extent in this country” even if they did just get thirty settlers

a year.92 A little more than a year later, Church could report that “there are at present 70

families who have taken Articles, and several more who are on the tract but have not yet

entered into agreement.”93

Despite his attempt to be realistic, Philip Church was undoubtedly disappointed

by his lack of success in attracting settlers to the property he was managing for his father.

Once again, the reality of frontier development proved quite different from Philip

Church’s expectations. The Churches obtained their frontier land after the speculative

bubble had burst, and therefore must have understood their 1800 purchase to be an

investment that would take time to cultivate before it would provide returns. Still, in his

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. early years in Angelica, Philip seemed perpetually surprised by the actual difficulty of

converting his capital into cash. He was following the example of other successful land

developers, yet he was not realizing the same profits they were.

The reason for this was simple: the market for frontier land was large and very

competitive, and for the most part, Church’s land was quite inferior to his competitors’.

A quick glance at a topographical map of Allegany County explains why Church had so

much difficulty selling his land. (See Figures 14 and 15). The plethora of closely spaced

contour lines on these maps visually indicates just how rugged this area of New York

State really is. With the exception of the valley through which the Genesee River ran, the

Church tract was mostly densely forested and hilly. In addition, this elevated southern

region had a much shorter growing season than the lands to the west and north which

benefited from the moderating influence of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.94 A traveler to

New York’s Southern Tier in 1800 remarked that “these mountainous districts were

thought so unfavorably of when compared with the rich flats of Ontario County that none

of the settlers could be prevailed upon to establish themselves here.”95 In his book

William Cooper’s Town , Alan Taylor discusses how William Cooper faced a similar

dilemma to Church’s when he tried to repeat the development tactics that had met with

such fabulous success in central New York in an area of northeastern Pennsylvania called

Beech Woods. Before tackling the Beech Woods project, Cooper had believed that a

developer was almost exclusively responsible for the success or failure of a frontier

settlement. But, as Taylor writes, Cooper discovered that “No amount of planning,

goodwill, and encouragement could compensate for poor quality land and an isolated

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. location (relative to external markets). Settlers sought and improved fertile land well

located for market opportunities, whether or not proprietors were there to beat the

promotional drum.”96

Despite Philip Church’s failure to realize quick profits from the Allegany woods,

his financial well being was sustained temporarily by his father’s bank accounts. While

his son was struggling in the woods, John Barker Church remained in New York City and

continued to engage in the risky practice of marine underwriting. American shipping

briefly boomed in the first years of the nineteenth century as a result of the United

States’s neutrality in the Napoleonic wars that gripped Europe. Beginning with their

defeat of the French at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, Great Britain slowly began to

reassert its dominance in maritime trade. Beginning in April 1806, Britain issued orders

in council that restricted the shipping activities of neutral nations. John Barker Church

was apparently one of the early losers of his home country’s renewed vigilance to control

the seas and began to lose heavily when forced to pay out on insurance policies he had

underwritten. Church and his son Philip had never bothered to legally define what

property each one owned in the 100,000 acre New York tract, but beginning in 1806, they

began to separate their interests.

The timing of the sudden appearance of legal deeds and mortgages involving the

Church property that appeared in the Allegany County Clerk’s Office records in 1806 and

1807 was almost definitely not coincidental. Instead they represent a pointed attempt to

protect Philip Church’s ownership in the New York lands from the hands of his father’s

increasingly anxious creditors. On October 20,1806, John Barker Church officially

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. conveyed to Philip the 1,893 acres of prime farmland along the Genesee River that Philip

had chosen as the site of his home and farm.97 On March 31, 1807, he then gave Philip

an undivided half interest in the entire 100,000 tract, excepting the land already conveyed

QA to settlers. The pair never officially divided which acres belonged to whom though,

which proved problematic later. The very next day, John Barker Church mortgaged

25,600 acres of land in the northwest portion of the Church Tract to William Short of

Philadelphia as collateral on a loan of $20,000." John Barker Church was able to hold

on to his part of the New York land until December 15,1810 when he conveyed his half

interest in the remaining unsold lands in trust to Charles Wilkes and Thomas Cooper to

convert to cash at public or private sale and distribute the proceeds between his

creditors.100 Philip Church was therefore left with just over half of the family’s original

acreage once his father’s creditors took their share.101

John Barker Church’s financial failings retarded settlement in the Church Tract as

potential settlers became suspicious of the validity of the titles offered by Philip Church

after 1807. This fear remained until 1816, when Philip Church came to a final division of

property with his father’s creditors. A second factor also began to hamper land sales

beginning in 1807. The British had never fully evacuated the Great Lakes region

following the Revolutionary War, and as war with Britain began to look likely, settlers in

western New York began to fear that their fledgling farms would be turned into

battlegrounds. They were especially concerned that Britain’s Revolutionary war allies,

the Iroquois Indians, would begin attacks on western New York settlement. In response

to these fears, people began to flee eastward. A September 1807 letter from Angelica

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. resident Alexander D’Autremont reveals that lands in the Church tract were selling for

bargain prices due to such fears. “There are rumors here of a war with the English and

the people are afraid and fearing that the Indians will attack them,” D’Autremont

explained. “Almost all the farms are for sale.”102

It was in this period when Church’s settlers began to question their futures in

Allegany County that Philip Church made a bold statement about his permanence at his

farm, Belvidere, and his faith in the forthcoming success of his development work by

building a mansion home. Church initially wanted to build a large stone house in 1804

but as with many of his other projects, Church had to adjust his plans after facing the

reality of the frontier economy. A scarcity of labor and materials prevented the house

from being built as quickly as he expected, as he indicated to his father in June of that

year. After being away at Canandaigua, Church returned to Belvidere only to find “no

little progress made in clearing the spot I have chosen to build upon, and every

arrangement for building which I had hoped to have from good hands found finished not

even begun.” He also realized that the dearness of labor would make building a stone

house too expensive. His intention to wed Anna Matilda Stewart the following winter

necessitated that he quickly erect some kind of structure to receive her in, so Church

“determined to erect a Farm House, near the spot where I intend to build [his large

house].” This house would have “two rooms and a kitchen” and stand “one story and a

half high.” Church estimated at the time that the house “will cost me about 400 dollars”

and justified this unexpected expense by arguing that “I can then make every preperation

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for building next year and my [large] house will cost me at least 400 dollars less than if I

commence this year.”103

The result was a double-pile frame house that Church had painted white, earning

it the nickname of the “White House.” Although this house was blown down in a

windstorm in 1902, surviving photographs of the White House provide additional

information about what this building actually looked like.104 (Figures 16 and 17). A

circa 1862 picture and a circa 1900 picture of the gable-ended western side of the house

reveal that it was protected by clapboards and had four symmetrically placed windows on

its end. Two large windows with sixteen panes of glass were placed equidistant from the

sides of the house on the first floor, while two smaller windows of nine panes are visible

in the upper story. Returns located on the gable end of the house at the roofline indicate a

degree of architectural decoration. The front door must have been located on the

northern side of the house, as suggested by the location of a road leading up to the house.

Although Philip Church’s White House was typical of farmhouses that could be

found in settled eastern communities at the time it was built, it was by far the largest and

most elaborate building in the Angelica vicinity. Like other frontier settlements, most of

the structures built on the Church Tract by 1804 were constructed of logs. At least two

frame houses are thought to have been standing in the village of Angelica by the time

Church built his home. When John Gibson purchased a village plot from Church in

1802, he agreed “to put up within a year a frame building in ground size, at least 12x16

ft.”105 Evert Van Wickle is also credited with building a frame house in the village in the

first years of Angelica’s settlement. Church’s house would have therefore been

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. distinctive, though not unique, in the area for its frame construction. What really set it

apart was its size and its painted exterior. The “White House” reportedly held the honor

of being the first painted house west of Canandaigua, earning it a measurable degree of

fame. Orasmus Turner probably accurately captured the impression this building

originally made in its frontier location when he wrote in 1851, “it must have looked

almost aristocratic” when it was first built.106

Although the White House, with its plentiful glass windows and decorative detail,

would have been considered grand by most of his neighbors, Philip Church wanted a

home that more accurately reflected his family’s identity as members of the upper class

and their status within Angelica community. Both Philip and Anna Matilda Church had

grown up as members of the privileged American elite and were accustomed to living in

fine houses. Following a distinguished career as a general in the American Revolution,

Anna Matilda Stewart’s father, Walter, established himself as a merchant in

Philadelphia.107 Walter and Deborah Stewart’s wealth and penchant for fine household

furnishings are reflected in surviving accounts for purchases made in London in

September and early October 1787. In a single month, the Stewarts purchased at least

£414 worth of silver, ceramics, upholstery, and furniture to bring home with them to

Philadelphia.108 About six years later after this buying spree, Stewart began to erect a

mansion on Market Street in Philadelphia. Anna Matilda Stewart therefore shared Philip

Church’s childhood experience of living in expensive homes furnished with imported

European furnishings. The Churches did not want to live in a house considered grand by

Allegany County standards, but by the standards of their economic peers.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Although he remained in the White House with his family longer than he

intended, Philip Church finally began to make forward progress on building his long-

planned mansion home in 1807. Like other fashionable homes throughout America,

Belvidere was meant to be a symbol of the Churches’ identity and status. In addition,

building Belvidere was also an important part of Philip Church’s development plans for

his land. He had pursued a number of different ways to attract settlers to the Church

tract, from establishing mills and roads to circulating advertisements, but in 1807 Church

was struggling and decided to try something new. Belvidere can be considered the

largest advertisement that Church ever attempted. It was meant not only to inform those

who saw it about its owners, but also about the possibilities of living on the frontier.

This idea of using buildings and landscape as a promotional pitch was well

understood by many of western New York’s land developers. Oliver Phelps designed

Canandaigua, the primary village of the Phelps-Gorham Purchase, with straight roads and

public squares believing that a town that looked “civilized” would attract more settlers,

and thus raise land prices. As Canandaigua developed, Phelps ordered log cabins to be

replaced by frame buildings, and funded an impressive two-story frame courthouse in

1794 to create the appearance of prosperity.109 When Charles Williamson was in charge

of the Pulteney Purchase, he developed “company farms” that would “show what the

Country will do” and recommended to the Holland Land Company that they do the

same.110 Joseph Ellicott heeded this advice by subsidizing farmers who owned land in

strategic positions along the main Buffalo Road and at the eastern entrance to the

purchase, and by keeping a large garden at his village plot in Batavia. Ellicott’s sales to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. settlers were also often contingent on their agreement to quickly clear and fence their

land. He would also only sell certain village lots to someone who planned on “gracing” it

with “a handsome Building, which will add Respectability to the Village, and the Price of

it [the lot] will in a Measure depend upon the Size of the Building you may erect.”111

Additionally, Ellicott controlled the appearance of public buildings to be built in his

territory. As William WyckofF has written about this Ellicott policy, “The presence of

substantial, multistory public buildings on large, landscaped lots added further to the

image of the purchase as a viable, permanent community quickly removing itself from

the grasp of primitive frontier isolation.”112

Although Philip Church undoubtedly welcomed all potential settlers to his land,

most of the people who came to Allegany County were extremely poor and could not put

down much, if any, of a cash deposit upon their arrival.113 While Church had always

sought to attract settlers with money to his land, his financial troubles in 1806 and 1807

apparently led him to intensify this search. Church’s parents played a crucial role in this

effort, as their friendship with prominent French dmigrds resulted in an unusually large

number of these families settling, at least briefly, in Angelica. Victor and Josephine du

Pont proved to be the first major French family to be enticed to Allegany County as a

result of the combined effort of John and Angelica as well as Philip and Anna Matilda

Church. Anna Matilda sent a letter to Josephine du Pont in 180S in which she wrote

“[Philip Church] is as anxious as myself for the time to arrive when we shall have the

happiness to welcome you at Angelica, and if any circumstances should intervene to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. deprive us of that satisfaction, we will suffer the greatest mortification and

disappointment.”114

The Churches’ wishes were granted in 1806, when the du Ponts purchased 500

acres from John Barker and Philip Church on property adjacent to Belvidere after Victor

du Pont was forced to declare bankruptcy in his merchant business. Even after suffering

the financial embarrassment of bankruptcy, as cultured people who routinely circulated in

the highest circles of New York society, the du Ponts were exactly the sort of people the

Churches wanted as their neighbors. In addition, Victor du Pont was able to pay $2513

for his land “in hand” to Church.115 The du Ponts in turn enticed another French family,

the D’ Autremonts, to settle near Angelica. Madame D’Autremont agreed to move to a

“country of woods”... “only because Mr. & Mrs. Dupont were to live there.” She was

also cheered by the prospects of the alleged quality of their new land and that Philip

Church and “his very kind wife” lived there and “both of them speak French.”116 The

Baron William Hyde de Neuville, who later served as French minister to the United

States between 1816 and 1821, and his artist wife also briefly lived in Angelica in 1807

and 1808. Building Belvidere at the same time that these French families were living

nearby, Philip Church may have explicitly intended Belvidere to serve as a suitable piace

to entertain such cultured neighbors. He also may have hoped that when Belvidere was

completed, it would attract more of these same types of people to the area. Belvidere

provided a visual message that despite being located hundreds of miles away from

cultural centers, it was still possible for the “better” class of people to live a genteel

lifestyle.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Building Belvidere

Construction on the “large home” that Philip Church had been planning to build at

Belvidere since at least 1804 finally got underway in 1808.117 Church’s intention to build

a genteel home worthy of his status, coupled with his family’s proven connoisseurship of

fine architecture, led him to select a professional architect to design his frontier home.

Belvidere has frequently been cited as the design of Benjamin Latrobe, the most

prominent architect working in early America.118 Considering the Church family’s status

and connections, this theory would be plausible if it were not for the fact that the original

plans for the house survive and are signed “E. Probyn A[rchitect] & Builder.” While

some have argued that Probyn may have simply been overseeing the execution of

Latrobe’s design,119 a surviving written estimate for the cost of the house leaves no doubt

that it was Probyn, rather than Latrobe, who provided the actual plan. The document

reads “Estimate of a House intended to be built by Phillip [sic] Church Esq. Agreeable to

the Plan designed by E. Probyn.”120 Both the plan and the estimate are also signed “New

York,” identifying Probyn’s location.

Although virtually unknown to American architectural historians today, Edward

Probyn was a Welsh architect who immigrated to America late in the year 1800 or in

early 1801 and immediately began to attract attention in elite American circles. Two

surviving letters of recommendation to Albert Gallatin written on Probyn’s behalf by

Morgan Rhees and Ezekiel Robins reveal that Probyn was thinking of establishing

himself in Washington, DC in 1801. Robins wrote Gallatin that Probyn was “well

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. recommended by a number of respectable characters in Wales and Bristol” and Rhees

noted that “His designs & drafts have been much praised by several gentlemen — among

them by the V.P. of the U.S. [Aaron Burr].”121 This plan to move to DC never

materialized, as Probyn appears in the New York City directory in 1802, and remained in

that city until 1832-33. He was listed as an “architect and builder” until the 1827-28

directory, after which he was listed simply as “architect.” Probyn did not live far from

John Barker and Angelica Church in New York City, and it is very likely that Philip’s

parents were the ones to secure the plan for Belvidere from Probyn.

Probyn’s plan for Belvidere confirms his skill and knowledge of current

architectural fashion. Although not as grand as the city townhouse that Joseph Bonomi

had designed for John Barker Church in 1797, Probyn’s plan for Belvidere was more up-

to-date. Moving away from the single large box shape that had characterized almost all

American homes built in the Georgian or early Federal styles, Probyn designed Belvidere

to have a central two and a half story block flanked by two contrasting one story wings.

(See Figure 18). Thus he adopted a more modem style for the period that has often been

called the Palladian three-part plan.122 In addition, while Bonomi’s house was designed

around the eighteenth-century model of having the principal entertaining rooms located

on the second floor, Probyn’s plan limited Belvidere’s public spaces - the dining room,

parlor, and a guest chamber - to the ground level, thereby reserving the second floor for

five private family chambers. Although Bonomi’s design was characteristically

European, many grand American homes had adopted the scheme of having their best

drawing room on the second floor in the second half of the eighteenth-century. This

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. model had fallen out of favor by the early years of the nineteenth century, however, and

Probyn proved sensitive to this change.

On the other hand, Bonomi and Probyn’s plans share similarities that represent

continuities of thought between John Barker and Philip Church. Like his father’s planned

home, Belvidere segregated work areas and servant quarters from family space.

Bonomi’s plan for John Barker Church removed service areas from the main house

altogether by containing them within a separate, yet connected wing. Similarly, Probyn’s

plan confined servant workspaces to the basement and away from the main entertainment

rooms of the first floor. Rather than providing for servant bedrooms in the same space as

the work areas, as his father had planned to do, Philip Church had one servant bedroom

built in Belvidere’s eastern wing while the rest of his staff presumably slept in

Belvidere’s finished garret on the third floor. Belvidere’s first floor servant bedroom

contained no interior door to the rest of the house and was only accessible from the

outside, confirming Church’s emphasis on separation. The plans for both men’s homes

reveal their to desire to see as little of their employees as possible even though they

remained utterly dependent on them to make their homes work as sites for genteel

entertainment

The architectural plans for both John Barker and Philip Church’s homes indicate

their owners’ sense of themselves as members of the upper class and their corresponding

commitment to the ideals of genteel living. Most importantly, both houses contained

large, elegant public rooms to accommodate a large number of guests. The nature of

their entertaining intentions can perhaps best be seen in the details of both homes. For

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. example, both Belvidere and John Barker Church’s house were designed with luxurious

china pantries located near the dining room where the family’s best dishes would have

been kept. Because both homes had their kitchens a good distance away from their

dining rooms, they would have also needed a way to keep their food warm after being

prepared in the kitchen but before it was served in the dining room. Bonomi addressed

this problem by including a second room right next to the “china closet” which he labeled

“lobby with stoves.” Although Belvidere did not have a separate space for this function,

it is very likely that the Churches kept a steam table or plate warmers in their “china

pantry” to serve the same function. Thus both families had facilities designed to

accommodate genteel dining practices.

