1 29.86/4: M 36

Cultural Landscape Report

FOR

Martin Van BuREN

Nahonal Historic Site

FEOeHAL

PUBLIC A1

Site History, Existing Conditions, and Analysis

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation

National Park Service

Cultural Landscape Report

FOR

Marun Van BuREN

Nauonal Historic Site

Site History, Existing Conditions, and Analysis

prepared by

David L. Uschold

Research Scientist

and

George W. Curry,

Project Director

Faculty of Landscape Architecture

College of Environmental Science and Forestry

State University of New York

Syracuse, New York

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation

National Park Service

Boston, Massachusetts

June 1995
Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2012 with funding from

LYRASIS IVIembers and Sloan Foundation

http://archive.org/details/culturallandscapOOusch
FOREWORD

Landscape implies far more than high-style aesthetics; it is a document of the shared aspirations, ingenuity,

memories, and culture of its builders. J.B. Jackson

President Martin Van Buren purchased his New York estate, Lindenwald, in 1839 for political as well as personal reasons. Politically, Van Buren understood that his rhetoric promoting the philosophy of

Thomas Jefferson and agrarian pursuits would gain credibility if he were engaged in agriculture himself.

Personally Van Buren was familiar with this property from his youth, and knew that if he not win re- election in 1840, Lindenwald would make an excellent base for continued political pursuits and a glorious

retirement experimenting in horticulture. This place in his native village of Kinderhook tells us much

about him. After loosing his re-election bid again in 1848 Van Buren retired from politics to be, as he

listed himself in the 1850 census, a "farmer." He was a very successful farmer and enjoyed entertaining

at his "sweet Lindenwald."

The staff of the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site is pleased to have this Cultural

Landscape Report. This report was prepared through a cooperative agreement between the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry and the National Park Service.

The collaboration on this project was particularly satisfying to the park staff and we give special thanks to Research Scientist David L. Uschold and Professor George W. Curry of the State University of New

York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Nora Mitchell and Heidi Hohmann of the Olmsted

Center for Landscape Preservation.

This report will form the foundation for development of a plan to manage the cultural landscape

and the historic setting which is critical to the interpretation of Martin Van Buren and his "sweet

Lindenwald." We look forward to the day when the overall environment at the site will bespeak of the

culture of Martin Van Buren in the mid-nineteenth century in Kinderhook.

Contents

Foreword iii Acknowledgments vii

List of Illustrations ix

Introduction 1

I. Van Ness Period 1

1

II. Van Buren Period 3

1

III. Wagoner Period 59

IV. deProsse Period 77

V. National Park Service Period 109

VI. Statement of Significance and Site Analysis 155

Conclusion 1 87

Endnotes 189

Appendices

Appendix A: Completed NPS Reports

Appendix B: Landscape Feature Table

Appendix C: Repositories Consulted and Results

Appendix D: Individuals Consulted

Appendix E: National Register of Historic Places nomination Form

Appendix F: Miscellaneous Graphic Documentation

Appendix G: Plant Lists

Bibliography

Vita

Acknowledgments

The development of this cultural landscape report was a cooperative effort between the

National Park Service North Atlantic Region, the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, and the

State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry Faculty of Landscape

Architecture. Many individuals helped make the completion of this report possible.

Special thanks to Nora Mitchell, Manager, and Heidi Hohmann, Historical Landscape

Architect, both of the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, for their guidance and support

throughout the project.

The staff at Martin Van Buren National Historic Site provided invaluable guidance and

assistance. Special thanks to Bruce Stewart, Superintendent, who passed away during completion of

the report. Thanks also go to Phyllis Ewing, Acting Superintendent, and Richard Oullette, Chief of

Maintenance. Special thanks go to Judy Harris, Museum Technician, and Michael Henderson,

Curator, currently Supervisory Staff Curator, North Atlantic Region.

Thanks also need to be given to Christine Capella-Peters, Field Representative, NYS Office of

Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, and to Scott Shannon, Assistant Professor of Landscape

Architecture, Matt Potteiger, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Donald Leopold,

Associate Professor of Environmental and Forest Biology, all of the SUNY College of Environmental

Science and Forestry.

Special thanks go to William deProsse Jr. and his sister Jeanne B. Akers. The deProsse family

owned and lived at Lindenwald from 1917-1957. William and Jeanne provided invaluable assistance

in documenting the property.

