Friend's Cemetery Photos

Drum roll, please! The Friend's (or Quaker) Cemetery is in the Town of Ledyard, which used to be in Scipio until 1823 or so. I serve on the Board of Directors, because my Peckham great-great-grandparents, many of their children, and their parents are buried there.
We try to repair a few of the stones every year, and otherwise maintain and clean up this historic cemetery.
I am pleased to tell you that some of the gravestones have been photographed, and are now available from the Cayuga County Rootsweb site. Select cemeteries, then in Ledyard, select Friend's Cemetery. Where you see the camera (what a cute graphic, Bernie, thanks!) there is a clickable link to that persons gravestone. Or, just follow this link: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nycayuga/cem/cem84.htm.
I owe a huge thank you to the Cayuga County Rootsweb Coordinator, Bernie Corcoran for getting this project off the ground. We hope to continue it with some Scipio cemeteries, perhaps adding a GPS component.
If you have ancestors here, let me know. Some of the names are Searing, Haines, Hotchkiss, Peckham, and Mosher.

Assessment in 1860 continue

More of Scipio’s property owners:

Strong, Joanna
Story, M. A.
Smith Elijah
Smith, Jno V
Smith Bonin(?)
Smith, Bemjamin
Smith, Valson
Shorkley, Julia A.
Slocum, Giles
Sperry, Ambrose
Smith, Harvy
Searing, Chas W
Searing, Richard
Searing, Leonard
Searing, Rebecca
Searing, Samuel
Sandwich, Isaac
Sensabox & Gould
Standish, Henry
Smith, Thom (?)
Spangleer, Henry
Smith, Daniel
Smith, Hannah
Shaw, nos T.
Shelf (or Shelss), Jacob W.
Smith, Robt.
Scully, Wm.
Shirlock, Nicolas
Slocum, Geo
Slocum, Henry
Smith, Chaz F.
Smith, Ellnathan Jr.
Smith, Eli
Smith, Cynthia
Snyder, Jno
Smith, Ellnathan
Smith, Crosby
Snyder, Henry
Snyder, Cynthia
Seely, Alvin
Seering & Green
Searing, Leonard
Sperry, Philo Jr

Scipio Property Owners in 1860

I am continuing with the 1860 assessment book, listing the names of Scipio property owners:
Vanliew, Daniel P.
Vanliew, Fayette
Vanliew, Peter
Van Arsdale, Peter

Daniel owned 235 acres in Lot 17. Fayette and Peter owned 84 acres and 75 acres respectively, in the same Lot. The Vanliew family (and that’s another name that spelled many different ways) was and continues to be a prominent one in Scipio. Daniel’s father was a Revolutionary War veteran and Daniel went on to fight in the Civil War.

You’ll recognize some of these names as well:
Tracy, Uriah
Tracy, Calvin
Tracy, Calvin
Thomas, Allen
Tallman, Jno. K.
Taber, Wm
Tallman, Gideon
Townsen, Samuel
Taylor, Franklin

The Tracy family also was one of Scipio’s earliest arrivals, again due to the military balloting of land to Revolutionary War veterans. A Calvin Tracy fought in the Civil War, dying in service in another state and returned here to lie with his family in death. One Calvin is listed as owning 210 acres; the other owned 1/2 acre.

More 1860 Assessments

Let’s talk some more about 1860. By this time, Scipio had been in existence about 65 years. It was populated by families, many of whom were farmers. There were churches, schools and libraries. Members of a Quaker group in the hamlet of Sherwood participated the Under Ground Rail Road. If I squint when I read the assessment book, it appears there were 366 pieces of property that year, everything from ½ acre to 200 or 300 acres.
State Taxes were $1420.65. County taxes, $2529.97. School taxes were $780.28, and Town taxes were $298.99.
Usually with the lists I put on the Scipio blog I start at the top of the alphabet. Let’s change things up for 1860:
Wooden, Sally
Wooden, William
Wright, Wilson
Whitfield, Geo.
Walton, Hannah
Ward, Hope
Ward, Irvin
Wood, Amzi
Wood, Amzi in trust
Wood, Oliver
Webster, Nathan
Webster, Nathan J
Watkins, G. S.
Wilson, Isaac
Whitfield, Chs
Wilson, Isaac in trust
Watkins, Sedra (?)
Watkins, Roswell
Weeks, Ira
Warner, Sally
Wallis, Sally
Wyckoff, G. B.
Wilson, Wm
Wyckoff, Alonzo
Wheat, Samuel
White, David M.
White, Luthan (?)
Waring, Raimond & Geo
Waring, Raimond
Ward, Hiram
Ward, Artemas & Bro(?)
Wilson, Samuel

Scipio in 1860

It was 1860, the year of turmoil just before the Civil War began. In Scipio, many men sacrificed their time, their lives and their livelihood for this war. I wondered who lived here then, so I checked the assessment book for 1860.
The total acreage that year was determined to be 22,426 and 3/4 acres. An acre in Scipio was valued at an average of $38.48 (or $1,020 in today's dollars).
That 1860 real estate was assessed at $863,166.00. Personal property was assessed at $190,650.00, for a total of $1,054,186.00. Take a deep breath - according to www.measuringworth.com, $28,100,000.00 in the year 2009 has the same "purchase power" as $1,054,186.00 in the year 1860.
That year, there was an additional assessment of 50 cents for military purposes. It appears that anyone liable for military service, including any household with a person age 18 to 21, was asked by law to pay this amount to defray town expenses. In Scipio, about 97 folks did not pay that bounty at the time the records were filed, and they are listed by name in the assessment book. They include George Adriance, Edward Buckhout, Fay, William and Edward Close; Robert and Manassah Knox, Manassah Story, Abram Post, Henry and Giles Slocum, and Alonzo Wyckoff.