Another evidence of both John Barker Church and Philip Church’s desire to live a

genteel lifestyle can be seen in the small adjoining rooms located near the best

bedchambers in both plans. Bonomi calls for a “dressing room,” a “wardrobe,” a “w.c.”

or water closet, and a “bath” all directly off the large second floor bedchamber. These

spaces were all given over to the acts of dressing and bathing which indicate a concern

for regulation of the body. As Richard Bushman has argued, late-eighteenth-century

standards of gentility required an increased concern for cleanliness and hygiene. Those

people wishing to be considered genteel had to have clean bodies and clothes. New

furniture forms such as washstands and dressing tables helped genteel people achieve this

goal, and Bonomi provided the John Barker Church family with space to store such

items.124 Edward Probyn also planned for small adjoining rooms for both of Belvidere’s

best bedrooms, located above the parlor and dining room. The southwest bedroom was

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. designed with a four feet by six feet closet while the southeast chamber has an even

larger six feet four inches by ten feet adjoining room. Probyn did not identify the

functions of these spaces on his plans, but they were undoubtedly intended to provide the

Church family with private dressing and bathing quarters. One major difference between

the designed homes of John Barker and Philip Church is the lack of actual bathrooms in

Belvidere. Bonomi intended John Barker Church’s house to be equipped with a

plumbing system, as he planned two intedor toilets, one located on the first floor and one

on the second floor. Philip Church’s family did not have such luxuries in their home, and

continued to use detached privies.

In overall design, Belvidere resembles another one of Philip Church’s relative’s

home more closely than the one planned for his father. Alexander Hamilton constructed

his country retreat, The Grange, between 1800 and 1802 in the section of Manhattan then

known as Harlem Heights. Belvidere’s compact design, connecting parlor and dining

room of equal size and shape, triple hung windows in its best first-floor rooms, porches to

take advantage of the local views, private second floor family space, and a basement

service area all mirror noted New York City architect John McComb Jr.’s plan for The

Grange. (See Figures 19 and 20). Both homes strictly differentiated servant space versus

public and private space by grouping these spaces on entirely separate floors. In addition,

the similarities between the front elevations of both buildings are particularly striking.

(Figure 21). Both are three bays wide and have a covered entranceway over the front

door. With its protruding first-floor octagonal rooms and long porticoes on the east and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. west sides, The Grange resembles the three-part massing that Probyn adopted at

Belvidere.

The costs of both these homes were also probably comparable. Excluding the

price he paid for the land it stood on, Hamilton spent $13,972.06 to build The Grange.125

Because complete building accounts do not survive for Belvidere, it is impossible to

determine exactly how much Church paid on its construction. Probyn estimated in 1807

that it would cost $9,300 to build Belvidere, plus an additional $500 for items Church

asked for after the original plans were drawn - the added portico, garret rooms, a new

staircase from the first floor to the garret, cellar improvements, and “different finish.”126

It is unclear what Probyn’s estimate covered exactly, and with labor and interior

carpentry and finish work, it is very possible that Church expended much more than just

$9,800 to construct Belvidere. Belvidere is physically larger than The Grange,

supporting this assumption.

Surviving building records reveal the sequence and timing of constructing

Belvidere.127 After about six months of transporting construction materials to the site.

Church’s workmen were able to raise Belvidere’s shell in just another six months. Thus

Church’s frontier location did not significantly lengthen the amount of time that it would

have taken to construct Belvidere in a more populated area. However, it must be

remembered that it essentially took Church four years to be able to commandeer enough

people and materials to undertake such a project. His success in gathering as many men

and supplies as he did speaks to his ability to monopolize the local market for both men

and construction supplies by being able to pay both in cash and in land. As Church’s

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. earlier complaints to his father revealed, the frontier was characterized by a barter

economy which Church disdained. On the other hand, his financial resources allowed

him to get whatever he wanted in an economy where people were desperate for cash.

Even though he grumbled about the high cost of labor, Church was always able to outbid

his neighbors to get the help he needed for his projects. Thus for example, Madame

D’Autremont complained to her son in May 1807, when Church was both beginning to

assemble materials for his house as well as construct the turnpike from Bath, that “one

cannot find laborers as one wishes, and they cost a good deal because they are going to

build a turnpike and Mr. Church engages all those he can lay his hand on. He pays them

sixteen dollars per month and feeds them.”128 Thus even the D’ Autremont family, who

arrived in Angelica with significantly more resources than most of the Church Tract

settlers, struggled to get the labor they needed. The market economics of supply and

demand were alive and well in Allegany County in its very earliest years, contrary to the

myth that frontier locations were removed from such influences.

Philip Church began assembling materials for his “large home” in the late fall and

winter of 1807. Earlier that year, Church had erected stables that were probably

employed as shelters for his stockpiled supplies. The first explicit reference to work

being conducted specifically for the “big house” occurred on November 17, when one

hand and team began hauling stone. Snow had probably fallen by this date in Allegany

County, and Church had undoubtedly waited until the ground froze before hauling stone

to build the basement and the foundation of the mansion. Transporting stone was an

extremely laborious task that would have been greatly eased by the use of sleds gliding

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. over frozen snow. According to tradition, the stone for Beividere was quarried at Van

Campen’s Creek, which joins the Genesee River less than a mile south of Beividere.

While some men were hauling stone, others began to prepare the ground where Beividere

was to be erected, as indicated by entries for “hailing soil for the yard” and “grubing the

yard” in November 1807. Both tasks of landscaping and hauling stone continued in

December. It is significant to note that Edward Probyn’s floorplan for Beividere is dated

December 31,1807, confirming the fact that building did not actually begin until 1808.

Hauling stone and boards occupied the time of Church’s laborers in both January

and February of 1808. A February 8 entry specifies that the boards were being hauled

from Philipsburg, a site just upriver from Beividere where Church had previously built a

sawmill. He was therefore able to meet his own extensive demand for boards by

producing them himself. By March when the Genesee River was likely rising, the men

switched from hauling sawed boards from Philipsburg overland to sending them down

the river and retrieving them at Beividere. March 1808 also marked the beginning of

extensive work on the gardens. Timber for the gardens was hauled March lst-3ri as

Church was probably preparing to construct fences to enclose the gardens or to build

raised beds. On April 20, Church purchased fruit trees brought in from Geneva, garden

lime, fans to clean seeds, and garden seeds from the store, so the garden was apparently

completed enough to begin planting. The end of April and the beginning of May also

saw the hauling and rolling of gravel, which could have been put down beneath the

basement floor to assist in water drainage, or may have been used to construct walkways

around the property.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It is likely that the first serious masonry work at Beividere began in late April or

May 1808 when the ground would have been free of frost. The first reference to brick for

the big house occurs on May 17, indicating that the masons could not have built any

higher than the water table by this point In June masonry supplies including lime, sand,

and water were hauled to the site, signifying active masonry construction. Timber for the

mansion also began to arrive in June, suggesting that carpenters had begun to work on the

flooring. On June 21, Philip Church bought forty-three pounds of iron “for chimney”

which was probably being employed as structural support for the chimney lintels. A

month later, Church again bought chimney iron, this time one hundred and ten pounds of

it, as well as an additional one ton of iron for an unspecified purpose and seventy-six

pounds of steel. The house was progressing steadily, as scaffold poles began to be

prepared on July 21 and 22. Roofing probably began in September, as Church was

buying shingle nails and iron to make soldering irons - probably to install flashing and

gutters for the roof. The building accounts end on October 17,1808, suggesting that the

major work of framing, constructing the stone and brick masonry walls, and building the

chimneys had been completed.

Store records are all that remain to provide glimpses into the construction that

continued past October 1808. Church was involved in many building projects at the time

including mill sites, so it is difficult to tell exactly what building materials were being

used for Beividere. At the end of November, Church was debited almost $250 to pay

laborer’s wages at the lime kiln, revealing that Church was having limestone burned

locally to provide the quicklime necessary to make mortar and plaster. At least some of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. this lime was used at Beividere, as he was debited $31 shortly thereafter for hauling 250

bushels of lime to Beividere. In 1809, Church bought hardware such as latches and

hinges, nails, and white lead that would have been used to make paint. It is therefore

evident that Church was supervising the interior finishing of the house. On September 6,

1809 he was debited $11 for transporting a 500-pound marble chimney piece from Tioga,

in Northeastern Pennsylvania. This would have undoubtedly originally been installed in

either the dining room or drawing room, but has since been removed. Tradition holds

that the family moved into the house in 1810, but finishing work probably continued even

after the family was officially settled. In October 1811, Church imported lead and tin

pipes that may have been used for plumbing and stove pipes, respectively, in the big

house.

Beividere’s building accounts provide partial evidence as to how many people

were involved in building Beividere, how much they were paid, and who they were.

Most daily entries only recorded paying one or two hands a day, plus animals. The most

hands paid for a single day was on September 3,1807 when five hands helped raise the

stables while two more men hauled soil. The rates these men were paid depended on

what task they were performing, and probably on whether or not they supplied their own

work animals (oxen or horses). Daily wage entries range from $.75/day for a single hand

grubbing to $3.00/day for one hand and his team hauling three loads of stone. The lowest

wage rates recorded were for those men working at the stone quarry, who made from

$14-$ 15.75/month. These men may have received board to compensate for their lower

wages. Laborers who paid their own board were charged $.25/ day.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. These labor accounts only record the activities and wages of paid day laborers and

do not document the labor performed by skilled workers who were likely to be on

contract, or by slaves. There is no mention of a master mason or master carpenter, for

instance, and what their wages may have been. Both William Melrose and John Sweet

began boarding at Beividere during the summer of 1807 with their job description listed

as “tended mason,” implying that they were serving a master mason. Mr. Nelson and Mr.

Carl began boarding on June 12,1807 with the notation “carpenter” next to their entry,

but no additional information was recorded about these two men or their exact roles.

They could have been a master carpenter and journeyman, or both may have been

journeymen. The evidence of slave labor is also missing from the written accounts.

Philip Church owned ten slaves in 1810 according to the federal census, and four male

slaves appear frequently in store notations for the 1807-1810 period. There is no

documentary evidence proving that James, Jack, Val, Jude or other Church slaves

assisted with the building process, but it is highly likely that they did.

Tradition holds that Church hired masons from a major city such as Albany or

New York City to supervise the work.129 This would certainly be true if Edward Probyn

served as master builder, but it seems unlikely that he would have moved west for many

months in order to supervise the building process. While it is probable that Church had

to look beyond Angelica to find master craftsmen who could supervise the building of a

complicated masonry structure such as Beividere, he probably also had to recruit laborers

from other places as well. When he originally planned to begin his large stone house in

1804, Church told his father that he had gone to Hartford (Avon) looking for laborers,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and when he sent Joseph McClure to New England in 1804, he asked him to try and

convince laborers to return to Angelica. By 1807-1809,there were probably more men in

the Angelica area to hire for such a building project, but Church very likely sought them

in other places too.

As the building accounts suggest, Beividere was built of both stone and brick.

Church took advantage of the thin layers of dense, fine-grained sandstone which underlie

the region of Allegany County to provide a suitable building material for his home.130

This stone is greenish-gray in color, with reddish brown inclusions where it has been

stained by iron deposits. The stones used to build Beividere have been partially dressed,

as they are rectangular in shape and laid in regular courses of roughly even height

(Figure 22). Thus Church had ordered his workmen to go to the extra trouble and

expense to make the stonework on his house regular, rather than accepting a rubblestone

building. These additional steps greatly enhanced the sophistication of Church’s home.

To further ornament the exterior of the building, Belvidere’s masons used contrasting

reddish-brown bricks to form decorative quoins, jackarches above windows, and recessed

arches around windows and doors.131 (See Figures 4 and 5).

The exterior of Beividere contains ornamental woodwork in addition to its

decorative masonry. The dominant feature of Belvidere’s woodwork is its restraint. This

is in keeping with the current architectural fashion, and articulated by Probyn when he

wrote that Beividere was “to be finished in a substantial manner, but plain stiles.”132 A

modest comice containing square block modillions above a row of dentils outlines the top

of Belvidere’s central block and southern portico. (Figure 23). Modillions also adorn the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. triangular pediments on both sides of the western wing of the house. This pattern was

originally repeated on the eastern wing of Beividere, but was removed when the roof was

raised on this section of the house.133 (Figure 24). The front door received the most

embellishment of all the fenestration, with four pilasters surrounding the door and

sidelights, topped by a comice with dentil molding. (Figure 25). Above the door, the

center second-story window repeats in a simpler fashion the decoration of the

entranceway, with shallowly carved rectangle surrounds and a simple cornice without

dentils. The windows on the central block attract additional attention by having brightly

painted louvered shutters. 1860s pictures of Beividere show these windows to have had

shutters during the Churches’ residence as well. These pictures dating from the

Churches’ residence also reveal another decorative woodwork feature, now missing.

Giant wooden pilasters once stood on the southern comers of the central block, with a

smaller pilaster located on the northern comer of the western wing. (Figures 26 and 27).

A matching pilaster presumably once decorated the northern comer of the eastern wing as

well. All of these elements add to the effect of the Churches’ grand country home.

Belvidere’s two primary facades create very different impressions and represent

the dual nature of the house as both an intimate home and a majestic symbol of power.

On the northern side of the house, the two side wings were designed to project forward

almost nine feet past the front of the center section to create a recessed porch. This

“piassa,” as Probyn called it on the plan, rises one story and is supported by four Doric

columns, making it the same height as the wings. This porch effectively interrupts the

upward thrust of the central block, giving Belvidere’s north facade of Beividere a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. primarily horizontal orientation. The hipped roof of the central block also de-emphasizes

the height of the house as a whole. Because the front door to Beividere is set within the

piazza, the person entering Beividere is forced to focus on the first floor of the central

block when he or she enters. The house is thereby divided into a more manageable scale,

increasing the sense of intimacy.

Belvidere’s north facade stands in stark contrast to Belvidere’s soaring southern

front which overlooks the Genesee River. With its smaller wings receding in the

background, the taller central block dominates the southern exposure. This effect of

monumental height is greatly enhanced by a full two-story columned portico that adorns

the central block. The triangular pediment of the portico obscures the view of the low,

hipped roof when viewing Beividere from the south, increasing the sense of height.

Probyn’s signed plans for the house do not include this southern portico, and it has

therefore traditionally been assumed to have been added at a later date. However, on the

bottom of the cost estimate provided by Probyn for Beividere, there is a list of five items

including an “added portico” for which Church was charged an additional cost.134 It

therefore appears that even though the portico was not originally planned for the house, it

was built contemporaneously with the house rather than being added later. The

continuity of the comice around the central block and portico supports this claim.

Additionally, the attenuated proportions of the portico’s Ionic columns also suggest an

early construction date as they are more typical of the trend of Roman neoclassicism

which found expression in American architecture years before the stouter proportions of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the Greek Revival became popular. The proportions of Belvidere’s portico columns

make them rare survivals.

Belvidere’s two main facades — one inviting and the other imposing — were

carefully situated on the landscape to send different messages to different viewers.

Beividere was easily visible from the south, as the Churches cleared the area between the

house, which sat on a bluff, and the river below. Mid-nineteenth century views of

Beividere from across the river all show how open the area in front of the central block

was, while trees partly obscured the wings of the house. (Figures 28, 29, and 30).

Church removed trees from this slope both to increase the view from Beividere but also

to allow Beividere to be seen from the main public road that runs west of the house.

Anyone traveling north on this road towards Angelica could not have helped but notice

the mansion on the hill. To see the north facade of Beividere though, a visitor would first

have to gain access to the private driveway that lead up to this side. A low stone wall

was built parallel to the main road, with two stone-and-brick gateposts supporting a large

wrought-iron gate that limited access to the driveway. Even if the wall could be easily

scaled, the message of separation was clear. (Figure 31). Trees also sheltered Beividere

from viewers’ gaze from the north. Thus family members and visitors granted access to

the driveway would approach Belvidere’s welcoming northern front, while distant

viewers were intentionally restricted to only the commanding southern vista.

Those visitors invited inside Beividere would have found the interior to be

finished as grandly as the exterior. Entering through the front door, guests would have

found themselves in a relatively small hall that was only eight feet wide. Probyn

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. demonstrated a great concern for symmetry in designing this space which is characteristic

of fine homes. Because the room located in the northwestern section of the central block

required an entrance to the hallway, Probyn called for a false door on the eastern wall of

the hall directly opposite this door. Additionally, the two doors to the dining room and

parlor were centered at the southern end of the hall and of the same width.

As the site of all major entertaining in the house, the dining room and drawing

room were designed to be Belvidere’s grandest rooms. Special attention was given to

both the finish and orientation of these two identically sized rooms. The walls were

constructed of plaster and were probably finished with wallpaper.135 The cornices are

also plaster and are indicative of the “substantial,” but “plain” decoration Philip Church

had desired for his home. (Figure 32). The 500-pound marble chimneypiece that Philip

Church had shipped from Tioga in 1809 was undoubtedly used in one of these two rooms

originally, although neither room retains its original mantle. The dining room and the

drawing room were also carefully oriented to receive abundant sunshine. They both have

a southern exposure, and are built out past the end of Belvidere’s wings which allowed

two large six-over-six pane windows to be placed on the eastern wall of the dining room

and the western wall of the drawing room. The most impressive windows in these rooms

are located on the southern wall. Two tripartite windows measuring just less than seven

feet in overall width dominate the southern wall, reaching from the floor almost all the

way to the thirteen-foot ceiling. The center portion of these windows are triple hung,

with a nine-pane window over a set of two-six pane windows, allowing the two bottom

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. windows to be pushed up to form a door-sized entranceway to the south portico. (Figure

33).