List of Illustrations

Figure 0.1: Context map: Kindertiook, New York (Uschold, 1993. 1 SUNY CESF).

Figure 0.2: Location map: Lindenwald, Kinderhook, New York (Uschold, 2

1993. SUNY CESF).

Figure 0.3: Lindenwald ownership chronology (Uschold, 1993. SUNY 4

CESF).

Figure 1.1: KinderhookPatentMapof 1686, illustrating area patents of 1686 14

and a 1780 overlay of land allotments of smaller farms (Collier,

A History of Old Kinderhook , 124).

Figure 1.2: Environmental context: Van Ness Period (Uschold, 1993. 15

SUNY CESF).

Figure 1.3: 1805 Map: Produced as a result of the will of Peter Van Ness in 17

1805, this demonstrates the division of Kleinrood between John

and William Van Ness (Photographic copy on file, MVB NHS).

Figure 1.4: Kleinrood: 1780-1805, Peter Van Ness farm (Uschold, 1993. 18

SUNY CESF).

Figure 1.5: Kleinrood: 1805-1839, John Van Ness farni and William Van 18

NessAViUiam Paulding farm (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

Figure 1.6: 1797 Peter Van Ness house (DSC, National Park Service, n.d.). 20

Figure 1.7: Carriage bam, 1937 (Photo # CLR-403. On fUe, MVB NHS). 21

Figure 1.8: Farm office, 1936 (Photo # CLR-401. On file, MVB NHS). 22

Figure 2.1: Environmental context: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. 33

SUNY CESF).

Figure 2.2: Setting: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF). 34

Figure 2.3: Topography & Hydrology: Van Buren Period (USGS, 1976. 36

Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

Figure 2.4: c. 1841 sketch map of Lindenwald (Martin Van Buren Papers, 37

Syracuse University).
Figure 2.5: c. 1843 sketch of Lindenwald main house (Photo # CLR-201

,

38

photographic copy. On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 2.6: Farm cottage and red hiUside bam, c. 1900 (Photo #CLR-002. 39

On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 2.7: Black hay bam, c. 1940 (Photo #CLR-471. On file, MVB NHS). 39

Figure 2.8: Lindenwald main house, pre- 1849 (DSC, National Parte 40

Service, n.d.).

Figure 2.9: Lindenwald main house, post- 1850 (DSC, National Park 40

Service, n.d.).

Figure 2.10: South gate house, 1993 (Photo # CLR- 1510. Uschold, 41

SUNY CESF).

Figure 2.11: North gate house, c. 1945 (Photo #CLR-426. On file, MVB 41

NHS).

Figure 2.12: Buildings and Stmctures: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. 42

SUNY CESF).

Figure 2.13: Pear orchard north of main house, front portion of north 44

orchard, c.1900 (Photo # CLR-31 1.5. On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 2.14: Vegetation: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF). 46

Figure 2.15: c. 1843 sketch of main house (Photo # CLR-201, photographic 47

copy of original drawing. On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 2.16: c.l849UpjohnRenderingof Main house (Photo #CLR-202, 47

photographic copy of original painting. On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 2.17: Front garden at entrance to main house, c.1913 (Photo # CLR-302. 49

On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 2.18: Spatial Organization: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY 50

CESF).

Figure 2.19 : South entrance drive and road to farm cottage, c. 191 3 (Photo 5

1

#CLR-301. On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 2.20: Circulation: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF). 52

Figure 2.21: Water Features: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF). 53
Figure 3.1: Agriculture use (com field) of front lawn, c. 1905 (Photo 60

#CLR-303. On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 3.2: Front lawn and main house, c.1913 (Photo #CLR-304. 61

On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 3.3: Well house, c. 1920 (Photo # CLR-423. On file, MVB NHS). 62

Figure 3.4: Wood shed, c. 1900 (Photo #CLR-004. On file, MVB NHS). 63

Figure 3.5: Wood shed, c. 1940 (Photo #CLR-4 16. On file, MVB NHS). 35

Figure 3.6: Wagoner garage, 1969 (Photo #CLR-429. On file, MVB NHS). 65

Fi gure 3.7

:

Front garden and front lawn, c.1913 (Photo # CLR-006. 67

On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 3.8: Entry drive, road to farm cottage, and garden fence, c.1913 69

(Photo # CLR-301.5. On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 3.9: Frontviewof main house, showing curved trellis, c. 1895 70

(Photo #CLR-3 12. On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 3.10: Viewofmainhouse, showing rectangular trellis and lawn 70

swing, c.1913 (Photo # CLR-308. On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 3.11: Viewofmainhouse, showing hitching posts, c. 1900 (Photo 71

#CLR-311. On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 3.12: View along Post Road, showing front fence and gates to entry 72

drive, c.1895 (Photo # CLR-315. On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 4.1: Setting: Bimey (1917-1925) and deProsse (1925-1957) 79

ownerships, deProsse Period, (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

Figure 4.2: Setting: deProsse (1925-1957) and CampbeU (1957-1973) 80

ownerships, deProsse Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

Figure 4.3: Rear porch on main house, 1937 (Photo #CLR-450. On file, 81

MVB NHS).

Figure 4.4: Enlarged rear porch on main house, 1936 (Photo # CLR-463. 82

On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 4.5: Campbell front porch on main house, 1974 (Photo # CLR-530. 82

On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 4.6: South gate house, 1950 (Photo # CLR-434. On file, MVB NHS). 83
Figure 4.7:

Figure 4.8:

Figure 4.9:

Figure 4.10:

Figure 4.11:

Figure 4.12:

Figure 4.13:

Figure 4.14:

Figure 4.15:

Figure 4.16:

Figure 4.17:

Figure 4.18:

Figure 4.19:

Figure 4.20:

Figure 4.21:

Figure 4.22:

Figure 4.23:

Figure 4.24:

Figure 4.25:

North gate house, n.d. (1890-1930) (Photo # CLR-003. On

file, MVB ^fHS).

Carriage bam, n.d. (1890-1936) (Photo # CLR-001. On file, MVB NHS).

Black hay bam, c.1940 (Photo # CLR-408. On file, MVB NHS).

Shed complex behind main house, c.1945 (Photo # a^R-419.

On file, MVB NHS).

Wood shed behind main house, c.1940 (Photo # CLR-41 1. On file, MVB NHS).

Campbell garage, behind main house, c.1969 (Photo # CLR-41 8. On file, MVB NHS).

Well house converted into play house, c.1935 (Photo # CLR-427.

On file, MVB NHS).

Slate shed in Wagoner garage and well house/play house,

behind main house, c.1940 (Photo # CLR-407. On file, MVB NHS).

CampbeU antique shop, 1981 (Photo # CLR-537. On file, MVB NHS).

South gate house, c.1930 (Photo # CLR-41 3. On file, MVB NHS).

East comer of main house, 1936 (Photo # CLR-42 1 . On file, MVB NHS).

North gate house, c.1945 (Photo # CLR-415. On file, MVB NHS).

Front lawn, c. 1950 (Photo # CLR-405. On file, MVB NHS).

Front lawn, 1969 (Photo # CLR-459. On file, MVB NHS).

Front lawn, 1969 (Photo # CLR-458. On file, MVB NHS).

Front lawn, 1969 (Photo # CLR-457. On file, MVB NHS).

Detail of Lindenwald garden, c.1940 (William deProsse, 1993.

Re-drawn by Uschold, 1993).

Spafial Organization and Views, deProsse Period (Uschold,

1993. SUNYCESF).

Fumishings and objects, south of main house, 1974 (Photo

#CLR-536. On file, MVB NHS).

84

85

86

87

88

88

89

90

91

92

92

93

93

94

94

95

97

99

101
Figure 4.26: Picket fence surrounding garden, c. 19 13 (Photo #CLR-301. 102

On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 4.27: Detailof picket fence surrounding garden (William deProsse, 1993. 102

Re-drawn by Uschold, 1993).

Figure 4.28: Furnishings and objects, south of main house, 1969 (Photo 103

#CLR-453. On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 4.29: Fence around Van Ness grave, behind main house, c. 1960 104

(Photo # CLR-010. On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 5.1 : Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, aerial view from south, 1 10

present park setting, 1978 (Photo # CLR-550. On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 5.2: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, aerial view from west. 111

present park setting, 1978 (Photo # CLR-551. On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 5.3: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site parcels (MVB NHS). 112

Figure 5.4: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site parcels (Uschold, 1993. 113

SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.5: Setting: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site (Uschold, 1993. 1 14

SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.6: Lindenwald, main house, 1993 (Photo #CLR-1411. Uschold, 115

SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.7: South gate house, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1316. Uschold, SUNY 116

CESF).