Ozam Merryfield

Faithful readers may recall just a few posts back, I mentioned where the little hamlet of Merifield got its name. Ozam Merifield's father Thomas Merryfield was married to a Eunice Watkins in Massachusetts. Ozam lived and prospered in Scipio; the 1850 and 1851 assessments show that he owned 270 acres in Lots 21, 22 and 29. The same record shows Thomas Merryfield owning 100 acres but fails to show in what Lot.
Jane Merrifield, daughter of Ozam, married the second time to Samuel Russell. Samuel shows up in the 1853 assessments owning a small piece of property in Lot 38. Samuel's mother was Ann or Anna Russell and her name is also found in the assessment book as a property owner in Lot 38 in 1850 and 1851. Her name is missing in 1852, but we find a Dolly Russell, her daughter, owning property in Lot 38 so perhaps this is an indication that Anna deceased that year and ownership passed to Dolly. In 1853, the small and presumably same piece of property is in Samuel's name, no Dolly and no Ann.
Ozam started spelling the name with an I; previously it was spelled Merryfield. I also see this spelled as Maryfield. As many of you know, surnames are spelled as they sounded to whoever was doing the writing!
Little is known about Ozam, such as his wife, or what year his family arrived in Scipio. I have checked the Balloting Book, and this name was not granted land in Scipio or any other town in exchange for military service. They may still have arrived here that early. I also checked the Balloting Book for Russell, as it is believed that a Jonathan Russell was a Revolutionary War veteran and he is shown in the assessment book owning property in Lot 22 and he was indeed granted that land.

Property Laws

I found some interesting terms while researching property laws in NY.

Coverture: In English and American law, coverture refers to women's legal status after marriage: legally, upon marriage, the husband and wife were treated as one entity. In essence, the wife's separate legal existence disappeared as far as property rights were concerned. Under coverture, wives could not control their own property unless specific provisions were made before marriage, they could not file lawsuits or be sued separately, nor could they execute contracts. The husband could use, sell or dispose of her property (again, unless prior provisions were made) without her permission. Sir William Blackstone, in his 1765 authoritative legal text, Commentaries on the Laws of England, said this about coverture and the legal rights of married women:

"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called ... a feme-covert...."

This is from 1765, a time when women did not have the means, the societal approval, or the protection of society's laws to be self-supporting; the husband's job was to support and protect his wife and children. It was the woman's lot in life to find the best possible "feme-covert" to ensure not only she, but her children would be well-taken care of. In exchange, she ran the house and was responsible for meeting the domestic needs of the family.

Dowers: Under English common law and in colonial America, dower was the share of a deceased husband's real estate to which his widow was entitled after his death. After the widow's death, the real estate was then inherited as designated in her deceased husband's will; she had no rights to sell or bequeath the property independently. She did have rights to income from the dower during her lifetime, including rents and including income from crops grown on the land. One-third was the share of her late husband's real property to which dower rights entitled her; the husband could increase the share beyond one-third in his will. Where a mortgage or other debts offset the value of real estate and other property at the husband's death, dower rights meant that the estate could not be settled and the property could not be sold until the widow's death. In the 18th and 19th centuries, increasingly dower rights were ignored in order to settle estates more quickly, especially when mortgages or debts were involved.
In 1945 in the United States, a federal law abolished dower, though in most states, one-third of a husband's estate is awarded to a widow automatically if he dies without a will (intestate). Some laws limit the rights of a husband to bequeath less than one-third share to his widow except in prescribed circumstances.

Curtesy: A husband's right of inheritance. This is a principle in common law in England and early America by which a widower could use his deceased wife's property (that is, property which she acquired and held in her own name) until his own death, but could not sell or transfer it to anyone but children of his wife. Today in the United States, instead of using common law curtesy rights, most states explicitly require that one-third to one-half of a wife's property be given outright to her husband at her death, if she dies without a will (intestate). Curtesy is occasionally used to refer to a widower's interest as surviving spouse in the property left by the deceased wife, but many states have officially abolished curtesy and dower.

Dowry: refers to a gift or payment by a bride's family to the groom or his family at the time of marriage. As an archaic usage, dowry can also refer to dower, the goods a woman brings to a marriage and retains some power over. Less commonly, dowry refers to a gift or payment or property given by a man to or for his bride.

The Lawes Resolutions of Womens Rights: or, The Lawes Provision for Women. London, 1632:
New York State followed English common law in regard to the right of women to retain their property after marriage. This 1632 compilation of laws regarding women states:
Whatsoever the Husband had before Coverture either in goods or lands, it is absolutely his owne, the wife hath therein no seisin at all...
For thus it is, if before Marriage the Woman were possessed of Horses, Sheepe, Cowe, Wool, Money, Plate and Jewels, all manner of moveable substance is presently ... the husbands, to sell, keepe, or bequeath if he die: And though he bequeath them not, yet are they the Husbands Executors and not the wives which brought them to her Husband.

Pretty specific, in 1632!