This type of expensive “French” window was found in both England and

America. Although often seen in urban locations, they were also ideal for country houses

in which owners wanted to allow easy access from the interior of the house to the

exterior. In response to a greater appreciation of the joys of nature, English country

house owners had increasingly moved their main rooms down to ground level in the

fourth quarter of the eighteenth century partly to allow direct entry to the outdoors.136

Americans followed this trend towards increased contact with nature, and triple-hung

windows like Belvidere’s usually opened out to a garden or another type of scenic view.

Alexander Hamilton had the same type of windows installed in the dining and drawing

rooms of The Grange to take advantage of the views of the Hudson River and the Harlem

Valley visible on either side of his house. Like Belvidere’s, The Grange’s triple-hung

windows opened onto a portico.137 (See Figure 19).

Through the triple-hung windows, the Churches and their guests could enjoy the

view of the Genesee River and Belvidere’s landscaping. The ideal of seeing the outdoors

in its “natural” state could certainly be accomplished at Beividere simply observing the

miles of uncultivated woodlands covering the Allegany hills, but Church undoubtedly

paid special attention to making his immediate yard look less like the wilderness land it

had recently been. When Philip was first planning Beividere in 1804, his mother wrote

with some landscaping advice: “In clearing your woods you will remember to leave the

clumps larger than necessary for further clearing and take care not to leave a straight

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. outline to the woods near your house. You will perhaps recollect the waivy [sic] line of

the General’s woods on his land and observe it if you can.”138 Angelica was therefore

proposing that Philip follow the current English ideal of creating a romantic landscape

rather than a formal one which had been popular earlier in the eighteenth century. She

was most likely referring Philip to the example of Alexander Hamilton’s recently

landscaped estate at the Grange when she wrote of the “General’s woods” although she

may have been speaking of her father’s country home in Saratoga, New York.

With their elegant connecting dining room and parlor that looked out on a

picturesque landscape, Philip and Anna Matilda Church realized their goal of creating

appropriate spaces for genteel entertainment. Inside these two rooms finished with fine

furnishings, visitors could forget they were in a “new” country characterized by log

homes, poor roads and stump-filled fields. When Maria Trumbull Silliman Church first

arrived at Beividere in October, 1831 following her recent marriage to John Barker

Church II, Philip and Anna Matilda’s eldest son, she wrote home to her family in New

Haven, Connecticut that Beividere “contains every accommodation and all that a genteel

family need require.” She then added significantly, “from all that I see within I could

suppose myself in a city.”139 To Maria’s trained eyes, the Churches had been successful

in creating the elusion of urban elegance while living in what still essentially remained a

frontier territory. The spaces that the Churches had fashioned at Beividere allowed them

to maintain their self-image as cultured people while simultaneously providing this same

impression to visitors.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The only surviving original outbuilding of the Beividere farm complex further

demonstrates the Churches’ architectural sophistication and pretensions. Standing about

350 feet to the northeast of Beividere is an extraordinary nine-sided brick carriage bam

believed to have been built contemporaneously with the mansion. (Figure 34). The

exterior brickwork reveals the advanced technical ability of its masons who constructed

shaped bricks to round the forty degree angled comers. (Figure 35). Its complicated

framing system avoided the use of posts to support the second story joists, thereby

allowing carriages to be moved freely within.140 A central platform can be lowered from

the second story floor to ground level, thereby allowing a carriage to be placed on it and

raised up to the second floor for storage. (Figure 36). The fact that this innovative and

technically challenging bam designed for the storage of elite carriages was constructed in

Allegany County, New York within years of its initial settlement by European-Americans

contradicts traditional notions of frontier primitiveness.

Life at Beividere

Philip and Anna Matilda Church obviously reveled in entertaining and allowing

guests to escape the realities of their frontier surroundings. Philip Church’s account

books reveal that he and his wife wasted no time after Beividere was completed to begin

to hold fashionable parties there. On January 19, 1811, J. Manning was paid $2.50 “for

playing on violin at Ball” and later that year on July 13th a Mr. Pool was paid $3.00 for

the same service.141 The vast majority of surviving documentary evidence about life at

Beividere is contained in the 1830s letters of the Churches’ daughter-in-law, Maria

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Trumbull Silliman Church. Maria and John Church built their farm, Triana, just one mile

away from Beividere, and in letters home to her family, Maria frequently reported on the

social activities of “the Belviderians.” The Churches commonly hosted dinner parties for

fifteen to twenty people, and often held even larger events that might sometimes included

dancing. For the occasion of their daughter Sophia’s wedding anniversary in 1837, Philip

and Anna Matilda Church invited guests to Beividere to participate in tableaux vivantes

(staged theatrical scenes).142

Despite evidence of such happy occasions at Beividere, Maria’s letters also reveal

the Churches’ frustration with the restrictions that their remote location placed on their

pursuit of refined entertainment. A lack of sufficiently genteel guests proved to be the

Churches’ primary dilemma. Despite Philip and Anna Matilda’s hopes, Beividere was

never able to attract a significant number of polite people to permanently settle in

Allegany County. While some families like the du Ponts or the Hyde de Neuvilles

bought land from Church, their residence in western New York was usually short-lived.

The Churches therefore never invited many local residents to their home. Besides nearby

family such as John and Maria Church, the town doctor, lawyers staying in Angelica to

attend sessions of the Allegany County court, and the Episcopalian minister (when

Angelica had one) were the only local residents commonly invited to Beividere.

Likewise, the only Allegany County residents Maria reports that she or the rest of the

Church family visited were Mrs. Charles (wife of Angelica doctor, Richard Charles), the

Cammam family, and the Chews, an upper-class Connecticut family who lived briefly in

the village of Angelica in the early 1830s.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Churches’ sense of class prevented them from socializing with the majority

of their neighbors, whom they perceived to be beneath them. In explaining the character

of her in-laws to her father, Maria Church wrote that “What they say, and what they do,

and what is etiquette, in the fashionable world, is the rule to go by, and the criterion to

which they bring their estimation of others.”143 On another occasion, Maria wrote that

the Beividere family believed it “better [to] be almost any thing than ungenteel.”144 Their

snobbish attitudes distressed Maria, who although from an upper-class New England

family herself, had been raised to believe that religious and intellectual attainment, rather

than “worldly” displays, should determine worth. Overwhelmingly lonely and depressed

by her isolation in what she referred to as the “great desert” and “this far, for, west.”

Maria often sought out Mends and family from her New Haven home to make extended

visits to Triana.145 After a ten-month visit home, Maria brought a Mend, Miss Verstille,

back with her when she returned to New York in July 1837. She found this Mend to be a

liability with her in-laws at Beividere. “[Miss Verstille] is not so polished as I could wish,

more particularly for the sake of Belviderians. Her manners are rather slouching and

oldmaidish. (this between you and me). They [the Churches] havenot seen her much yet

for she sees their pride (and “the Pride of Moab is exceeding great”) and is shy of

them.”146

Insufficient local guests forced the Churches to look farther afield for suitable

entertainment opportunities. In this regard they were most successful when they looked

northward, down the Genesee River. About forty miles away, three families resided that,

along with the Churches, Neil Adams McNall has dubbed “the landed gentry of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Genesee.”147 They were the Wadsworths of Geneseo, and the Carrolls and Fitzhughs of

Groveland. The Wadsworths were the extremely successful Genesee Country land

developers that originally hailed from Connecticut, while the Carroll and the Fitzhugh

families both left successful plantations in western Maryland to settle in New York.148

These three families formed the core of the Church family’s social circle. Numerous

letters record the frequent circulation o f the four family groups between each of their

respective homes: Beividere, The Homestead (the Wadsworths’ home), Hampton (the

Fitzhughs’ home) and Hermitage (the Carrolls’ home). Maria Church was actually

related to the Wadsworth family through her mother’s sister, Faith Trumbull, who had

married Jeremiah Wadsworth’s son Daniel. Maria wrote to her Aunt Wadsworth in

January 1833 that the Beividere family had traveled to Hampton for the marriage of one

of the Fitzhugh’s daughters, Isabella. While in the area, the Church family also “attended

a party at Mr. Wadsworths, where they passed two days...Another [party] at Judge

Carrolls— they were gone from home a week.”149 Such long visits between the families

were very common, and the Churches often reciprocated this hospitality by hosting

extended visits at Beividere. A favorite activity among the families was to meet at the

falls in Nunda (now part of Letchworth State Park) which was about half way between

Angelica and Geneseo. Anna Matilda, her daughter Angelica, and three women visiting

the Churches from Philadelphia made such a trip in August 1834 where they met “a party

from Geneseo.”150

With the exception of the Wadsworths, Carrolls, and Fitzhughs, the Church

family had to rely on importing guests from outside western New York. Because few

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. upper-class people wanted to brave ice, snow, and mud to travel to Beividere in the

winter or spring, the Churches developed a seasonal social calendar that centered on the

summer and early fall. In these latter seasons, Beividere often saw “a constant round of

company.”151 A large number of these guests came from Philadelphia, including Anna

Matilda’s sister Mary Ann Stewart. The Churches also had many visitors from New

York City and the Hudson River Valley such as the Crugers and the Van Rensselaers,

who were relatives of Philip’s. The Churches’ location caused them to struggle for

guests in comparison to the more centrally located Geneseo/Groveland families. While

on a visit to The Homestead in September, 1835, Maria wrote that “it is such a delightful

country[,] so many pleasant families around and all so accessible that I feel as if it was

half way to N. Yk. instead of only forty miles from Angelica.”152

The difficulty in attracting guests to Beividere resulted, quite simply, in boredom.

Church family members frequently compensated for the seasonal nature of their social

calendar by leaving Allegany County during the slow season. In any given year, it was

common for at least one or two of the Churches to be “down” at New York City or

another urban location for the winter. Philip Church was especially fond of this practice,

leaving his wife and family alone at Beividere for months at a time. He also traveled to

England at least once, and was gone for over two years on his first trip. An attempt to

combat such boredom can be seen in the creation of a “dinner club” in the winter of 1837

by the Fitzhughs, Wadsworths, Carrolls, and Churches in which each family was to take

turns giving dinners once a month that all the other members would be invited to.153

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It seems that the Church women were more susceptible to this boredom than their

male relatives. After hearing that the Belviderians were planning a “pick-nick party, on

an island in the [Genesee] river,” in August 1837, Maria sarcastically remarked, “They

‘seek out many inventions’ to make time glide smoothly away.”154 The next month,

Maria informed her mother about a particularly revealing visit from her sister-in-law,

Angelica. Two days after a large party of guests left who had been at Beividere for

weeks, Angelica made an infrequent appearance at Maria’s home: “Just before dinner

Angelica came in. Said it was so dull over at Beividere.. .and being afraid she should get

blue if she staid at home, she came to Triana. This is in reaction, after all the gaiety they

have had there.”155 The prospect of a long winter in Allegany County was apparently too

much for Angelica Church to bear that day. When there was snow on the ground and

sleighing was possible, winter in Allegany County was bearable, but when sleighs could

not be used, women were stuck at home. As Maria wrote, without sleighing, “we females

are prisoners unless necessary duty bids us to mount the lumber waggon, which can only

go at a snail’s pace.”156 Thus for the Church women, their beautiful homes sometimes

served as gilded cages.

When guests did venture out to Beividere, they often stayed the night. In

expectation of the Church’s entertaining practices, Edward Probyn probably intended the

first floor chamber just west of the front hall to serve as a guest room. If the Church

family did originally use this as a guest room, they did not do so for long. One major

impediment to its use for guests was that it shared a wall and a door with the nursery,

which occupied the western wing of the house. The nursery served as a classroom for the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Church children during the day and a bedroom at night.157 As the Churches raised eight

children at Beividere over the course of three decades, it is doubtful that the nursery was

ever a quiet location during these years. Additionally, the door between the original

guest bedroom and the nursery was the only way the western wing connected to the rest

of the house. There was an exterior door to the nursery located on the west wall of the

wing, but it must have been bothersome if guests were in the chamber to go outside to

either get to the nursery or travel from the nursery to themain house.

Possibly for these reasons, the Churches were not using this first floor room as a

bedroom by at least December 1831. That month, Maria Silliman Church drew a floor

plan of Beividere that she sent to her aunt in Hartford, Connecticut in which she labeled

this room the “Breakfast Room.”158 (Figure 37). This suggests that the family used the

room as an informal family parlor. They probably ate breakfast there and then used it as

a sitting room in the late morning and early afternoon. In 1837, when her youngest child

Henry had reached adolescence and Anna Matilda Church took over the nursery for her

own bedroom, Maria Church reported that “the other room [the former “breakfast room”]

is a library — the books-cases are moved into it, and they [the family] sit there a good

deal.”159 Thus although they had changed the name of the room and moved in some

bookcases, it was still used as a family sitting room.160

As the Church family did not find the downstairs chamber convenient for use as a

guest room, they must have provided sleeping space for guests on the second floor,

thereby disrupting Probyn’s planned spatial division between a public first floor and a

private second floor. His intentions to reserve the second floor of Beividere for the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Church family is best demonstrated in his treatment of access to this space. The only

original staircase to the second floor was located behind the eastern wall of the front hall,

thereby shielding it from guests’ view and making a clear statement that entertainment

was to be restricted to the first floor. Secondly, this staircase was relatively narrow being

only three feet wide, and was quite steep.161 Genteel homes designed for second floor

guest access usually included a much grander staircase with a gentler ascent. As it

appears as if the Churches often used their second floor chambers as guest rooms, they do

not seem to have been bothered by their humble staircase, as they never changed it.162

Church family members probably occupied these second-floor bedrooms the

majority of the time but may have been displaced when visitors were staying. It is

difficult to ascertain who used which bedroom when, and there was undoubtedly a great

deal of switching around over the years as the size of the family waxed and waned. A

common assumption would be that the largest southwest bedroom was the master

bedroom, and probably used most often by Philip Church. However, we do know that

this was the room Maria and John Church lived in after their marriage in 1831 while they

were waiting for their home at Triana to be completed. Maria wrote to her mother that

she and John had “a large fine room, with a southern and Western exposure, and

containing every accommodation, and we have a fire at all times when we wish.” Thus

the newly married eldest son and his wife were given the best bedroom in the house.163

(Figures 38 and 39). Three years later, when Maria had to switch around sleeping

arrangements in her own house as her family steadily grew in numbers, she noted that she

planned to put two bedsteads in her best chamber, “as Mrs. C[hurch] does in the “big

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. room.” Maria then continued to say that this way she could put either two women or two

men in this bedroom.164 Thus, at least at this period, the large bedroom at Beividere

seems have been planned for easy use as a guest room. Maria also used the northwest

chamber on the second floor during an extended stay at Beividere in early June 1833,

revealing its occasional use as a guest room.165

The only one of Belvidere’s second-floor bedrooms with a fireplace that is not

mentioned being used as a guest room is the one in the southeast comer. Even though

this bedroom is smaller than the southwest one, it has a decorative arched hallway

leading to it, is finished with an elaborate window and mantle that both match the ones in

the largest chamber, and has a small room adjoining it that probably served as a private

dressing/ sitting room. (Figures 40 and 41). These clues suggest that Philip and/or Anna

Matilda Church used it most often. It is likely that the Church’s children usually used the

other second floor bedrooms after they graduated from the downstairs nursery.

Probyn planned Beividere to accommodate three distinct types of occupants: the

Church family, their guests, and their servants. His design reveals how he and

presumably Philip and Anna Matilda Church intended these different groups to interact

with each other within Beividere. Just as Probyn planned for a spatial division between

the public first floor and the private family second floor, he also designed Beividere to

separate servants from the Church family and their guests as much as possible. (See

Figure 18). Servants’ work quarters were confined to the partial basement while their

bedrooms were located on the third floor garret level of Beividere. They were therefore

to be on the first and second floors of Beividere as little as possible. The kitchen, pantry,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and storage spaces such as the larder and wine cellar were all located in the basement and

were submerged almost completely underground. A few high windows with splayed

sides opening at ground level provided the basement with limited light. A stairway from

the basement led to the first floor and exited outside the dining room door, allowing

servants to carry prepared food from the kitchen directly to the dining room. As it stands

today, this staircase has doors located at its top and bottom, both of which could have

been locked to regulate servant access to the first floor when their services were not

needed.

The Churches’ intention to limit servant access to the first floor is also seen in the

provision of exterior doors located on either end of the long passage that stretches across

the length of the basement. Servants could thus enter and exit without traveling through

the first floor. The Church family’s desire for separation between their servants can

perhaps best be seen in the provision for the servant’s bed room in the eastern wing of the

first floor that had no interior doorways. (See Figure 18). Probyn’s sensitivity to

separation may have been intensified by the fact that the Church’s staff consisted almost

entirely of enslaved African-Americans at the time Beividere was built. The 1810 New

York State census reveals that Philip Church owned ten slaves at the time of his family’s

first occupation of Beividere. The only other non-Church family member included in the

Churches’ census records was a free white woman between the ages of sixteen and

twenty six who was probably a servant.