Figure 5.8: North gatehouse foundation, 1993 (Photo #CLR- 1654. J. Harris, NPS). 116

Figure 5.9: Farm office foundation, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1666. J. Harris, NPS). 117

Figure 5.10: Campbell garage: maintenance garage, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1 1 16. 118

Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.11: Wagoner garage, 1974 (Photo # CLR-501. On file, MVB NHS). 118

Figure 5.12: Mobile homes: administrative and curatorial offices, 1993 (Photo 1 19

# CLR-1 1 18. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.13: Pole bam: curatorial storage and maintenance office, 1993 (Photo 1 19

# CLR-1 1 17. Uschold, SUNY CESF).
Figure 5.14: Farm cottage, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1 1 12. Uschold, SUNY 120

CESF).

Figure 5.15: Meyer farm complex and 1985 ranch house, 1993 (Photo 121

# CLR-1 3 13. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.16: Meyer farm complex, 1993 (Photo #CLR-1509. Uschold, 121

SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.17: Historic weU for main house, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1 1 15. 122

Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.18: Electric service pole for Meyer farm complex, 1993 123

(Photo # CLR-1415. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.19: Front south lawn, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1421. Uschold, SUNY 124

CESF).

Figure 5.20: Front lawn, pine row, & south drive, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1520. 125

Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.21: Pine row & front pine grove, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1423. Uschold, 125

SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.22: Pine row, 1993 (Photo # CLR-2061. Uschold, SUNY CESF). 126

Figure 5.23: Vegetation south of main house, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1 308. 126

Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.24: Nursery at rear of site, 1993 (Photo # CLR-3002. Uschold, 127

SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.25: View of site from Post Road & Rt. 9h, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1 507. 128

Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.26: View of Post Road & Rt. 9h from tower of main house, 1993 129

(Photo # CLR-1 525. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.27: View toward farm cottage & Van Ness grave from main house, 1993 130

(Photo # CLR-1517. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.28: View toward CatskiU Mts. from rear of site, 1993 (Photo # CLR-3003. 130

Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.29: South drive, from main house toward south gate house, 1993 (Photo 131

# CLR-1 307. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.30: North drive, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1604. Uschold, SUNY CESF). 132
Figure 5.31: Farm road, from Rt. 9h, 1993 (Photo #CLR- 1312. Uschold, 132

SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.32: Employee parking area, from farm road, 1993 (Photo #CLR- 133

1320. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.33: Visitor parking, along Post Road, 1993 (Photo # CLR-131 1. 133

Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.34: Handicap parking, rear of main house, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1 121. 134

Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.35: New York State Route 9h & Post Road, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1606. 134

Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.36: Upper fish pond and smaller pond flanking farm road, 1993 (Photo 135

# CLR-1 3 18. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.37: Upper fish pond, 1993 (Photo # CLR-3004. Uschold, SUNY CESF). 136

Figure 5.38: Small pond adjacent to fami road, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1319. 136

Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.39: Existing pond at base of slope, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1 107. 137

Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.40: Northern Meyer pond at base of slope, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1 672. 138

J. Harris, NPS).

Figure 5.41: Southern Meyer pond at base of slope, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1 671. 138

J. Harris, NPS).

Figure 5.42: Northern Meyer pond within slope, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1 1 10. 139

Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.43: Southern Meyer pond within slope, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1669. 139

J. Harris, NPS).

Figure 5.44: Uminfrontof main house, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1 662. Uschold, 140

SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.45: Stone marker in front of south gate house, 1993 (Photo 141

# CLR-1601. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.46: Benches on front lawn, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1659. J. Harris, NPS). 142

Figure 5.47: Parte sign & flagpole in front of parte, 1993 (Photo # CLR-3005. 142

Uschold, SUNY CESF).
Figure 5.48:

Figure 5.49:

Figure 5.50:

Aluminum sheds at rear of park, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1122. 143

Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Portable toilets for visitor rest rooms, 1993 (Photo # CLR-3006. 143

J. Harris, NPS).

Headstone for Peter Van Ness grave behind main house, on 144

Meyer property, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1102. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 6.1:

Figure 6.2:

Spatial Organization of Lindenwald Farm, Van Buren Period

(Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

Spatial Organization of Lindenwald Farm, 1993 (Uschold, 1993.

