Pownal,
then and now a small community, is an old town with a colorful early history.
It is located in the extreme southwest corner of Vermont, with ties to
New York, New Hampshire and to Massachusetts. Its earliest history seems
to have been quite stormy, largely because it was founded on land that
was opened for homesteading under two different authorities. The inevitable
result was a cloud over many of the homesteaders' titles. Ownership claims
to the land were muddied since both New York and New Hampshire laid separate
claim to the open land between them . . . the territory that would in 1791
become the State of Vermont.
The earliest record of the Pownal settlement
is a census for 1725 as a town near Albany,NY consisting of about twelve
households of Dutch families. By 1765, the town area had expanded
to include 58 households. These were homesteads granted by the State of
New York under the Hoosic Patent. The homesteaders were farmers of Dutch
origin who were expanding outward from the crowded Rensallaerwick lands
around Albany.
In the meantime, the boundaries between
the New York and the Connecticut and Massachusetts charters had been informally
agreed to between them to be a line 20 miles east of the Hudson River.
It was a good start, but not very practical if interpreted by the wrong
people. First, the river course was not a "line," and further the lands
were unsurveyed wilderness.
John Singer
may not have owned one of the original Pownal homesteads. It appears more
likely he purchased one of these lots from a previous New York Dutchman.
In any event, there is no question John was an early resident of Pownal.
These settlers, referred to as "the
Dutchmen" believed their lands were in New York. They did not reckon on
the sudden appearance of "Yorkers" (men of English extraction) holding
conflicting claims to the same land granted by the governor of New Hampshire.
In 1762,
Governor Wentworth, appointed by the King of England over the colony of
New Hampshire, saw the opportunities in the vast tracts of land to the
west. The governors for the Crown were usually English nobility who were
sent to the colonies to govern. Wentworth, the exception, was a wealthy
New Englander, and he saw his responsibilities as opportunities. Since
appointed Governors wielded near-absolute power, answerable only to the
distant King, the potential for graft and greed was enormous.
The influx of New Englanders began
in 1760. With the temptation being irresistible, the governor sold "Wentworth
Grants" to speculators with abandon. From single lots to tracts of thousands
of acres, he sold land to anyone who had the money to pay, all the while
collecting handsome fees which he pocketed. Further, the sale of each tract,
known as a charter, was conditioned upon large portions of the land being
set aside in the Governor's name or members of his family or of his henchmen.
Colonial kickbacks, as it were! Among these, the Pownal Charter of New
Hampshire was granted in 1760. The effect of this had great potential for
disaster, since he was handing out land grants of property already owned
and occupied by the Dutch homesteaders under New York charter.
The result of these Wentworth Grants
(in later years known more kindly as "Hampshire Grants") was an influx
of thousands of New Englanders. Armed with their grants (to them the same
as clear title) they sought to evict the "Dutchmen" by any means necessary.
Politicians wanted power and the large fees from administering their grants,
speculators wanted land to resell, and there was the press of expansion
as people looked for homesteads.
In 1763, several owners armed with
Wentworth Grants giving them rights to Pownal lands filed Actions in Ejectment
at Portsmouth NH to oust the Dutchmen from those lands. The plaintiffs
were holders of Wentworth Patents, and all were simply speculators, definitely
non-residents of the lands they sought to acquire. Surely they knew the
steps they were taking were serious, since any attempt to evict the New
York Dutchmen could bring on a confrontation between the legal machinery
of the two colonies.
These disputes over the land would
have grave consequences in later years. The original settlers felt unfairly
treated, and counted on the King, if necessary, to intervene since their
claims derived from the Governor of New York. Their homes and land were
threatened and many felt only the King could protect their rights. At the
same time, independence fever was sweeping New England. The entire area
became divided politically, and when war came many of the Pownal settlers
became Tories and joined volunteer companies attached to the British army.
Others joined their local militia, and yet others tried unsuccessfully
to remain on the sidelines ...
John Singer (1766-1842)is the progenitor
of a long line of Singers in Canada. John was American by birth, with the
first record of him as eleven years old in Pownal, Vermont.
It is fascinating yet difficult now
to visualize what life was like just two hundred years ago in the British
Colonies just before the War for Independence. John, a young boy
of eleven living in a small village on the frontier. In the space of a
few weeks, he is orphaned and in a refugee camp in Canada with thousands
of others. Here is what we know of that period in his remarkable life.