Slavery did not prove to be a tenable servant option for the Church family. Those

moving to New York State with slaves in the early nineteenth century were allowed to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. keep them, but state laws had already provided for gradual abolition. The Albany

legislature passed a law in 1799 which stated that children bom to slave mothers after

July 4th of that year would be free after males reached the age of twenty eight and

females, twenty five. Slaveholders were also not allowed to sell slaves to other people, or

the slave would automatically be considered free. Such restrictions, coupled with the

state’s passage of an 1817 bill that freed all slaves unconditionally as of July 4, 1827,

resulted in a drastic change in the Church family’s servant makeup by the 1820 census.

The family itself had grown from five members to nine by 1820 and the servant staff had

increased as well from eleven to fourteen, but the number of slaves dropped from ten to

three. All three of the Church’s slaves in 1820 were under the age of fourteen. The rest

of their servants were all white men and women.

A change in their servant composition may have been a factor in the Churches’

alteration of Probyn’s intention to divide Belvidere’s occupants on different floors of the

house. With the exception of building the long eastern addition to Beividere, their

decision to change the location of the kitchen from the basement to the first floor proved

to be the Churches’ only major remodeling decision of the original interior in their eighty

year residence at Beividere. It is difficult to determine exactly when this change took

place, but we do know it had occurred by 1831 when Maria Church drew her floorplan of

Beividere. (Figure 37). Belvidere’s first floor eastern wing was converted from an

office, hallway, and servant bedroom into one large kitchen. This change necessitated

major alterations to the existing fireplace to alter it from a small fixture for heating an

office to a cooking fireplace. A bake oven was also constructed here. To support the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. weight of an enlarged hearth above, a stone pier was added underneath this space in the

former cellar kitchen, thereby blocking up the old kitchen fireplace.166 (Figure 42). A

clear vertical seam is visible between the brickwork of the original cellar fireplace and

the more recent stone wall added to the front of the brick on its southern surface. The

new kitchen would have made it easier to transport food to the dining room, but also

brought servants into closer contact with the Church family and their guests, who would

have only been a few short feet away from the kitchen. A change in the racial

composition of their servant staff during the 1810s may have influenced the Churches’

decision to agree to move their kitchen to the first floor.

While the Church servants therefore spent a large portion of their days in the

basement and later in the first floor kitchen, they probably spent their evenings in the

opposite extreme of the house, the garret. A floorplan for the garret was not included in

Edward Probyn’s December 31,1807 plans for Beividere. Philip Church must have

realized his need for a finished garret early in the building process, as he was charged an

additional cost for adding “garrit rooms” and a “new staircase from floor to garrit” to the

original plans.167 Like the second floor, the garret included five rooms and a central

hallway. The three southern garret rooms have abundant floor space, each being twenty

two feet long, but the low-pitched hipped roof severely limits the headroom in these

garret rooms, minimizing the space that is actually comfortable to be in. All three of

these rooms have some type of built in drawers or closet space signifying their use as

private rooms. (Figures 43 and 44). Although it is equipped with a door, the small room

in the northwest comer does not seem habitable to modem eyes. It has no windows

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. whatsoever and it would be difficult for most people to stand upright in any portion of it.

Like the rest of the rooms though, this space is completely finished with plaster walls and

ceiling, and its southern wall even has wallpaper remnants on it. Although the wallpaper

does not date to the first years of the Churches’ occupancy, it is a sign that someone once

lived in this space. Another long narrow room stretches across the rest of the northern

side of the central block. The lack of a single fireplace on this floor inevitably means that

the Church servants suffered through many cold western New York winters without

sufficient heat.

Census records indicate that the Churches maintained approximately ten to fifteen

servants in their home at least until the 1830s. Their upstairs garret must have been fairly

crowded during these years, as the Churches do not seem to have built Belvidere’s long

eastern addition which provided additional servant sleeping quarers before 1831.168 Store

records reveal some of the names of the Churches’ early slave staff as they frequently

bought items at the store on the Churches’ behalf. Debits were also made to Philip

Church’s account during the early years for clothing items made or purchased for his

slaves. Ten different names of presumed Church slaves are mentioned in these records

between 1805 and 1812: seven males are identified as Robert, Ned, Simon, Jude, Val,

James, and Jack and the females are recorded as Dina, Chloe, and Nelly. Additional

information about the Churches’ slaves can be gleaned from three certificates signed by

Philip Church on September 12,1815. In accordance with New York State law, these

documents identify children bora to Church slaves who would be indebted to serve Philip

Church until adulthood. We learn for example that Dina is probably the same “Deane”

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that Philip Church stated to have received from his father in New York City. Deane gave

birth to a daughter, Lucy, in approximately February 1805. Other certificates signed on

this same day reveal that Chloe gave birth to a son, Henry, in December 1811, and a slave

named Mary gave birth to Catherine on July 3, 1815.169 Documentary records suggest

that these slaves served the Churches as cooks, chambermaids, waiters, gardeners, and

drivers.

Although more white servants began to be employed by the Churches in the

1810s, some of the Churches’ former slaves remained in the service of the family after

they were freed. Lucy, Deane’s daughter, served as cook for the family in the 1830s and

figures as the most prominent household staff member during this time. She was the first

servant Maria Silliman Church met upon her initial arrival at Belvidere.170 When Maria

and John wanted to take a horseback ride together one day in August 1835, they went to

Belvidere with their eldest son to have his grandparents babysit him. Finding that the

Church family “had all gone to town,” Maria and John “left Watty [Walter] for safe

keeping with Lucy.”171 When Anna Matilda Church spent the winter in New York City

during 1834/35, she instructed her children via letter to “tell Lucy she must keep the

kitchen dept, in good order.”172

Anna Matilda’s reliance on Lucy is also evident in her great distress over Lucy’s

repeated pregnancies. In late March 1836, Maria’s sister Faith Silliman reported that

Anna Matilda had just discovered that “Lucy is in trouble again and soon to be confined.”

Anna Matilda was “much perplexed to know what to do, particularly as Mr. Church is

now absent.”173 (Philip Church was in Albany that winter and spring campaigning for a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. bill that would build a railroad through Allegany County). In her account of the

dilemma, Maria revealed that this was the third time Lucy had been “in trouble,” and that

Anna Matilda did not “know how to do without her nor how to keep her.” The

interaction of the Church family at Belvidere with their staff is also highlighted by

Maria’s revelation that Anna Matilda did not “suspect” Lucy’s pregnancy until “a week

or two since,” yet “the time is just at hand” when she was to deliver.174 Lucy had

therefore been able to hide her condition from her employer for almost nine months.

Anna Matilda asked Faith Silliman, who was then visiting Maria at Triana, to ’‘talk to

Lucy on her guilt” but Faith reported that “I am much afraid the poor creature has no

adequate sense of it.”175 As it has been often rumored that the father of Lucy’s children

was Philip Church, Faith may well have been falsely accusing Lucy of agency in the

repeated problem.176

Servants such as Lucy allowed the Church family to pursue a genteel lifestyle at

Belvidere. Maria Silliman Church reported on the family’s daily routine that she

encountered upon her arrival in 1831. Breakfast was at 8 a.m., dinner at 2:30 p.m. and

tea at 7 p.m. After breakfast and tea, Maria assisted Anna Matilda in washing dishes,

“including the knives and silver forks,” in the parlor. Maria was also responsible for

washing the glass tumblers after dinner.177 Her other typical duties included “getting the

cake and sweetmeats or whatever for tea, trim and fill the astral lamp, make cake now

and then, fix Mother’s curls and so on.”178 Maria also made shirts for her husband. In

describing Anna Matilda’s daily workload, Maria informed her mother that “Mrs. C. does

as much as you do about the house except that no one makes their own beds or sweeps.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. She preserves, mends stockings, the boys old clothes, and sees as much to all her

concerns as you do.”179 “In the evening after tea,” Maria continued, “Mrs. Thompson

[the Churches’ English governess] usually gives us fine music upon the Piano for half an

hour, and two or three times a week Mary Toland [a fourteen year old living with the

family], Lilly [Elizabeth Church] and the boys have a dance. The children then go into

the nursery and John and I have a fire upstairs, and we sit together and read or write, and

talk about you all.” 180

Maria and Anna Matilda’s light household duties allowed them plenty of time for

the cultured activities of reading and writing. Maria’s voluminous letters home are proof

enough that she had an abundance of spare time. To keep themselves abreast of current

events, the Church family subscribed to many urban newspapers and journals which they

had mailed to them. They then circulated these printed items amongst other elite

households in the area. In thanking her parents for a box of gifts, Maria Church wrote,

“As for the magazines, they itinerate from Triana to Belvidere and from Belvidere to the

Hermitage [the Carrolls’ home], whiling away many a solitary hour, with wholesome

instruction, and innocent entertainment.”181 In return, the Churches enjoyed books

borrowed from the Wadsworths, and Boston papers taken by local resident Mr.

Cammam.182 Thus when they were not entertaining each other with their actual

company, these elite river families were able to entertain each other by providing each

other with reading material.

In keeping with their stylish home and elite lifestyle, the Churches undoubtedly

furnished Belvidere with fine furniture, but few Church belongings have survived to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. provide an accurate depiction of their decorating decisions. Although documentary

evidence indicates an inventory was taken of Belvidere at the time of Philip Church’s

death in 1861, the inventory itself has not survived.183 Clues about Belvidere’s

furnishings must therefore be gathered from family letters, store accounts, wills, and a

few surviving objects with a Church family provenance. Household items bought for

Belvidere by Philip Church are recorded in early Angelica store accounts and consist

primarily of ceramic wares such as coffee cups and saucers, plates, pitchers, teapots,

chamber pots, and wash bowls. Church also bought brass candlesticks, knives and forks,

and wineglasses from the Angelica store. Maria Church’s letters provide greater detail

about later decades of Belvidere’s occupation. In August 1831, Anna Matilda bought a

set of “very handsome” chairs, “having rush bottoms and mahogany backs” for herself

and another set for John and Maria for their new home.184 Maria Church often mentions

the piano at Belvidere in the 1830s and reported that Anna Matilda installed “new

curtains of dove col’d [colored] moreen in the parlour” in August 1837.185

Anna Matilda Church’s 1865 will provides information on Belvidere’s

furnishings in Philip and Anna Matilda’s later years. The will provides a very detailed

description of items passed down to her children, including portraits of family members,

books, china tea sets, a Wedge wood teapot, a wide array of silver items including a

coffee pot, nutmeg grater and four waiters, the “old secretary in the library,” “my

armchair green covering,” “father’s [Philip Church’s] mahogany armchair in the dining

room,” and “a set of East India nest-tables.” In addition to Philip Church’s armchair

being located in the dining room and the old secretary residing in the library at the time

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of her death in 1865, Anna Matilda Church’s will reveals that an oil portrait of herself by

“Lawrence” hung in the “withdrawing-room” and that there was a mirror located above

the mantel in the dining room.186

Very few of the Church’s household belongings have been located, and letters

between the Church children in the early 1890s concerning their forced relinquishment of

Belvidere clarify why so few of Belvidere’s furnishings are extant Philip Church left all

of Belvidere’s furnishings to his wife Anna Matilda at his death in 1861, and she in turn

left most of these goods to their son Richard Church, who inherited Belvidere at the time

of Anna Matilda’s death in 1865. Richard did not prove to be a good financial manager

of the estate and reportedly gambled away his family’s money by investing in stocks and

western mining lands.187 He therefore lost Belvidere to a mortgage foreclosure and the

house fell out of the Church family’s hands. An auction of Belvidere’s furnishings was

held on May 16, 1891, and Richard purchased items once owned by Anna Matilda at the

sale on behalf of his sister Elizabeth Church Horwood, who then lived in England. In

informing his sister of her new property, Richard admitted that most of the items were

“used up” since he and his family had been using them since Anna Matilda’s death.188

Because Elizabeth lived in England, she chose not to retain most of these items herself,

but apparently divided them amongst family members. Extensive use and the Church

family’s loss of Belvidere therefore caused most of these items to either be gotten rid of,

or widely distributed.

Surviving objects with Church provenance are therefore limited, but Belvidere’s

current owners, Robert and Marian Bromeley, have been actively acquiring those that do

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. survive for over fifty years. The resulting collection reveals that the Churches furnished

Belvidere with European and American objects, and that their American furniture came

both from large urban centers as well as local shops. English-made pieces owned by the

Church family and now at Belvidere include a fowling piece, a traveling desk, a silver

card tray, and a tea table. The hallmarks on the card tray indicate that it was made in

London by silversmith Even Coker in 1764/65 and is engraved with the Church family

arms. (Figure 45). It is the only piece of Church family silver owned by the Bromeleys,

although documentary records such as Anna Matilda Church’s will suggest that the

Churches owned a great deal of silver. Much of this silver may very well have been

British, as Elizabeth Church Horwood informed her nephew John Barker Church ID in

1892 that her father, Philip Church, had “brought out all the Belvidere silver” from

England in 1812 in a chest marked “John Barker Church.”189 Since Philip visited his

father’s relatives during his two-year trip to England between 1811 and 1813, it is

possible he came home with some of the family silver at that time. The Bromeleys also

own an English or Irish tea table that belonged to Philip’s parents which may possibly

have been used at Belvidere at one time, although this is not certain. (Figure 46). The

Angelica Free Library owns a clothespress with a secretary drawer that belonged to

Philip Church and was either made in England or by an English craftsman. (Figures 47

and 48).

The Churches’ American objects were made in a variety of locations, although the

majority seem to have originated in New York State. Evidence suggests that the Churches

mixed furniture made in New York City and furniture made in western New York with

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ease, downplaying the urban-rural distinctions traditionally made by decorative arts

scholars. It is tempting to conclude that a fine circa 1830 mahogany-veneered sleigh bed

used at Belvidere must have been the work of an urban craftsman while an awkwardly

constructed cherry Empire-style sofa used by the Churches was probably made locally,

but excerpts from the Church family letters warn us to be careful in our attributions.

(Figures 49 and 50). As Maria Trumbull Silliman was planning to go to housekeeping in

Allegany County in 1831, her fiance John Church wrote that his mother wanted her to

know that “you can procure most bulky articles such as bed steads, tables, chairs, bureaus

etc as handsome and as cheap in Geneseo as in New Yk. [New York City].”190 Anna

Matilda Church certainly knew enough about fine urban furniture to be a discriminating

buyer, and her conclusion that a small western New York town could produce furniture

comparable to New York City’s in 1831 seems surprising. Maria seems to have agreed

with her new mother-in-law once she arrived in Allegany County, for the two made

several trips to Geneseo in the fall of 1831 to order furniture. The Church women may

have been patronizing the shop of Samuel Gardiner, a cabinetmaker who began working

in Geneseo in about 1830 and advertised that he would produce furniture in the latest

New York City fashions.191 Anna Matilda also ordered chairs and a tea table for Maria

and John in Canandaigua in August 1831. There is evidence that the Churches could

even get good furniture in Angelica by the 1830s. Maria Church wrote her mother in

1834 that “John bought me (for wheat) a fine high-backed Boston Rocking chair made in

Angelica! It is just like Uncle Wadsworth’s [who lived in Hartford, CT] and as

handsome. Quite a chef d’oeuvre for our village.”192 Maria’s letter provides insight into

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the circumstances of a still new rural town, where fine furniture produced by local

craftsmen could be obtained, yet the town still relied on a barter economy to conduct its

trade.

Evidence concerning consumption patterns in Allegany County also suggest that

historians and material culture scholars have not fully revealed the extent to which

capitalism governed the early western economy and have over-exaggerated the lack of

fine goods on the frontier. Philip Church had a store constructed and stocked in his very

first summer at Angelica to provide settlers with necessary goods. Although frontier

areas such as Angelica usually relied on barter exchanges rather than cash to transact

business, its pioneer families were never self-sufficient and always relied on merchants’

ability to procure necessary consumer goods from more populated areas. Philip Church

hired men to travel to New York City and other towns within New York State to procure

goods for his Angelica store. While in the earliest years Church sent his employees to

towns as distant as Catskill on the Hudson River, he was later able to secure basic items

in closer towns such as Geneva, Homell, Bath and Newtown (Elmira). Church’s own

accounts with his store reveal that he purchased standard food items such as flour, beef,

and pork as well as luxury goods such as white sugar, chocolate, and tea in the very first

years of settlement. His store also stocked fine consumer goods such as expensive cloth,

wineglasses, and coffee cups. This evidence of almost immediate access to imported

goods on the western New York frontier in the first decade of the nineteenth century

correlates with Elizabeth A. Perkins’s findings for the Kentucky frontier of the 1770s and

1780s.193

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philip Church’s control of the first local store allowed him to order items he

needed for his own family and staff at Belvidere. His buying patterns reveal that he often

took advantage of new deliveries by buying up large quantities of the best goods when

they first arrived. For example, Church’s account was debited $6,208 for merchandise

bought in New York City for the store on December 10,1808. On the same day, Church

charged on his persona account 1 ream of paper, 56 pounds of coffee, 162 pounds of loaf

sugar, 18 l/t yards of an unspecified type of cloth, 51 yards of Dragheda linen, 48 yards of

fine white flannel, 4 yards of “bottle green cloth” that cost $6/yard, and 4 stock locks.

The total bill for his single day shopping spree was $185.73.194 Church was therefore

able to import many of the fine goods he required to maintain an elite lifestyle directly

into Angelica through his merchant connections. If the Angelica store was out of an item

the Churches wanted quickly, they would either travel themselves to a larger nearby town

such as Geneseo or Bath or send someone to retrieve the desired items.

In addition, the Churches relied on their vast personal networks to secure special

purchases. In his first years at Angelica, Philip Church asked his parents, then living in

New York City, to send him items such as a gun, a compass, and books. Angelica

Church also sent commission purchases to early members of the Angelica community.