SUNY CESF).

161

161

Figure 7.1: Fee and easement acquisition of land (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF). 194

PERIOD PLANS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS MAPS

Historic Farm, Van Ness Period: 1780-1839

Historic Core, Van Ness Period: 1780-1839

Historic Farm, Van Buren Period: 1839-1864

Historic Core, Van Buren Period: 1839-1864

Historic Farm, Wagoner Period: 1864-1917

Historic Core, Wagoner Period: 1864-1917

Historic Farm, deProsse Period: 1917-1973

Historic Core, deProsse Period: 1917-1973

Historic Farm, National Park Service Period: 1973-1993

Historic Core, National Park Service Period: 1973-1993

Historic Farm, Existing Conditions: 1993

Historic Core, Existing Conditions: 1993

27

29

55

57

73

75

105

107

147

149

151

153
Introduction

The Hudson Valley property known as Lindenwald, is significant as the home of Martin Van

Buren, the eighth President of the United States, who served in office from 1836 until 1840. Martin Van

Buren established his home as a 221 -acre experimental and working farm and managed it for twenty-three

years, beginning in 1839. His residency on the property began at the completion of his presidential term,

in 1841, and lasted until his death in 1862. The National Park Service now owns 20.3 acres, which

includes a 14.3-acre portion of the core of Lindenwald, and operates it as the Martin Van Buren National

Historic Site. Lindenwald is located on Post Road in the Village of Kinderhook, twenty miles south of

Albany and two miles east of the Hudson River, in the County of Columbia, State of New York (fig. 0.

1

and 0.2).

t

North NTS

New York City

Figure 0.1: Context map: Kinderhook, New York (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).
Introduction

North NTS

Figure 0.2: Location map: Lindenwald, Kinderhook, New York (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).
Introduction

Martin Van Buren NHS Overview

Lindenwald has seen vast changes throughout its history. Earliest documentation of the site shows Native American habitation as late as the seventeenth century. Then, under Dutch control, it became farmland as part of large farms until the late eighteenth century, when it became a private, smaller

farm. The property was established as a 260-acre farm by Peter Van Ness circa 1780, the beginning of

the first period of this report's site history (fig. 0.3). Peter Van Ness built a large house on the property

and named the farm Kleinrood. The Van Ness family operated the property until 1824. At that time,

William Paulding purchased 137 acres of the farm including the Van Ness farm house. Paulding never

lived on the property but did operate it as a working farm until 1839, at which time he sold it to Martin

Van Buren (here after referred to as "Van Buren").

The Van Buren stewardship of the property is the focus of this report. This stewardship

encompasses the twenty-three year period, from 1839 to 1862, Van Buren operated the farm, which he

renamed Lindenwald. Although Van Buren did not take residency until leaving the White House in 1841,

he began making improvements to the property immediately after his purchase in 1839. These

improvements continued for the next eleven years and included the addition of eighty-four acres of land,

the transformation of the Van Ness farm house into an elaborate mansion, the construction of several

support buildings, and the establishment of extensive orchards and a garden. Van Buren created a prosperous working and experimental farai which he used as a country seat and from which he remained

politically active until his death in 1862. The two years after Van Buren's death are also included in the

Van Buren Period because the property remained within his family until 1864.

Subsequent to the Van Buren stewardship, the farm had many owners (fig. 0.3). The continuing

evolution of the property can be divided into three periods. During the first of these, the Wagoner Period,

the property remained in operation as a working farm under four different ovmerships. FoUowing this period, the deProsse Period encompasses the ownerships of two families, who, for the most part, used

Lindenwald solely as a residence and reduced the property by selling the farmland, leaving 12.8 acres. After these ownerships and vast changes and alterations, Lindenwald was declared a National Historic

Landmark in 1961. Finally, the National Parte Service Period began when the National Parte Foundation

purchased the property in 1973, saving it from further deterioration and alterations. Following this purchase, ownership of the 12.8-acre property was transferred to the National Parte Service in 1975 and

the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site (MVB NHS) was established.