Important information about John is
found in the “Haldimand Papers” in the public archives of Canada in Ottawa.
General Haldimand was the Governor General of Canada following the Revolutionary
War. The voluminous records of his administration are especially revealing
in the detailed data they contain concerning the loyalist refugees who
fled their homes in the Colonies to Canada during and after the war.
The Lists of Loyalists are found in
Volumes B105, B166, B167 and B168 plus the indexes. All are contained on
microfilm reel C-1475. John Singer is identified in several places in these
volumes.
The first mention of John Singer in
the Haldimand Papers is on page 17. Very well preserved is the muster of
men of Vermont who joined Col. John Peters' King's Loyal Rangers in June,
1777, just prior to the Battle of Bennington.
Peters' Rangers became attached to
General Burgoyne's army which was marching south from Montreal with the
objective to join up with the British garrison at New York. The principal
components of this army were 4,000 British regulars, a detachment of 3,000
German mercenaries under Col. Baum, and an auxiliary party of about 1,000
Canadian militia and Indians.Along the way, Burgoyne attached two Tory
regiments under Colonels Peters and Pfister. Command and control
over this army of diverse elements, all encumbered by a contingent of officers'
wives and children and an enormous baggage train had to be a problem, as
was evidenced by its fate.
Following some initial success in its
march down the Hudson valley from Lake Champlain, the British army encountered
increasing resistance as it approached Albany. North of Albany, Burgoyne
made one of several tactical blunders which led to his ultimate defeat.
He divided his force by ordering a large detachment to proceed southeast
into Vermont from the main thrust of his southward advance down the Hudson.
This detachment consisted of the German mercenaries and the Tory regiments.
Their objective was to obtain supplies and horses from settlers along the
way, whether willingly or not. Revealing an abysmal lack of knowledge of
local geography, he expected the detachment to accomplish that in less
than two weeks.
By then, the countryside was up in
arms. Facing them were thousands of American troops and militiamen, including
Ethan Allen and his independence-minded Green Mountain Boys, all under
the command of General Stark. The American troops took their stand near
Bennington, Vermont, and defeated Burgoyne's detachment on August 16, 1777,
in what is now known as the Battle of Bennington, helping to clear the
way for the later British defeat at Saratoga.
Details of the battle remain somewhat
ambiguous because few records exist to provide information as to exactly
what went on. Among the problems is the lack of rosters of participants,
little knowledge of casualties, and there is uncertainty even as to what
military units actually participated. Thus, a cohesive idea of this important
early battle of the Revolutionary War escapes us, and much depends on secondary
knowledge.
For example, Col. Peters account of
the battle is strongly at odds with the official British account. Peters
claimed that Burgoyne held his regulars in the rear, behind the mercenaries'
line, placing the untrained Tory troops on the front line. With these tactics,
Peters knew that in leading the advance his men would be exposed to ambush
in the rugged mountains of southern Vermont. He protested this battle plan
vigorously to Burgoyne. Peters' memoirs claim that the obstinate and infuriated
Burgoyne told him to shut up, and he was threatened with arrest if he did
not obey. Burgoyne took the protest as insolence, and said the order would
stand, with or without Peters.
As it turned out, Peters was right;
the detachment was ambushed. It was a complete disaster for the British
forces. General Stark's American forces and the local militiamen
were well positioned, and their fire was devastating. There was no doubt
as to the outcome. Most of the Tories and the Germans were casualties,
including their German commander, Colonel Baum. The dead and wounded were
left behind as the decimated and demoralized army turned and headed back
to Canada.
According to best accounts of historians,
the British side lost more that 1,000 men in the battle. Of Peters'
own Regiment of 603 colonials, only 117 survived . . . five out of six
were killed or captured. This fact alone lends credence to the belief that
Abraham Singer was among the dead.
Col. Peters' Tories lost their lives,
their lands, homes and possessions for their efforts. Peters lived out
his days in England, embittered and penniless, unable to win any redress
from the Crown. He maintained to the end that Burgoyne was stupid in his
strategies and utterly wasteful of the lives of the loyal American troops
in the Battle of Bennington. |