She wrote Philip on June 14, 1804, “For Mrs. Van Wickle [wife of Evert Van Wickle,

Philip Church’s local land agent] I send a muslin gown, a black imitation lace veil,

an embroidered shawl, and two half handkerchiefs one for each of her daughters. These

last articles are all of the last importation.”195 Certain Angelica residents were therefore

able to secure fashionable European goods almost immediately after they reached large

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. American urban centers such as New York City. After Angelica Church died in 1814 and

John Barker Church returned to England to spend his final years, Philip and Anna

Matilda Church continued to rely on other relatives living in New York City such as

Philip’s siblings to secure commission purchases to send out to Angelica. Later, the

Churches’ own children provided this service when they moved to the city. In 1835,

Maria Church asked her sister-in-law Angelica, then visiting her own sister Sophia who

lived in New York City, to purchase a gold watch chain for her like the one Maria had

seen Sophia wearing on her last visit back to Belvidere.196 Of course, the Church family

often personally secured goods during their own travels back east. For example, Anna

Matilda Church bought French silk dresses in New York City in February 1835 because

she was concerned that a possible war with France would raise their prices.197 The

Churches thus used a number of methods to secure the fine material goods they needed to

maintain their genteel lifestyle.

Although they may have successfully imported such elite items to their frontier

location, at least one Church family member felt that without an audience of genteel

people to see them, such goods were wasted. In the same letter in which she told her

sister about wanting to secure the gold watch chain in New York City, Maria Church

wrote, “You may ask of what use it [the chain] will be at Triana. I reply the same use

that any other beautiful thing would be[,] that is no use, except the pleasure of possessing

it, and looking at it as the gift of a valued friend, and then if I should not be always at

| Q Q Triana. it will be very useful and it will be valuable always.” Maria expressed this

same sense of her fine things being useless in Allegany County one day while arranging

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. her ceramics: “ I have been busily employed all the morning busily in putting my china

closet in order, and it looks very nice indeed. I only wish some one who could use them,

had my pretty things, they seem so lost out here, however perhaps I may sometime or

other live where I shall have use for them.”199 Maria’s sentiments reveal that for her,

people were the most important element of a genteel lifestyle. The Church family could

build beautiful homes in the wilderness and fill them with the requisite objects of

gentility, but without the “right” people to see and appreciate those items, they were in

Maria’s words, “lost.” The Churches’ desire to replicate a genteel urban lifestyle in

Allegany County failed because they could not attract enough people to the frontier to

participate in their performance of genteel acts — not because they could not obtain the

appropriate material props of gentility.

Conclusion

Despite Philip Church’s indefatigable efforts to promote Allegany County’s

prosperity, the area never flourished. In Philip and Anna Matilda’s last years at Belvidere

before their deaths in the early 1860s, their wealth and their home essentially remained as

exceptional as they had been half a century before. Two keys to a developing region’s

success - at least one viable export crop and effective transportation routes to connect the

area with larger markets - were both thwarted by Allegany County’s rugged terrain.

High elevations and steep slopes, combined with the often severe climate of New York’s

Southern Tier, made profitable agriculture difficult. In light of this disappointment,

Philip Church turned his attention to husbandry, and imported superior animal breeds

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. such as Merino sheep to the region. Average fanners found such animals to be too

expensive and too risky to invest in, considering that wolves could and often did destroy

entire flocks of sheep in a single night.200

Church perceived that Allegany County’s most critical need was effective

transportation routes, and the majority of his efforts were extended on behalf of this

cause. His crusade began in 1805 with the successful incorporation of the Lake Erie

Turnpike Road. When Church finally got the turnpike through Angelica completed to

Olean in 1811, it served as a major thoroughfare to the west and allowed Allegany

County to enjoy a brief boom in the 1810s and early 1820s. The completion of the Erie

Canal in 1825 quickly rerouted pioneers and commercial traffic to the north, thereby

dooming Allegany County and its residents to rural isolation. Church responded quickly

to this threat by calling for a public meeting in Geneseo in June 1825 to discuss the need

for a north/south canal that would link the southern portion of the state to the Erie Canal.

The New York State legislature was not immediately receptive to this idea and dragged

its feet for eleven long years before finally passing an act allowing for the Genesee

Valley Canal in 1836. Having to dig through miles of rock along the Genesee River

gorge caused construction to last twenty-one years. The Genesee Valley Canal was

finally completed to Olean in 1857 at a total cost of over $7,000,000. By this time,

railroads had begun to supersede canals as the quickest and most economical mode of

transportation, and the Southern Tier never really derived any benefit from the long-

awaited canal. It only operated until 1877, when New York State ordered it shut down.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Although he had been an early proponent of the Genesee Valley Canal, Philip

Church had transferred his energy to railroads as early as 1831 as the best way to create a

major transportation route through Allegany County. Church presided over a public

meeting in Angelica to discuss the issue in October 1831, and was chairman of a railroad

convention held in Owego in December of that year. Maria Church informed her Aunt

Wadsworth that Philip was in Albany and New York City the following winter to “make

interest for the Rail Road which is now a hope of much feeling thro this country. If we

get it it will be indeed ‘annihilating all time and space.’ We now talk most seriously of

going from Buffalo to New York in 24 hours. You may smile at this but I assure you it is

all in earnest.”201 Philip Church won the incorporation of a railroad route in 1832, but as

with the canal, it took another two decades to complete. The inaugural train finally ran

through the hamlet of Belvidere, located south of Angelica, with President Millard

Fillmore on board in 1851. The railroad’s failure to go through Angelica ultimately led

to its loss of honor and prestige as the county seat, a title which it was forced to share

with the nearby town of Belmont beginning in 1858. Angelica finally lost the county seat

altogether in 1875.

As a result of its isolation, the town of Angelica remains today a sort of time

capsule of the mid-nineteenth century, largely bypassed by industrial growth and

modernization. The village streets and octagonal park circle that were laid out under

Philip Church’s direction almost two centuries ago remain largely as they did in his time.

Philip and Anna Matilda Church donated the land for the park circle to the village of

Angelica in 1835, where the county courthouse, clerk’s office, and jail had already been

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. situated. The five churches that presently occupy the majority of sites on the park circle

were all erected during Philip Church’s lifetime, including St. Paul’s Episcopal Church,

where the Church family worshipped. (Figures 51-58).

Ironically, we can credit the rare survival o f a largely intact nineteenth-century

town green ringed by public and religious buildings to the ultimate failure of Philip

Church’s attempts to develop Angelica and the surrounding area. Limited by geography

and by his father’s financial failings, Church never prospered like he had dreamed. It is

true that Church managed to maintain a genteel lifestyle in his mansion home until his

death in 1861, but he was never able to grow his wealth. Church’s gamble that Allegany

County would prosper and reward his many years of capital investment was never

realized. Church could have given up at some point and returned to the east, but he

probably realized his reduced finances would never allow him to participate at the level

he was accustomed to in the elite circles and lifestyle of the eastern urban centers. He

therefore chose to remain a big fish in a small pond. Beginning as the material

manifestation of all his hopes and dreams for his own success in Allegany County,

Belvidere later became a sort of prison for Philip Church and his family when they found

they could not afford to leave it. Just thirty years after Philip’s death, his family also

found that they could not afford to keep it, losing Belvidere to a mortgage foreclosure in

1892.

Philip Church’s bid to establish a landed family estate on the western New York

frontier did not survive even one successive generation. Raised largely in an English

country manor, Church seems to have held to this ideal in creating Belvidere. He

100

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. successfully manipulated the material environment to his vision by building a stone

mansion with a picturesque view of the Genesee River, and carefully landscaping his

grounds in the English taste. Church was also able to play the role of local patriarch and

government representative with his appointment as the first judge of Allegany County.

He lacked one crucial element of the manor lifestyle though: economic freedom.

Belvidere served not only as the sufficiently genteel home of a wealthy man but as an

advertisement for his necessary employment of selling land. Its embodied contradictions

could not be sustained.

Despite their ultimate failure, the Church family’s experience in Allegany County

reveals the nature and the possibilities of life on the frontier. Although he was not able to

complete Belvidere as quickly as he had originally expected, the fact that Philip Church

was able to build a grand brick mansion home within a decade of settlement in a frontier

territory speaks to the power of cash to command comfort in the wilderness. It also

refutes Frederick Jackson Turner’s hypotheses of frontier primitiveness and the frontier’s

role in creating a unique American culture. Church imported a very advanced home

designed in the latest transatlantic fashion in a period when the closest post office to

Belvidere was still forty miles to the east and panther bounties were paid regularly at the

local store. Despite their frontier location, the story of the Church family living in

Allegany County in the early nineteenth century has nothing to do with egalitarianism,

exemption from market influences, lack of consumer goods, or a small, roughly

constructed log home. Instead it is a familiar story of wealth and the pursuit of gentility

played out on an unexpected stage.

101

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTES

1 Dell Upton, Architecture in the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 13.

Ian Hodder, Reading the Past: Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 126.

3 Bernard L. Herman, The Stolen House (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1992), 5.

4Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History (Philadelphia: The Franklin Library, 1977), 4.

5 Turner, The Frontier, 18.

William Wyckoff, The Developer’s Frontier (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 7.

7Wyckoff presents an excellent summary of this scholarship Thein Developer’s Frontier, 7-8. Monographs detailing the “federal frontier” include Hildegard Binder Johnson, Order upon the Land (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976); Malcolm G. Rohrbough, Land Office Business: The Settlement and Administration o f American Public Lands, 17890-1837 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968); and John Mack Faragher, Sugar Creek: Life on the Illinois Prairie (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986). The “speculator’s frontier” is explored in Paul Wallace Gates, The Illinois Central Railroad and Its Colonization Work (New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1968) and Aaron Morton Sakolski, The Great American Land Bubble (New York: Harper Brothers, 1932). Douglass C. North, “Location Theory and Regional Economic Growth,” in Regional Policy: Readings in Theory and Applications, ed., John Friedmann and William Alonso (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1975); Richard C. Wade, The Urban Frontier: The Rise o f Western Cities, 1790-1830 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959); William Herbert Siles, A Vision o f Wealth: Speculation and Settlers in the Genesee Country o f New York, 1788-1800 (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1978), and John Reps, The Making o f Urban America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965) have all argued for the “urban frontier;” and Wyckoff himself has studied the “developer’s frontier.”

102

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8For more on William Cooper, see Alan Taylor’s superb study,William Cooper’s Town: Power and Persuasion on the Frontier o f the Early American Republic (New York: Vintage Books, 1995). The best sources for information on the Wadsworth family are by Neil Adams McNall. See “The Landed Gentry of the Genesee,”New York History 26 (1945): 162-176 and The First H alf Century o f Wadsworth Tenancy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1945). Alden Hatch’s book The Wadsworths o f the Genesee (New York: Coward-McCann Inc., 1959) is also informative, but not documented in any way.

9 Upton,Architecture , 11.

10 Richard L. Bushman, The Refinement o fAmerica: Persons, Houses, and Cities (New York: Vintage Books, 1992), 100-138, 238-279.

11 The first two possibilities were offered by John S. Minard in his “Sketch of Judge Philip Church” included in the 1893 edition of J. Niles Hubbard’s Sketches o f Border Adventures in the Life and Times o f Major Moses Van Campen (1842; 1893; reprint, Jersey Shore, PA: Zebrowski Historical Services and Publishing Co., 1992), 307-308. Minard claims he heard both these stories from Church’s descendents. Writing about the same subject fifteen years later, Minard repeated the theory of Church supporting American independence. John Steams Minard, “Intimate Friend of Old Celebrities in America and Europe.” Journal o f American History 2:1 (1908): 50. Those who have repeated the duel story often ascribe a Tory identity to Church’s victim. See Helene C. Phelan, The Man Who Owned the Pistols: John Barker Church and His Family (Almond, NY: Helene C. Phelan, 1981), 14. In 1851, Orasmus Turner stated confidently in his History o f the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham’s Purchase that Church was fleeing the apprenticeship that his wealthy uncle, John Barker, had set up for him with a merchant establishment. As the first historian of western New York conducting his research for this book in the 1840s, Turner knew Philip Church and this information presumably came from him. Ofrasmus] Turner,. History o f the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase, and Morris’ Reserve; embracing the counties of Monroe, Ontario, Livingston, Yates, Steuben, Most o f Wayne and Allegany, and parts of Orleans, Genesee and Wyoming (Rochester, NY: William Ailing, 1851), 446. More recent scholarship has pointed to gambling and speculation as the cause of Church’s flight. In the official biography of Parliament members, Church is said to have gone bankrupt in August 1774 due to Stock Exchange speculation and gambling. See R.G. Thome, The History o f Parliament: The House o f Commons 1790-1820 Vol. 3 (London: History of Parliament Trust, 1986), 441. The latest scholar to address the mystery is Thomas Fleming, who suggests Church was fleeing impending imprisonment for his gambling debts. Thomas Fleming, Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and The Future o fAmerica (New York: Basic Books, 1999), 13. The possibility of escaping an arranged marriage is presented by one of John Barker Church’s grandsons in a letter written in the late nineteenth century. Robert to unknown, undated. Church Family Papers, Archives, Warren Hunting Smith Library.

103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 Isaac Sears to Horatio Gates, December 24,1779. Gates Papers, The New-York Historical Society.

13 Thome, History o f Parliament, 441.

14 John Carter to Philip Schuyler, November 29, 1776. Philip Schuyler Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

15 American National Biography, s.v. “Schuyler, Philip John.”

16 Robert Hendrickson, Hamilton I (1757-1789) (New York: Mason/Charter, 1976), 257; Susan Has well, untitled lecture on Angelica Schuyler Church, May 1991, 1.

17 Angelica Schuyler to Philip Schuyler, July 12, 1776. Manuscripts and Special Collections, New York State Library.

18 Quoted in Has well, untitled lecture, 4.

19 John Carter to James Milligan, July 3, 1777. Misc. Mss. Carter, John, The New-York Historical Society.

20 John Carter to James Milligan, September 8, 1777. Misc. Mss. Carter, John, The New- York Historical Society.

21 Ibid.

22 John Carter to Philip Schuyler, January 29,1779. Philip Schuyler Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

23 George Washington to Benoit Joseph de Tarle, October 7, 1782. The Writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources, 1745-1799, Vol. 25. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1931-44), 244-245.

24 Hatch, The Wadsworths, 28; Phelan, The Man, 20.

25 Jeremiah Wadsworth to Peter Colt, October 24,1783. Jeremiah Wadsworth Papers, Connecticut Historical Society.

26 Phelan, The M an, 39.

104

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 Ibid., 22.

y o Nikolaus Pevsner, The Buildings o f England: Berkshire (Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc., 1966), 129.

29 John Barker Church to Alexander Hamilton, April 4,1786. The Papers o fAlexander Hamilton, Vol. 3, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-87), 657-658.

30 Angelica Schuyler Church to Thomas Jefferson, July 21, 1788. The Papers o f Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 13. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950-present), 391.

31 Thomas Jefferson to Angelica Schuyler Church, July 27, 1788. The Papers o f Thomas Jefferson Vol. 13. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950-present), 422. Many scholars have interpreted the letters written between Jefferson and Angelica Schuyler Church as love letters, and have assumed that they were having an affair. See for example William Howard Adams,The Paris Years o f Thomas Jefferson (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 235-237 and 240-242.

32 D’Ageno to Angelica Schuyler Church, October 27, 1786. Correspondence of Angelica Schuyler Church and Other Family Members (MSS 11245), Special Collections Department, University of Virginia Library.

33 John Barker Church to Alexander Hamilton, November 3, 1790. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 7, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-87), 137.

34 Philip Schuyler to Catherine Van Renssalaer Schuyler, June 19, 1790. Philip Schuyler Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

35 John Adams to Benjamin Rush, September 1807. The Spur o f Fame: Dialogues o f John Adams and Benjamin Rush, 1805-181, eds. John A. Schutz and Douglass Adair (San Marino, CA: The Huntington Library, 1966), 93.

See, for example, Nathan Schachner,Alexander Hamilton (New York: D. Appleton- Century Company, Inc., 1946), 389-392; Hendrickson,Hamilton 1, 530-534, 554-559; Robert Hendrickson, Hamilton II (1789-1804) (New York: Mason/Charter, 1976), 552- 557; Arnold A. Rogow, A Fatal Friendship: Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr (New York: Hill and Wang, 1998), 64-76; and Fleming, Duel, 267-268.

105

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 John Barker Church to Alexander Hamilton, February 7, 1784. The Papers o f Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 3, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-87), 507-508.

38 Ibid. See also Arnold A. Rogow, A Fatal Friendship: Alexander Hamilton and Aaron B urr (New York: Hill and Wang, 1998), 106.

39 Angelica Schuyler Church to Alexander Hamilton, February 4, 1790.The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 6, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-87), 245.

^John Barker Church to Jeremiah Wadsworth, August 22,1785. Jeremiah Wadsworth Papers, Connecticut Historical Society.

41 John Barker Church to Jeremiah Wadsworth, December 21, 1785. Jeremiah Wadsworth Papers, Connecticut Historical Society.

42 John Barker Church to Jeremiah Wadsworth, December 6,1786. Jeremiah Wadsworth Papers, Connecticut Historical Society.

43 Turner, Phelps and Gorham’s Purchase, 489.

44 Angelica Schuyler Church to Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton, December 11, 1794. Church Box, The New-York Historical Society.

45 Damie Stillman, “Bonomi, Joseph,” in Adolf K. Placzek, ed., Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects, Vol. 1 (London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1982), 243-244.

46 Damie Stillman, English Neo-classical Architecture, Vol. 2 (London: A. Zwemmer Ltd., 1988), 497-503.

47 Mark Girouard, Life in the English Country House: A Social and Architectural History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978), 219-220; Stillman, Neo-classical Architecture, Vol. 2,497-499.