This remnant of Van Buren's Lindenwald was in a state of neglect when transferred to the

National Park Service. The main house and a single outbuilding were the only remaining historic

buildings on the site. Known surviving landscape elements were the entry drive, a fish pond, and several

historic trees.

Twenty years after the first acquisition, the National Park Service now owns 20.3 acres as well as an additional 18.3 acres of scenic easements. Interior restoration of the main house was completed in

1987, and the exterior in 1991, returning the building to its 1850s appearance. Approximately 166 acres of Van Buren's 221 -acre farm are owned and farmed by local farmers, visually providing the appearance

of almost the entire, original Van Buren farm. The immediate house grounds underwent a major clean-up
Introduction

when the site was obtained by the National Park Service. This effort took several years and concentrated on the removal of debris and clearing of the vegetation that had overgrown the property. Since the

completion of this effort, the grounds have been maintained in that condition.

llllTemiillll Owner CLR Periods

1780-1804

1804-1824

1824-1839

Peter Van Ness

William Van Ness

William Paulding

Chapter I: 1780-1839: Van Ness Period

1839-1862

1862-1863

1863-1864

Martin Van Buren

Martin Van Buren Estate John Van Buren

Chapter n: 1839-1864: Van Buren Period

1864-1867

1867-1873

1873-1874

1874-1917

Leonard Jerome

George Wilder

J, Van Buren & J. Van Alstyne

A. & F. Wagoner

Chapter ni: 1864-1917: Wagoner Period

1917-1922

1922-1925

1925-1957

1957-1973

Bascom Bimey

Marion Bimey

Clementine deProsse

Kenneth CampbeU

Chapter IV: 1917-1973: deProsse Period

1973-1975

1975-1993

National Paiic Foundation

National Parte Service Chapter V: 1973-1993: NPS Period

Figure 0.3: Lindenwald ownership chronology (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).
Introduction

Cultural Landscape Report

Accurate preservation and interpretation of an historic site is often a complex task and varies

greatly according to the specifics of the site involved. The preservation process begins with in-depth

research and documentation of the evolution of the site to determine the historic time period(s) for which

the site is significant. In addition, complete documentation of the existing conditions and features of the

site is necessary. These two products, site history and existing conditions, are analyzed to determine the

signilRcance and integrity of the present site, which in turn provide the basis on which recommendations

and guidelines for preservation treatment and management of the site and its resources can be developed.

The purpose of this Cultural Landscape Report is to provide a basis for preservation treatment

and management for the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. This is accomplished by documenting

the evolution of the property from the time it was first established as a farm, circa 1780, until the site's existing conditions in 1993. Based on this documentation, the report analyzes the property to determine

its degree of integrity and recommends an appropriate preservation treatment.

In 1975, the National Park Service obtained 12.8 acres of Lindenwald, which consisted of the

main house and the core of the house lot surrounding it. With extensive restoration of the main house and

a general clean-up of the grounds underway, the property was opened to the public in 1977. Since the

completion of these efforts in 1991, interpretation of the site has concentrated on the main house and the

political career of Van Buren.

Although several reports have been written to document the property and its associated features,

they have lacked sufficient information regarding the landscape to justify any treatment of the grounds

beyond preservation of the existing conditions. This Cultural Landscape Report addresses the need for

detailed and comprehensive documentation of the landscape and its evolution. From this information, a plan for the future treatment and management of Lindenwald as a cultural landscape can be easily

formulated.

Methodology

Three different methodologies were used to complete this report. They included a thorough

research of written and graphic sources to provide a complete record of the evolution of the site; a field survey documenting the existing conditions of the site; and an analysis of the existing landscape's

integrity for the site's significant time period.

Prior to research and documentation, the character-defining features of a cultural landscape were

defined in an effort to create a system for documenting these features. A list of character-defining

landscape features was developed.^ To fully document the evolution of the landscape, these features and

changes that occur to them are recorded through time. Features are therefore documented in each period

and chapter of the report so that their individual evolution may be followed. The list of landscape

features is as follows:
Introduction

Environment - the general external influences affecting the historic landscape, the off-site larger

physical and visual context which contains or encompasses the historic landscape.

Natural - the natural physical form and features of the surrounding environment that has or does

directly affect the historic landscape (major landforms, ridges/valleys, vegetation, water bodies,

wetlands, etc.).

Socio/Cultural - the general human overlay on the physical form of the surrounding environment

that has or does directly affect the historic landscape (general land use, zoning, legal restrictions,

transportation, utilities, population, political jurisdiction—state, county, city, village, town, etc.).

Setting - the most immediate physical and visual context for the historic landscape (property limits,

adjacent property, land use, etc.).

Natural Systems and Features - the natural aspects of the landscape often, during the process of

manipulating the landscape, have a direct effect on the resultant form. Different from ihe natural context of the "Environment" section, "Natural Systems & Features" pertains to aspects of the historic

landscape that are on the site or directly adjacent to it. The following natural aspects may be relevant

to the historic landscape:

Physiography - the large scale physical forms and patterns of the historic landscape (hill, plateau,

ravine, drumlin, etc.).

Topography - the inextractable framework of the historic landscape; the three dimensional

configuration of the earth surface characterized by features (ground slope, configuration of

contours, visual forms, etc.) and orientation (elevation, solar aspect, etc.) of the historic

landscape.

Geology - the history and physical nature of the surficial characteristics of the historic landscape

(soils, rocks, structure, etc.).

Hydrology - the cycles and distribution of surface and subsurface water of the historic landscape

(aquifers, drainage patterns, water bodies, water tables, etc.).

Ecologv - the relationships of living organisms and their environment in the historic landscape

(plant associations, wildUfe habitat, etc.).

Climate - the prevailing weather conditions of the historic landscape (precipitation, sun, temperature, wind, etc.).

Buildings and Structures - the elements built primarily for sheltering any form of human activity are buildings (houses, bams, garages, stables, etc.) and the functional elements constructed for purposes

other than sheltering human activity are structures (bridges, windmills, gazebos, silos, dams, etc.). Included in this category are mechanical and engineering systems.

Mechanical Systems - the features and materials which combine to provide utility service to the

historic landscape (power lines, hydrants, culverts, etc.).

Site Engineering Systems - the systems and individual features which provide a physically

stabilizing factor to all or a portion of the historic landscape (retaining walls, dikes, foundations,

etc.).
Introduction

Vegetation - the individual and associated deciduous or evergreen trees, shrubs, vines, ground covers and herbaceous materials, whether indigenous or introduced. A major component of a constantly

changing historic landscape (specimen tree, hedge, lorest, orchard, bosquet, vegetable garden,

agricultural field, perennial bed, etc.).

Spatial Organization - the structure or order of the historic landscape; the three dimensional

organization of physical and visual associations. The organization of elements creating the base,

vertical and overhead plane define and create spaces. The functional and visual relationship between

these spaces is integral to the character of the historic landscape (open space, enclosed space, corridor

space, etc.). Views and vistas are included in this category as an element of the spatial organization

of the historic landscape.

Views and Vistas - the features that create or allow a view (natural, uncontrolled) or a vista (a

controlled, designed feature). The views or vistas may be to or from the historic landscape

(panoramic view, borrowed view or vista, on-site view or vista, etc.).

Circulation - the spaces, features and applied material finishes which constitute the movement

systems of the historic landscape (paths, walks, plazas, squares, roads, parking facilities, etc.).

Water Features - the built features and elements which utilize water to create thematic or aesthetic

elements within the historic landscape (fountains, pools, ponds, lakes, cascades, canals, streams, etc.).

Furnishings and Objects - the elements which provide detail and diversity while addressing

functional needs and aesthetic concerns in the historic landscape (fences, benches, urns, flagpoles,

sculptures, markers, monuments, signs, etc.).

In the text, subsequent to the introduction of a feature, the feature is only discussed again when a change occurs or when new information regarding it is presented. A table summarizing which features were researched and presented within which chapters is included in Appendix B.

The initial research for the project consisted of a thorough investigation of secondary sources concerning the life and times of Van Buren, as a President of the United States and as a gentleman farmer

of Kinderhook, New York. This included a review of books, periodicals, and previous National Park

Service reports regarding the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site (see Appendix A).