48 Angelica Schuyler Church to Alexander Hamilton, February 19, 1796,The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 20, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-87), 56.

106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 Josephine du Pont to Margaret Manigault, February 22, 1800. Josephine du Pont Letters, Hagley Library. This letter was published in Betty-Bright P. Low’s excellent article “Of Muslins and Merveilleuses: Excerpts from the Letters of Josephine du Pont and Margaret Manigault” Winterthur Portfolio 9 (1974): 29-75. Ail of du Pont’s letters that I quote are also published in Low’s article.

50Josephine du Pont to Margaret Manigault, May 18, 1800. Josephine du Pont Letters, Hagley Library.

5IMargaret Manigault to Josephine du Pont, May 24, 1800. Josephine du Pont Letters, Hagley Library.

52Josephine du Pont to Margaret Manigualt, October 23, 1800. Josephine du Pont Letters, Hagley Library.

53 Schachner, Alexander Hamilton, 391; John Dos Passos, The Men Who Made The N ation (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1957), 409.

54 Mary Gay Humphreys,Catherine Schuyler (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1897), 224-225.

55 Philip Schuyler to Elizabeth Hamilton, August 23, 1802. Lloyd W. Smith Collection, Doc. No. 3089, Morristown National Historical Park.

56 Josephine du Pont to Margaret Manigault, July 10, 1800. Josephine du Pont Letters, Hagley Library.

57Alexander Hamilton to Angelica Schuyler Church, November 8, 1789, The Papers o f Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 5, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-87), 501-503.

58 Philip Schuyler to Angelica Schuyler Church, October 20, 1790. Correspondence of Angelica Schuyler Church and Other Family Members (MSS 11245), Special Collections Department, University of Virginia Library.

59 Alexander Hamilton to James McHenry, July 28,1798,The Papers o fAlexander Hamilton, Vol. 22, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961- 87), 35.

60 Harold C. Syrett,The Papers o f Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 12 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-87), 409.

107

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 Appointment of Philip Church to aide-de-camp to Alexander Hamilton, January 12, 1799. Belvidere Trust Collection.

52 Philip Church to Philip Schuyler Jr., August 6,1797. Philip Church Papers, The New- York Historical Society.

63Philip Schuyler to Angelica Schuyler Church, May 25,1793. Correspondence of Angelica Schuyler Church and Other Family Members (MSS 11245), Special Collections Department, University of Virginia Library.

63Quoted in Stuart Bolger, Genesee Country Village: Scenes o f Town & Country in the Nineteenth Century (Mumford, New York: The Genesee Country Museum, 1993), 8.

^Syrett,The Papers o f Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 13, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-87), 359-365 for the most detailed history available on this debt. As Syrett notes, tracing all the particulars of this debt is difficult because only Morris’s correspondence with Church and Alexander Hamilton survives, while Hamilton and Church’s responses to the matter are lost. Barbara Chemow also summarizes the debt well in her article, “Robert Morris: Genesee Land Speculator,” New York History 58 (April 1977): 213-214.

65Deed recorded in Liber o f Deeds 6, pg. 398 in the Ontario County Clerks Office, Canandaigua, NY.

66 Quoted in Bolger, Genesee Country Village, 8.

67Ibid.

68 Quoted in Chemow, “Robert Morris,” 201.

69 Ibid., 206.

70 See William Herbert Siles, “Vision of Wealth: Speculators and Settlers in the Genesee Country of New York, 1788-1800.” (Ph.D, diss., University of Massachusetts, 1978), especially chapters three and four. Siles’s entire study focuses on the development of the Phelps and Gorham purchase, and especially the town of Canandaigua.

71 Quoted in Wyckoff, The Developer’s Frontier, 57.

72 Ibid., 91.

108

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 N o letters or accounts survive relating to the first two years of settlement at Angelica. My information is based on the two histories of Allegany County completed during the end of the nineteenth century:History o f Allegany County, N.Y (1879; reprint, Ovid, NY: W.E. Morrison & Co., 1978), 194 and John S. Minard, Allegany County and its People: A Centennial Memorial History o f Allegany County (Alfred, NY: W.A. Fergusson & Co., 1896), 71-72 and 406.

74Minard, A llegany County a nd its People , 431.

75Angelica Schuyler Church to Philip Church, May 15, 1804. Church Box, The New- York Historical Society.

76 Philip Church to John Barker Church, June 20, 1804. Belvidere Trust Collection.

77 Ibid.

78 Marie D’Ohet D’ Autremont, probably written to Louis Paul D’ Autremont, March 13, 1806. D’ Autremont Family Letters, Hagley Library.

79 Neil Adams McNall, An Agricultural History o f the Genesee Valley 1790-1860 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1952), 97.

80Philip Church to Angelica Schuyler Church, July 25,1804. Letter owned by Philip Schuyler Church, Dayton, Ohio.

81 McNall, Agricultural History, 72.

82See Wyckoff, The Developer’s Frontier, 86-90 on Joseph Ellicott’s efforts to control the local political economy governing the Holland Land Company’s holdings.

83 Philip Church to Philip Schuyler, June 20,1804. Philip Schuyler Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

84 Bolger, Genesee Country Village, 11; McNall, Agricultural History, 19.

85Joseph McClure to John Barker Church, October 22,1804. Belvidere Trust Collection.

86 Ibid.

109

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 An advertisement for Church’s land appeared on March 30,1803 in the New York City newspaper published by Michael Burham at 40 Pine Street. Kathryn K. Fennessy, “Allegany County 1795-1810: Frontier Western New York,” unpublished paper, March 1979. Philip Church Papers, Angelica Free Library.

88 Quoted in Wyckoff, The Developer’s Frontier, 60.

89 Wyckoff, The Developer’s Frontier, 59.

90Philip Church to John Barker Church, July 3, 1805. Belvidere Trust Collection.

91 Philip Church to John Barker Church, June 20,1804. Belvidere Trust Collection.

^Ibid.

93 Philip Church to John Barker Church, July 3, 1805. Belvidere Trust Collection.

^McNall, Agricultural History, 4.

95 Quoted in Lockwood R. Doty, ed.,History o f the Genesee Country (Chicago: The S.J. Clarke Publishing Company, 1925), 380.

96 Taylor,William Cooper’s Town, 130.

97 Deed recorded in Liber o f Deeds A, pp. 229 and 232, Allegany County Clerk’s Office, Belmont, NY.

98 Ibid., 227.

99 Mortgage recorded Liber of Mortgages A, pg. 1, Allegany County Clerk’s Office, Belmont, NY.

100 Deed recorded in Liber o f Deeds A , pg. 278, Allegany County Clerk’s Office, Belmont, NY.

101 Unlike his youthful brush with bankruptcy, John Barker Church was unable to recover from his later financial difficulties. When he died in England in 1818, his personal goods were only valued at £1500. Thome,History o f Parliament, 442.

102Alexandre D’ Autremont to Louis D’Autremont, September 7, 1807. D’Autremont Family Letters, Hagley Library.

110

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 Philip Church to John Barker Church, June 20, 1804. Belvidere Trust Collection.

104A Souvenir o f Villa Belvidere , pamphlet prepared by the Fred Keeney family, 1906. Belvidere Trust Collection.

105Quoted in Minard, Allegany County and its People , 406.

106Turner, Phelps and Gorham’s Purchase, 451.

107Richard L. Blanco, ed., The American Revolution 1775-1783: An Encyclopedia . Vol. 2. (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1993), 1586-1588.

108 Accounts for Walter Stewart, September 5, 1787-October 4, 1787. Walter Stewart Papers, Joseph Downs Collection of Manuscripts and Printed Ephemera, Winterthur Library.

109Siles, “Vision of Wealth,” 60,92,227.

110 Quoted in Wyckoff, The Developer’s Frontier, 61.

m Ibid.,62.

ll2Ibid., 62-63.

113 Susan Greene, “A Loom at Every Hearth: Early Intestacy Inventories of Allegany County, New York,” unpublished paper, Cornell University, January 1996, Belvidere Trust Collection; Wyckoff, The Developer’s Frontier, 108.

114 Anna Matilda Church to Josephine du Pont, November 20, 1805. Josephine du Pont Collection, Hagley Library. Also quoted in Phelan,The M an, 201.

115 John Barker and Angelica Church to Victor du Pont, Liber o f Deeds A, pg. 1, Allegany County Clerk’s Office, Belmont, NY. Victor du Pont’s purchase of land was the very first transaction recorded in Allegany County.

116 Marie D’Ohet D’Autremont to Louis D’Autremont, February 3, 1806. D’Autremont Family Letters, Hagley Library.

117 Philip Church to John Barker Church, June 20,1804. Belvidere Trust Collection.

118The misattribution to Latrobe appears to have begun in the twentieth century, as nineteenth-century accounts about Church and Belvidere do not mention Latrobe. The first published source I have found that credits the design of Belvidere to Latrobe was the

111

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. entry on Latrobe that Fiske Kimball wrote for the Dictionary o f American Biography, Vol. 6 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1932), 21. When questioned about this attribution in 1949 by Winifred Knight Thornton, who was then writing an article on Belvidere, Kimball stated he got his information from John Minard’s 1908 article, “Intimate Friend” and Archer Butler Hulbert, Historic Highways of America: Pioneer Roads and Experiences o f Travelers. Vol. 12. (1902-05; reprint, New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1971). As far as I can tell, neither Minard nor Hulbert claimed Belvidere to be the work of Latrobe in the sources Kimball cited. Kimball reversed his position in his 1949 letter to Winifred Thornton, saying that he believed Probyn, rather than Latrobe, to be the architect. Fiske Kimball to Winifred Knight Thornton, January 31, 1949. Belvidere Trust Collection. Despite Kimball’s retraction, Thornton authoritatively declared in her 1950 article, “A History of the Church Mansion, Belvidere,”New York History (July 1950), 300 that Belvidere’s “architect was Benjamin Henry Latrobe.” Writers since have followed the lead of Kimball and Thornton and repeated the Latrobe attribution.

119Catherine Bromeley wrote a college paper in 1956 discussing the possibility of Latrobe being the architect of Belvidere. Although she does not directly assert that Latrobe designed Belvidere, her arguments suggests that she believes that he did. In light of Probyn’s signature on the Belvidere plans, she writes “At least in one known case a builder other than Latrobe drew and signed plans.” Belvidere Trust Collection.

120 Both the plan and estimate are owned by the Angelica Free Library, Angelica, New York. Both documents are kept in a safe deposit box in a local bank rather than with the rest of the Church Family Papers.

121 Ezekiel Robins to Albert Gallatin, June 9, 1801. Gallatin Papers, The New-York Historical Society; Morgan Rhees to Albert Gallatin, June 10, 1801. Gallatin Papers, The New-York Historical Society.

I22Virginia and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984), 169, 175.

1 ^Elisabeth Donaghy Garrett,At Home: The American Family 1750-1870 (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1990), 102.

124 See Chapter HI, “Bodies and Minds,” in Bushman’s book, The Refinement o f America, especially pages 63-64.

125Eric Sloane and Edward Anthony,Mr. Daniels and the Grange (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1968), 71-72.

126 Probyn, Edward. “Estimate of a House intended to be built by Phillip [sic] Church Esq,” Philip Church Papers, Angelica Free Library.

112

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. |

128 Marie D’Ohet D’Autremont to Louis D’Autremont, May 5, 1807. D’Autremont Family Letters, Hagley Library.

I29For example, John Minard claims workmen were brought in from Albany in, “Intimate Friend,” 58 and in John Barker Church, Phillip [sp] Church, and Mary Jemison: Makers of History in the Genesee Valley (Belmont, NY: Fuller-Davis Corp., 1916): 13; Henry Clune seconds the Albany story inThe Genesee (1963; Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1988), 1964. Philip and Anna Matilda Church's granddaughter Angelica Church asserts workmen were imported from both Albany and New York in “Incidents in the Pioneer Life of Mrs. Philip Church, Daughter of Col. Walter Stewart of the Revolutionary Army,” (Paper delivered at a meeting of the Catherine Schuyler Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution, Angelica, NY, August 28th, 1897), 5. Belvidere Trust Collection.

130 C. S. Pearson and M.G. Cline, Soil Survey o fAllegany County New York (Washington D.C., United States Government Printing Office, 1956), 5.

131 Bricks also appear intermingled with stone in sections of Belvidere’s walls where they have no traditional ornamental role. This occurs most notably on the eastern and western walls of the central block. At first the brickwork in these spaces appears to be random, but closer examination reveals it to follow the same general pattern on both walls. The bricks form two vertical lines that roughly following the chimney flues. Repeated heating and cooling of these flues as fires were made and put out likely stressed the stone nearest them, as stone expands and contracts with temperature differences. It is also possible that the warmth of the flues was causing water to evaporate from the soluble salts drawn up along the wall from the ground water, leaving potentially destructive salts within the stone. It therefore appears as if bricks were used as filler material in places where the stone began to deteriorate. This problem with the stonework began during Philip Church’s ownership of Belvidere, as the replacement brickwork is visible in circa 1862 photographs of the house. Perhaps the Churches chose to build exclusively in brick when they added the long eastern extension to the house because of the problems they apparently experienced with the stonework in the original sections of Belvidere.

132 Probyn, Edward. “Estimate of a House intended to be built by Phillip [sic] Church Esq,” December 31, 1807. Philip Church Papers, Angelica Free Library

113

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133 Drawing by Maria Trumbull Silliman Church. The drawing was originally included in a letter from Maria to Faith Trumbull Wadsworth, December 5, 1831. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations. At some point the drawing got separated from the letter, and is now part of the Church Family Papers, Archives, Warren Hunting Smith Library.

l34Probyn, Edward. “Estimate of a House intended to be built by Phillip [sic] Church Esq,” December 31, 1807. Philip Church Papers, Angelica Free Library

135 In an 1834 letter, Maria Trumbull Silliman Church wrote that her in-laws “are very busy over there [at Belvidere] painting papering etc.” Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, June 5,1834. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

136Girouard, Life in the English Country House, 214.

l37Sloane and Anthony,Mr. Daniels and the Grange, 34.

138 Angelica Schuyler Church to Philip Church, June 7, 1804. Church Box, The New- York Historical Society.

139 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Benjamin, Harriet, and Faith Silliman, October 26,1831. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

140 Daniel Fink, Bams o f the Genesee Country, 1790-1815 Including An Account of Settlement and Changes in Agricultural Practices (Geneseo, NY: James Brunner, 1987), 370.

141 “Philip Church’s Account with Angelica Store, 1809-1813.” Philip Church Papers, Angelica Free Library.

142 For dinner parties, see for example, Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, September 3, 1834. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations. Maria discusses dancing at Belvidere one New Year’s Day in Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, January 2, 1838 Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations. On the tableaux vivantes, see Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, September 23, 1837. Maria Silliman Church Papers,

114

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

143 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Benjamin Silliman, July 25, 1836. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

144 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Faith Trumbull Wadsworth, November 5, 1835. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

145 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, June 14,1836. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations; Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Faith Silliman, October 28, 1833. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

146 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, August 12, 1837. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

147McNall, “Landed Gentry.”

148 Robert F. McNamara has written the best short works on both the Carroll and the Fitzhugh families. See “Charles Carroll of Belle Vue: Co-founder of Rochester,” Rochester History 42 (October 1980): 1-28 and William Frisby Fitzhugh: Co-founder of Rochester (Rochester: Rochester Historical Society, 1984).

149 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Faith Trumbull Wadsworth, January 26,1833. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

150 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, August 8, 1834. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

151 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, November 26, 1837. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

152 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Faith Silliman, September 29, 1835. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Faith Silliman Hubbard, December 16,1837. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

154 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Faith Silliman Hubbard, August 28,1837. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

I55Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, September 23, 1837. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

156 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, January 9, 1838. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

I57Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, November 4, 1831. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

158 Drawing by Maria Trumbull Silliman Church. The drawing was originally included in a letter from Maria to Faith Trumbull Wadsworth, December 5, 1831. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations. At some point the drawing got separated from the letter, and is now part of the Church Family Papers, Archives, Warren Hunting Smith Library.

l59Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Faith Silliman Hubbard, August 10, 1837. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

160 When the Keeney family purchased the house in 1892 after Richard Church was forced to foreclose on the property, they apparently found no use for this room at all, as they completely eliminated it by knocking down its eastern wall and creating a large entrance hall. Doris Keeney Dodge to Marian Grow Bromeley, January 20,1976. Belvidere Trust Collection. Doris Keeney Dodge was one of the Keeney daughters who grew up at Belvidere, and in this letter, she clarifies exactly what structural changes her family made to Belvidere. The changes she discusses her family conducting correspond to almost every major structural change that has taken place since Belvidere was originally built, revealing that the Churches made almost no changes to the house during their approximately eighty two years of residence.

116

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161 Ghost impressions left in the plaster underneath the present stairs reveal the original incline of the stairs. Historic American Buildings Survey Report, NY-6011. Survey conducted 1967, report preparedl984. Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Records Collection, Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress.

162 Although the Church family never altered these stairs from Probyn’s original design, their predecessors did. After the Keeney family moved into Belvidere in 1892, they removed the wall that used to divide the hall from the staircase and reconstructed the stairs, incorporating another landing and a turn in the staircase that allow them to have a gentler ascent. Doris Keeney Dodge to Marian Grow Bromeley, January 20,1976. Belvidere Trust Collection.

163 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, November 4,1831. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

164 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Faith Silliman, May 1834. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

165 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Benjamin and Harriet Trumbull Silliman, June, 1833. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

I66Probyn’s original plan for Belvidere is tom at the bottom, causing some information about the basement plan to be lost. There is therefore no identification as to the intended use of the cellar room beneath the eastern wing. Someone in a later hand made notations on the original as to room usage though and has marked this space “cellar kitchen.” The beginning of a fireplace is evident on the western wall of this space, which would suggest its use as a kitchen. It is also located near the stairs which led up to the dining room and china pantry. It is also the only room that was planned with a high window to allow in light. I am therefore assuming that this was the original kitchen.

167 Probyn, Edward. “Estimate of a House intended to be built by Phillip [sic] Church Esq.” Philip Church Papers, Angelica Free Library.

The dates given in various sources for when this addition was built vary, but are all consistent with the time period of the War of 1812. No one has been able to provide documentation as to this date though, and the drawing of Belvidere executed by Maria Trumbull Silliman Church in December 1831 calls this date into question. Maria’s drawing shows Belvidere as it was originally designed, with two symmetrical one-story wings on either side of the central block, without any suggestion of an addition to the

117

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. eastern wing. Furthermore, in the plan of the first floor that she drew underneath the exterior depiction, she showed stairs leading off the side of the east wing, making it unlikely that she simply omitted the addition. (Figure 24). This pictorial evidence therefore strongly suggests that this addition dates at least twenty years later than it has been commonly assumed. The first definite proof of the addition’s existence appears in the rendering of Belvidere shown on the border of an 1856 wall map of Allegany County. Copies of this wall map are owned by the Allegany County Museum, Angelica Free Library, Belmont Library, and by Angelica town historian Robert Dorsey. (Figure 29). Circa 1862 photographs of Belvidere also show the addition in place, although the mansard roof that presently covers this wing had not been added by this time. (Figure 26). Structural evidence also suggests that this wing was created in two different sections rather than being built all at once, as has been assumed. In conducting measured drawings of the first floor of the eastern addition, the interior wall thickness between what is now a sitting room and a bedroom in the center of the addition jumped out as unusual. This wall was thirteen inches thick, compared to four to five inch-thick interior walls between the other rooms of the addition. The only other walls in the addition that are thirteen inches thick are the exterior ones. There is also a chimney stack in this wall with an upstairs hearth on its western side, which may have originally been an end chimney. Thus an addition may have been added at some point only as far as this wall, with another addition being added later. (See Figure 59). Window differences along the southern wall of the eastern addition also support this theory. The three windows on the southern wall of the addition located east of the purported first exterior wall all have splayed sides while those west of this wall do not. Secondly, the windows east of the wall are all twelve over eight pane windows, while the two windows closest to wall on its western side are smaller with eight over eight panes. The window closest to the original east wing is the smallest window of all, at six over six panes.

169 Minard, Allegany County and its People , 408.

170 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Benjamin, Harriet Trumbull, and Faith Silliman, October 26, 1831. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

171 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Faith Silliman, August 5,1835. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

172 Anna Matilda Stewart Church to her child, February 19, 1835. Church Box, The New- York Historical Society.

173 Faith Silliman to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, March 25, 1836. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

118

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Faith Trumbull Wadsworth, April 5, 1836. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

175 Faith Silliman to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, April 8, 1836. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations. 17(\ This affair is mentioned by Henry Clune in his book The Genesee (1963; Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1988), 170. One of Lucy’s earlier children, Pheobe, bom in 1830, remained with the Church family for many years. Pheobe is listed as a mulatto in the 1855 Allegany County census, confirming that her father was white. She later married one of the Churches’ Irish farm laborers, James Keenan, and when Anna Matilda Church died in 1865, she left Phoebe $50 “in memory of her faithful services.” “Record of the last Will of Anne Matilda Church, "Record o f Wills, Book 5, Allegany County Surrogate Records, Belmont, NY, 323.

177 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, November 4, 1831. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

178 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Faith Silliman, November 22, 1831. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

179 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, November 4, 1831. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

180 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Faith Silliman, November 22, 1831 Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

181 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, May 3,1834. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

182 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, December 31,1833. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations; Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, August 26, 1835. Maria Silliman Church Papers,

119

183 hi Box 57 of the Allegany County Surrogate Records, Belmont, New York, receipts survive indicating W. Barnes was paid to take a complete inventory of Philip Church’s estate in 1861. However, the inventory is not among any of the documents relating to the Church family held by the Surrogate Office. There is an inventory for a Philip Church taken in 1874, but this was for Philip and Anna Matilda Church’s son, Philip Jr., who died in that year. Philip Jr. still lived in the area and may have even lived at Belvidere, but his parent’s belongings all passed to his brother Richard and I do not believe this inventory to be an inventory of Belvidere.

184 John Church to Maria Trumbull Silliman, August 23, 1831. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

185 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Faith Silliman Hubbard, August 10, 1837. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

186 “Record of the last Will of Anne Matilda Church,"Record of Wills, Book 5, Allegany County Surrogate Records, Belmont, NY, 323-324. An item of interest to the Winterthur Museum in this will is Anna Matilda’s gift of “the portrait of my Father General Stewart by Pine” to her son Philip Jr. This portrait of General Walter Stewart by Robert Pine is now in the collection of the Winterthur Museum, #62.591.

187 Phelan, The M an, 251.

188 Richard Church to Elizabeth Church Horwood, May 19, 1891. Church Family Papers, Archives, Warren Hunting Smith Library.

189 Elizabeth Church Horwood to John Barker Church HI, July 1892. Church Family Papers, Archives, Warren Hunting Smith Library.

190 John Church to Maria Trumbull Silliman, August 7, 1831. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

120

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 191 Peter Wisbey, Curator at the Genesee Country Village and Museum, brought Samuel Gardiner to my attention. Labeled Gardiner pieces in the collections of Genesee Country Village and Museum, Rose Hill (Geneva), and the Livingston County Historical Society reveal him to be capable of very fine craftsmanship. See also the signed Gardiner sofa shown in Figure 63 in John L. Scherer, New York Furniture at the New York State Museum (Alexandria, VA: Highland House Publishers, Inc., 1984), 66.

192 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Harriet Trumbull Silliman, March 1834. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

193 Elizabeth A. Perkins, “The Consumer Frontier Household Consumption in Early Kentrucky,” Journal of American History History 78 (September 1991): 486-510.

194 Angelica Store Accounts, 1802-1813. Church Family Papers, Angelica Free Library.

195 Angelica Schuyler Church to Philip Church, June 14,1804. Church Box, The New- York Historical Society.

196 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Faith Silliman, November 6,1835. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

197 Anna Matilda Stewart Church to her child, February 19, 1835. Church Box, The New-York Historical Society.

198 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Faith Silliman, November 6, 1835. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

199 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Faith Silliman, June 6, 1833. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

200 McNall, Agricultural History, 93. Philip Church’s own sheep flock was devastated in this way at least once. In 1805, Church purchased and drove twenty four sheep to Belvidere. By the next morning, wolves had claimed nineteen of them. Minard,Allegany County and its People, 435.

201 Maria Trumbull Silliman Church to Faith Trumbull Wadsworth, November 10, 1831. Maria Silliman Church Papers, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

121

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 1. “The Pioneer Settler Upon The Holland Purchase, And His Progress.” This engraving depicting a western New York pioneer’s first winter was originally published in Orasmus Turner’s 1850 book H istory o f the Holland Purchase. Turner’s description of the pioneer’s house informs us that “the roof of his house if of peeled elm bark; his scanty window is of oiled paper; glass is a luxury that has not reached the settlement of which he forms a party. The floor of his house is of the halves of split logs; the door is made of three hewed plank - no boards to be had - a saw mill has been talked of in the neighborhood, but it has not been put in operation.”

122

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2. “Second Sketch of the Pioneer.” This scene shows the same farm as shown in Figure 1 in the following winter. The pioneer has made improvements such as adding a stick chimney to the house, and has erected fencing and begun a garden. The original caption read, “It is a rugged home in the wilderness as yet, but we have already the earnest of progress and improvement.” (Orasmus Turner, History o f the Holland Purchase)

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 3. ‘Third Sketch of the Pioneer.” This scene shows the pioneer’s farm in the summertime ten years after the original summer scene. The pioneer has cleared and fenced thirty or forty acres by this point, and has added a frame addition to his original log cabin. The farm also has a frame bam. The home depicted here built in less than ten year’s time after initial settlement can be compared to Belvidere, erected seven years after Philip Church first arrived in Allegany County. (Orasmus Turner,History of the Holland Land Purchase)

124

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 4. Northern facade of Belvidere. The original eastern wing once matched the present western wing, but the roof of the eastern wing was raised sometime after 1862. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

125

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 5. Southern facade of Belvidere. The mansard roof now present over the second floor of the eastern addition was probably added around 1870. The window below the semi-circular window on the western wing is not original and was added by the Keeney family around 1900. The frame covering over the stairs that lead to the basement seen at the far left of the image is a modem construction added by the Bromeley family. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

126

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 6. Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site, Albany, New York. Erected between 1761-1762 by Philip and Catherine Van Rensselaer Schuyler, this is the home that Angelica Schuyler Church lived in after age of eight. (Courtesy, Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site)

127

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 7. Down Place, Berkshire, England. Although the house now has several additions, the section of the house that comprised Down Place during John Barker and Angelica Church’s ownership is located to the right of the tree. This is the river front of the home, which overlooks the Thames River. (Courtesy, Michael Scorgie)

128

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 8. Detail of circa 1785John Trumbull portrait of Angelica Schuyler Church, one of John Barker and Angelica Church’s children, and a servant paint. The child in the portrait has often been identified as the Church’s eldest son, Philip, but as it is believed to have been completed by Trumbull in London after the Churches’ arrival there in 1783,the child is much more likely to be their fourth child, Elizabeth. John Barker Church was an important patron of John Trumbull’s. (Courtesy, Belvidere Trust)

129

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. "TV -4t i r i mrwix'w 1797. 1797. (Redrawn by author) Figure 9. “North orNew Entrance York in front Americaofthe byHouse J.B. Churchnow building Esq.” at the City Joseph of Bonomi, Architect, March

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 10. “Design of a House now building at the City of New York in America by John Barker Church Esq.” Joseph Bonomi, Architect. (Redrawn by author) Portico 0 10 20 30 40 50 ft. Figure 11. “Plan ofthe Principalbuilding atFloor the nowCity ofNew York in America by names are Bonomi’s. (Redrawn by author) J.B. Church.” Joseph Bonomi, Architect. Room u> N>

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. North Boundary of ritaiflrttli MAP OF HOLLAND LA.VD COMPANY’S PRELIMINARY SVRVEY 1797

Figure 12. This 1797 map identifies the location of the Church Tract in relation to the Holland Land Company’s land and that of other lesser landowners. The Church Tract is identified here as belonging to Alexander Hamilton, who held the mortgage for John Barker Church because New York State law at that time did not allow aliens to own land in the state. (Lockwood R. Doty, ed.,History o f the Genesee Country )

133

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. * t , .t a u w Tn.\t* ». ■ / .4 u . k «.<•*. .«W .» i.H.ciirm ii , , . f M . relative position oftheir land tract in New York Slate. (Courtesy, Angelica Free Library) Figure 13. 804 i promotional map issued by John Barker and PhilipChurch showing the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 14. This topographic map of Angelica township reveals how steep the terrain is on Philip Church’s original 100,000 acre tract. The red circle indicates the rare section of relatively flat land located in the Genesee River Valley where Church chose to situate his own farm and home. (Army Map Service, Sheet 5638 I)

135

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 15. This topographic map of Belmont township shows the area immediately south of Angelica township which comprised the southern part of the Church tract. The terrain in Belmont township is even steeper than that in Angelica township. (Army Map Service, Sheet 5638 II)

136

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 16. Circa 1862 photograph of road leading to the “White House,” the Church family’s first home in Allegany County. The fenced yard around the house and the outbuildings behind the house suggest it was being used by the family of a Church employee by this time. (Photo by author, courtesy of Angelica Free Library)

137

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 17. Circa 1900 photograph of “White House,” the Church family’s first home in Allegany County. By the time this photograph was taken, the 1804 house had been moved from its original location and was being used as a hay bam. The house blew down in a wind storm in 1902. (Courtesy, Belvidere Trust)

138

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chamber Chamber

t :

Dining Drawing Room Room

China Chambe Pantry Nursery

Passaee 1 ent to Nursery, Cellars, etc. Wine Pantry 9 Larder g Cellar Underneath

Figure 18. “Plan of three Floors to a House belonging to Phillip [sic] Church, Esq. By E.Probyn A & Builder N York 31st Dec 1807” The room names on the plan are Probyn’s. (Redrawn by author, courtesy of Angelica Free Library)

139

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. tftrcl AhJ ( 1 6 IV

I X h J lr Po r cL

OlUk 'f* (ftlftHli RlOMS

OINMC ROOM

I & fbdSe VWr*t

(rrentl

CI e iCt- T. i* Piter

I + tiri 4« fr»»f far.L + D*i FIRST FLOOR PLAN

0 10 20 N kNHmiHnmiiml

Figure 19. First floor plan of The Grange, built by Alexander and Elizabeth Hamilton between 1800 and 1802 in Harlem Heights, New York. (Courtesy, National Park Service, Manhattan Sites)

140

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. living r o o m

BED ROOM BED ROOM

BEO

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

KITCHEN

FAMILY DINING ROOM

HALL

BASEMENT PLAN

Figure 20. Second floor and basement plans for The Grange. (Courtesy, National Park Service, Manhattan Sites)

141

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. l i i U i - ’-" *

ll^l 531 i'll

Sbectk' (FRONT) ELEVATION

Figure 21. Front elevation of The Grange. (Courtesy, National Park Service, Manhattan Sites)

142

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 22. Detail showing stone and brick work on Belvidere’s southern facade. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

143

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 23. Detail of southern portico cornice and column capital. Traces of white paint on the comer of the house seen in the right foreground of the picture are the only physical remains of the wooden pilasters once located at these positions. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

144

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. aa&£?

Figure 24. Sketch of northern facade of Belvidere, drawn in December 1831 by Maria Trumbull Silliman Church. This is the earliest extant image of Belvidere, and the only one to show the house as it was originally designed by Edward Probyn, before a long addition was added to the eastern side. (Courtesy, Archives, Warren Hunting Smith Library, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, New York)

145

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 25. Front door to Belvidere. The glass in the sidelights has been replaced, and the the fanlight was added in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century. Originally, the arch over the door was bricked in, as can be seen in early pictures of Belvidere like Figure 27. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

146

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 26. Circa 1862 photograph of southern facade of Belvidere showing part of the eastern addition. A pilaster is visible on the comer of the central block. This image reveals that the second floor of the original eastern wing as well as the addition had not yet been raised by this point. The open window at the top of the eastern wall of the original eastern wing and the evidence of a floor seen through the semi-circular window suggests that a second floor living space had been constructed in this section of the house. (Photo by author, courtesy of Angelica Free Library)

147

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 27. Circa 1862 photograph of Belvidere’s northern facade. Anna Matilda Church and other Church family members are seen on the piazza. Evidence of a wooden pilaster is just barely visible on the comer of the western wing. This image also reveals that Belvidere did not originally have a fanlight above its front door. (Photo by author, courtesy of Angelica Free Library)

148

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. . • .4 T-i^oiSLiAi i+ ju Archives, Warren Hunting Smith Library,Geneva, Hobart New and York)William SmithColleges, River. This sketch is attributed to MariaTrumbull Silliman Church. (Courtesy, Figure 28. Sketch ofsouthern facade ofBelvidere, from across the Genesee i mm

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 29. Detail of 1856 Allegany County wall map. This image is the earliest to show the long eastern addition to Belvidere. It also depicts Belvidere’s landscaping. (Photo by author, courtesy of Angelica Free Library)

150

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 30. Circa 1862 image of Belvidere as seen from the south across the Genesee River. The Churches had the landscape cleared of trees in front of the southern fagade of Belvidere both to allow the house to be seen from the road and to provide a picturesque view from the southern portico. (Photo by author, courtesy of Angelica Free Library)

151

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 31. Entrance to Belvidere with stone and brick gateposts and a low stone wall. The stone and brickwork on the gateposts match that of Belvidere. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

152

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 32. Plaster cornice in Belvidere drawing room. The southwest comer of the room is shown with the fireplace at the right. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

153

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 33. Triple hung windows in drawing room. The two lower windows pushed up to form a doorway out to the southern portico. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

154

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 34. Nine-sided brick carriage barn at Belvidere, as it stands today. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

155

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 35. Close up of one of the nine sides of Church carriage bam at Belvidere. Shaped bricks specially molded to fit the comers are seen at the junction of the two sides. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

156

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 36. Framing of Belvidere carriage bam. Part of the central platform that lowers to the ground from the second floor can be seen in the bottom left comer. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

157

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 37. First floor plan of Belvidere drawn by Maria Trumbull Silliman Church in December 1831. The plan indicates that the kitchen had been moved to the first floor by this point, and that the first floor chamber was then being used as a “breakfast room.” (Courtesy, Archives, Warren Hunting Smith Library, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, New York)

158

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. • *• * f i %' *

Figure 38. Southern wall of southwest second floor chamber at Belvidere. The large, tripartite window overlooks the portico and the Genesee River. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

159

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 39.Fireplace and mantle in southwest second floor chamber in Belvidere. This mantel exactly matches the one in the southeast chamber, and is almost certainly original. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

160

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 40. Arched hallway leading to the southeast chamber on Belvidere’s second floor. The door at the left of the hallway has been added to access the bathroom now located there. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

161

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 41. Fireplace and mantel in southeast second floor chamber at Belvidere. The mantle is identical to the one in the southwest chamber, and is almost certainly original. The stove was added later in the nineteenth century. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

162

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 42. Stone pier added over the front of Belvidere’s original basement kitchen. The low stone wall at the right probably formed a cistern. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

163

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 43. Middle garret room at Belvidere. The doors at the left and the right lead to closets built over the portico, with built in hooks for hanging clothes. The window seen in the center of the picture is the window in the pediment of the portico. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

164

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 44. Southwest garret room at Belvidere. The low sloping ceilings limit headroom in this room, but the presence of built-in drawers suggests it was always intended to be a private room. A dormer window is located at the right hand side of the image. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

165

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 45. Silver card tray engraved with the Church family arms. The tray’s hallmarks indicate it was made in London in 1764/65, probably by silversmith Even Coker. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

166

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 46. Mahogany tea table, 1740-1780. All parts of this tea table, including the drawer sides and bottom are constructed out of mahogany. May be of English or Irish origin. Tradition holds that this table was once owned by Angelica Schuyler Church. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

167

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 47. Mahogany clothespress with secretary drawer owned by Philip Church. 1800-1810. May be English in origin. The clothespress was given to the Angelica Library Association in 1902 by Philip’s son, Major Richard Church. (Photo by author, courtesy of Angelica Free Library)

168

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 48. Secretary drawer on clothespress once owned by Philip Church. 1800-1810. (Photo by author, Angelica Free Library)

169

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 49. Mahogany-veneered Empire-style sleigh bed, 1820-1840. Possibly made in New York City. Tradition holds that this was Philip Church’s bed. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

170

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 50. Cherry Empire-style sofa, 1830-1860. After reported ownership by the Church family, it was later used at a tenant farmhouse. (Photo by author, courtesy of Belvidere Trust)

171

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 52. Angelica Town Hall, formerly Angelica County Court House. The building was built in 1819 as a focal point of the Angelica Park Circle. Its elliptical court room is especially noteworthy. (Photo by author)

173

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 53. First Methodist Church, Angelica Park Circle, Angelica, New York. Built 1830-31. (Photo by author)

174

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 54. St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Angelica Park Circle, Angelica, New York. This Gothic Revival building dates to 1848 and replaced the original 1834 Episcopal Church which was destroyed by fire. (Photo by author)

175

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 55. Detail of front door to St. Paul’s Episcopal Church. (Photo by author)

176

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 56. Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church, Angelica Park Circle, Angelica, New York. The building was dedicated in 1851, making it the oldest Catholic Church in Allegany County. (Photo by author)

177

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 57. Angelica Grange, formerly the Presbyterian Church, Angelica Park Circle, Angelica, New York. This building was dedicated in 1857 and replaced Angelica’s earlier 1831 Presbyterian Church. (Photo by author)

178

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 58. First Baptist Church, Angelica Park Circle, Angelica, New York. Building dedicated 1859. The spire is a replacement. (Photo by author)

179

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A: Measured Drawings of Belvidere

180

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. u. rf CN BO

r, i

I - - Measured Measured drawing, basement. Belvidere, Allegany County, New York. August 1999. (Drawing by Figure Figure 59. author)

181

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. E3 20th C Addition

U O O O

:it r?V; t il. Kitchen Library Bath \ Entrance Hall n n r o wi ' l___ x L l.iL 11 1 t y ' r—J I

Living Dining Room Room

0 2 4 Ft. I o □ 1 3

Figure 60. Measured drawing of first floor. Belvidere, Allegany County, New York. August 1999. (Drawing by author) y////y/////// r m ’Stzs& V W i L mmwaiimmti. Land Office Kitchen

r iM W .W IIti' Room Tool Bedroom v/M iim m m m t N Hall ^ Room 0 2 4 Ft. Kitchen Figure61. Measured(Drawing drawing by of author)first flooraddition. Belvidere, Allegany County, New York. August 1999. oo u>

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bed r \ Room Bedroom Bedroom N t E2 E2 20th C Addition 0 2 4 Ft. August 1999. (Drawing by author) Figure62. Measured drawing ofsecond floor, original section. Belvidere, Allegany County, New York. 00

186

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. William Henry 1798- Richard S. Richard 1824-1911 ca. 1826 - ca. 1865 1792-1802 Alexander Elizabeth Richard 1786-1787 1756-1814 Angelica Schuyler 1783- ca. 1819-1822 ca. 1822-1896 Elizabcth 1781- John 1815-1874 1748-1818 Church Family Genealogy 1779- Catherinc John BarkerChurch ca. 1813-1895 Philip 1778-1861 Sophia Walter Stewart Philip Mary ca. 1810-1880 1786-1865 1808-1875 John Barker Anna Matilda Stewart Angelica 1806-1895 00

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Manuscript Sources

Belvidere Trust Collection.

Carter, John. Misc. Mss. The New-York Historical Society, New York, New York.

Church, Angelica Schuyler and Other Family Members. Correspondence. MSS 11245. Special Collections Department, University of Virginia Library, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Church Family. Box. The New-York Historical Society, New York, New York.

Church Family Papers. Archives, Warren Hunting Smith Library, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, New York.

Church, Maria Silliman. Papers. Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations. New York, New York.

Church, Philip. Papers. Angelica Free Library, Angelica, New York.

D’Autremont Family. Letters. Hagley Library, Wilmington, Delaware.

Du Pont, Josephine. Letters. Hagley Library, Wilmington, Delaware.

Gallatin, Albert. Papers. The New-York Historical Society, New York, New York.

Gates, Horatio. Papers. The New-York Historical Society, New York, New York.

Smith, Lloyd W. Collection. Morristown National Historical Park, Morristown, New Jersey.

Stewart, Walter. Accounts. Joseph Downs Collection of Manuscripts and Printed Ephemera, Winterthur Library, Winterthur, Delaware.

Wadsworth, Jeremiah. Papers. Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, Connecticut.

188

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Secondary Sources

Adams, William Howard. The Paris Years o f Thomas Jefferson. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.

American National Biography. 24 Vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

The Architectural Heritage o f Genesee County, N.Y. Landmark Society of Genesee County, Inc., 1988.

Beale, Irene A. Genesee Valley People, 1743-1962. Geneseo, NY: Chestnut Hill Press, 1983.

Blanco, Richard L., ed. The American Revolution 1775-1783: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1993.

Bolger, Stuart. Genesee Country Village: Scenes o f Town & Country in the Nineteenth Century. 2d ed. Mumford, NY: Genesee Country Museum, 1993.

Bromeley, Catherine. “Benjamin Latrobe and Belvidere.” Unpublished paper, 1956.

Brooks, Charles E. Frontier Settlement and Market Revolution: The Holland Land Purchase. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996.

Brown, Chandos Michael. Benjamin Silliman: A Life in the Young Republic. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.

Brown, Richard D. Knowledge is Power: The Diffusion o f Information in Early America, 1700-1865. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Bushman, Richard L. The Refinement o f America: Persons, Houses, Cities. New York: Vintage Books, 1992.

Chemow, Barbara A. “Robert Morris: Genesee Land Speculator.” New York History 58 (April 1977): 194-220.

Clune, Henry W.The Genesee. 1963; Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1988.

------. The Genesee Country. Rochester Memorial Art Gallery of the University of Rochester, 1975.

Cooper, William. A Guide in the Wilderness; or the History o f the First Settlement in the Western Counties o f New York, with useful Instructions to Future Settlers. 1810; Cooperstown, NY: The Freeman’s Journal Co. 1949.

189

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cowan, Helen I. “Charles Williamson and the Southern Entrance to the Genesee Country.”New York History 23 (1942): 260-274.

Davis, James E. Frontier America 1800-1840: A Comparative Demographic Analysis o f the Frontier Process. Glendale, CA: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1977.

DeLong, David G. Historic American Buildings: New York. 8 vols. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1979.

Dictionary o f American Biography. 21 Vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1932.

Dos Passos, John. The M en Who M ade the Nation. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1957.

Doty, Lockwood R., ed.History o f the Genesee Country. 4 vols. Chicago: The S.J. Clarke Publishing Company, 1925.

Faragher, John Mack. Sugar Creek: Life on the Illinois Prairie. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.

Fennessy, Kathryn K. “Allegany County 1795-1810: Frontier Western New York.” Unpublished paper, March 1979.

Fink, Daniel. Bams of the Genesee Country, 1790-1815 Including An Account of Settlement and Changes in Agricultural Practices. Geneseo, NY: James Brunner, 1987.

Fleming, Thomas. Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr and the Future o fAmerica. New York: Basic Books, 1999.

Freeman, Larry.Gone To The Winds: Three New York Families Disperse their Huge Pioneer Upstate Holdings. Watkins Glen, NY: Century House, 1958.

Garff, Royall Lovell.Social and Economic Conditions in the Genesee Country, 1787- 1812. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University, 1938.

Garraty, John A. and Mark C. Carnes, eds.American National Biography. NY: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Garrett, Elisabeth Donaghy.At Home: The American Family 1750-1870. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1990.

190

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Gellman, David Nathaniel. Inescapable Discourse: The Rhetoric o f Slavery and the Politics o f Abolition in Early National New York. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University, 1997.

Girouard, Marie. A Country House Companion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.

------. Life in the English Country House: A Social and Architectural History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978.

Greene, Susan. “A Loom at Every Hearth: Early Intestacy Inventories o f Allegany County, New York.” Unpublished paper, Cornell University, 1996.

Hamlin, Talbot. Benjamin Henry Latrobe. New York: Oxford University Press, 1955.

Haswell, Susan. “Biographical Sketch of Angelica Schuyler Church.” Unpublished paper, presented May 1991.

Hatch, Alden. The Wadsworths o f the Genesee. New York: Coward-McCann, Inc., 1959.

Hendrickson, Robert. H am ilton. 2 Vols. New York: Mason/Charter, 1976.

Herman, Bernard L. The Stolen House. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1992.

Historic American Buildings Survey. “Belvidere, Genessee [sic] River and State Road 408, Angelica Township, Allegany County, New York.” HABS No. NY-6011. Survey conducted 1967, report prepared June 6, 1984.

History o f Allegany County, N.Y. with illustrations descriptive of scenery, private residences, public buildings, fine blocks, and important manufactories; from original w/sketches by artists o f the highest ability; and portraits o f old pioneers and prominent residents. 1879; Ovid, NY: W.E. Morrison & Co., 1978.

Hodder, Ian. Reading the Past: Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Hubbard, J. Niles and John S. Minard. Sketches o f Border Adventures in The Life and Times o f Major Moses Van Campen. 1842; 1893; Jersey Shore, PA: Zebrowski Historical Services and Publishing Co., 1992.

Hulbert, Archer Butler. Historic Highways o f America: Pioneer Roads and Experiences o f Travelers. Vol. 12. 1902-05; New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1971.

Humphreys, Mary Gay.Catherine Schuyler. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1897.

191

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Jaffe, Irma B. John Trumbull: Patriot-Artist of the American Revolution. Boston: New York Graphic Society, 1975.

Kelsey, John.Lives and Reminiscences o f the Pioneers of Rochester and Western New York. Rochester, NY: J. Kelsey, 1854.

Kim, Sung Bok. Landlord and Tenant in Colonial New York: Manorial Society, 1664- 1775. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1978.

Kimball, Fiske. “Latrobe, Benjamin Henry” in Dictionary ofAmerican Biography. Vol. 6. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1933.

Lanier, Gabrielle M. and Bernard L. Herman. Everyday Architecture of the Mid-Atlantic: Looking at Buildings and Landscapes. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.

Low, Betty-Bright P. “Of Muslins and Merveilleuses: Excerpts from the Letters of Josephine du Pont and Margaret Manigault.” Winterthur Portfolio 9 (1974): 29- 75.

McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984.

McKee, Harley J.Recording Historic Buildings. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

McNall, Neil Adams. An Agricultural History of the Genesee Valley 1790-1860. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1952.

------. “The Landed Gentry of the Genesee.”New York History 26 (1945): 162-176.

McNamara, Robert F. “Charles Carroll of Belle Vue: Co-founder of Rochester.” Rochester History 42:4 (October 1980): 1-28.

------. “William Frisby Fitzhugh: Co-founder of Rochester.” Rochester Historical Society, Volume XVI, Rochester, NY, 1984.

Minard, John Steams. Allegany County and its People: A Centennial Memorial History of Allegany County, New York. Alfred, NY: W.A. Fergusson & Co., 1896.

. “Intimate Friend of Old Celebrities in America and Europe.” Journal o f American History Vol. 2, No. 1 (1908): 48-63.

192

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ------. John Barker Church, Phillip [spj Church, and Mary Jemison: Makers o f History in the Genesee Valley. Belmont, NY: Fuller-Davis Corp., 1916.

National Register of Historic Places. “Angelica Court House, Allegany County, New York.” Nomination form prepared 1971.

------. “Angelica Park Circle Historic District. Nomination form prepared 1976.

------. “Belvidere, Allegany County, New York.” Nomination form prepared 1971.

O’Callaghan, Edmund. Documentary History o f the State o f New York. Vol. 2. Albany: 1849.

The Papers o f Thomas Jefferson. 27 vols. to date. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950-present.

Pearson, C.S and M.G. Cline, Soil Survey o f Allegany County New York. Series 1942, No. 12. United States Department of Agriculture, 1956.

Perkins, Elizabeth A. “The Consumer Frontier: Household Consumption in Early Kentucky.” Journal o f American History Vol 78, No. 2 (September 1991): 486- 510.

Pevsner, Nikolaus. The Buildings o f England: Berkshire. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd., 1966.

Phelan, Helene C. Allegany’s Uncommon Folk. Almond, NY: Helene C. Phelan, 1978.

------. And Why Not Every Man?: An Account of Slavery, the Underground Railroad, and the Road to Freedom in New York’s Southern Tier. Almond, NY: Helene C. Phelan, 1987.

------. The Man Who Owned the Pistols: John Barker Church and His Family. Almond, NY: Helene C. Phelan, 1981.

Pierson, William H. Jr. American Buildings and Their Architects: The Colonial and Neoclassical Styles. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.

Rogow, Arnold A. A Fatal Friendship: Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. New York: Hill and Wang, 1998.

Rothschild, Nan A. New York City Neighborhoods: The !8fh Century. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc., 1990.

193

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Schachner, Nathan. Alexander Hamilton. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., 1946.

Schaetzke, E. Anne. “Slavery in the Genesee Country (also known as Ontario County) 1789-1827. Afro-Americans in New York Life and History , 22:1 (1998): 7-40.

Scherer, John L. New York Furniture at the New York State Museum. Alexandria: Highland House Publishers, Inc., 1984.

Schmidt, Carl F. The Early Architecture o f the Genesee Valley. Geneseo, NY: The Genesee Valley Council on The Arts, 1975.

Siles, William Herbert. A Vision o f Wealth: Speculation and Settlers in the Genesee Country o f New York, 1788-1800. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1978.

“Sketch Of The Life of Hon. Philip Church, Late of Belvidere, Allegany County, N. Y.” Originally published inAngelica Reporter, Angelica, Allegany County, NY, January 22, 1861. Pottsville: Miners’ Journal Book and Job Rooms, 1875.

Sloane, Eric and Edward Anthony.Mr. Daniels and the Grange. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1968.

Steward, Austin. Twenty-Two Years a Slave, and Forty Years a Freeman. 1856; New York: Negro Universities Press, 1968.

Stillman, Damie. “Bonomi, Joseph,” in Adolf K. Placzek, ed., Macmillan Encyclopedia o f Architects. Vol. 1. London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1982.

------. English Neo-Classical Architecture. 2 vols. London: A. Zwemmer Ltd., 1988.

Stillwell, L.L., compiler.Angelica Collectanea. Angelica, NY: The Angelica Advocate, 1955.

Syrett, Harold C., ed.The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. 27 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-87.

Taylor, Alan.William Cooper’s Town: Power and Persuasion on the Frontier of the Early American Republic. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.

Thompson, John H., ed. Geography o f New York State. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1977.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thome, R.G. History o f Parliament: The House of Commons 1790-1820 . Vol. 3. London: History of Parliament Trust, 1986.

Thornton, Winifred Knight. “A History of the Church Mansion, Belvidere.”New York H istory (July 1950): 294-307.

Tichy, Charles R. “Otsego Hall and Its Setting, 1786-1940.” Master’s thesis, Cooperstown Graduate Program, State University of New York, Oneonta, 1973.

Turner, Frederick Jackson. The Frontier in American History. 1920; Franklin Center, PA: The Franklin Library, 1977.

Turner, 0[rasmus]. History o f the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham’s Purchase, and Morris’ Reserve; embracing the counties o f Monroe, Ontario, Livingston, Yates, Steuben, Most o f Wayne and Allegany, and parts o f Orleans, Genesee and Wyoming. Rochester, NY: William Ailing, 1851.

------. Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase o f Western New York: embracing some account o f the ancient remains; a brief history of our immediate predecessors, the confederated Iroquois, their system o f government, wars, etc. — a synopsis o f colonial history: some notices of the border wars o f the revolution: and a history o f pioneer settlement under the auspices o f The Holland Company; including reminiscences o f the War o f 1812; the origin, progress, and completion o f the Erie Canal, etc. Buffalo: George H. Derby and Co., 1850.

Up & Down The River: Art & Geography o f the Genesee River. Geneseo, NY: The Genesee Valley Council on The Arts, 1977.

Upton, Dell.Architecture in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Vanderhoof, E.W. Historical Sketches o f Western New York. 1907; New York: AMS Press Inc., 1972.

Van Deusen, John G. “Robert Troup: Agent of the Pulteney Estate.” New York History 23 (1942): 166-180.

The Writings o f George Washington from the original manuscript sources, 1745-1799. 39 vols. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1931-44.

Wyckoff, William. The Developer’s Frontier: The Making o f the Western New York Landscape. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.

195

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.