After the initial review was completed, an extensive research of primary sources was conducted

over an eighteen-month period, exhausting all presently known sources thought to contain information

regarding Van Buren's Lindenwald. The majority of this effort consisted of searching manuscript

collections containing correspondence to, from, or about Van Buren (see Appendix C). Maps of the

property dating as early as the seventeenth century, and historic photographs dating as early as circa 1890

also provided extensive information. Additional information was gained through a deed search for the

property. Furthermore, a tremendous amount of information was obtained from oral interviews of several

persons associated with the property during the beginning of the twentieth century. When combined and

composed, all of these and other sources provided an extensive amount of information about the property

as weU as a means of verifying facts between sources.
Introduction

Another important resource in researching the history of the property was a thorough

documentation of the existing conditions of the site. The National Park Service owns only a portion of

Van Buren's Lindenwald and the maps of the site only covered a portion of what they control, either by

ownership or easement. The extent of these maps was thus limited to the topography of a small area and some of the buildings and structures of the property. No detailed map of the original property existed nor

did an accurate map of the remainder of the Lindenwald farm.

It was therefore necessary to construct a detailed map of the existing National Park Service

property, illustrating all of the landscape features as well as a map illustrating the remainder of the

Lindenwald farm property. As a result, a detailed field survey of the National Park Service property was

completed to record its existing conditions and a map was constructed. ^ This map documents all of the

landscape features not recorded on existing maps. In addition, a map was constructed to illustrate the

property boundaries and major landscape elements of the remainder of the Lindenwald farm.^

An analysis and comparison of the historic landscape and existing conditions was the next step.

The established historic conditions of the site's period of significance were compared to the existing

conditions of the property to determine the significance and integrity of the existing landscape. Based on

this information, the National Register of Historic Places nomination form for the property was reviewed

and it was determined that an amendment needs to be prepared which includes the landscape of the

property.

Organization of Report

This Cultural Landscape Report is organized into six chapters, with the site history providing the

structure for the report. The history is broken into chapters based on five identifiable time frames

designated by the corresponding owners (fig. 0.3):

Chapter I: Van Ness Period: 1780-1839

Chapter II: Van Buren Period: 1839-1864

Chapter III: Wagoner Period: 1864-1917

Chapter IV: deProsse Period: 1917-1973

Chapter V: National Park Service Period: 1973-1993

The demarcation of each of these time frames is explained within the respective chapter of the

report. Each of the five periods is discussed in detail, documenting events on the site as well as important

aspects of the time frame that may have affected the site and its evolution. Each chapter begins with an

historic overview of the site during the period. The overview presents information on the general

environment of the site including the natural physical form and the socio/cultural conditions of the period.

The overview is followed by a detailed description of the evolution of the site's landscape features. At the

end of each of the chapters is a set of "period plans" which graphically illustrate the site during the

corresponding time frame. These plans are constructed at scales of 1" = 50' and 1" = 250'.'* The period
Introduction

plans represent all of the elements discussed in the landscape features for that time frame. In addition to the plans, photographs and other illustrations are used to support the text. Chapter 5, National Park

Service Period: 1973-1993, documents all of the changes that occurred during that time frame as well as

the landscape features and existing conditions of the site at the completion of this report in 1993. A set of

existing conditions maps is also included at the end of chapter 5.

The last chapter presents the site analysis, which evaluates the significance and integrity of the

landscape at the site. At the end of the report extensive appendices include such items as information

sources used for the research process, pertinent historic documents used in the report, a bibliography, and

further explanation regarding the landscape features developed for the report.

Chapter I: Van Ness Period

1780-1839

Until 1609, the Hudson River Valley was occupied solely by the Mahicans, a Native American

tribe of the Lenni-Lenapes, which means "original people." The Mahicans built their camp in what is now the village of Schodack, meaning "place of council."^ It was during this year that Henry Hudson, in

his ship the Half Moon, made the first documented European voyage up the Hudson River. Although

Hudson was English, he conducted this voyage for the Dutch in hope of finding a northern or western

route to the East Indies. This was the third of four trips Hudson made across the Atlantic for this same

purpose. Although these trips were unsuccessful regarding their intended purpose, the Dutch realized the

importance and value of Hudson's land discovery during this voyage, beginning European settlement in

the Hudson Valley. The discovery also began fifty years of Dutch control of the Valley and its waters,

during which the Dutch established and profited from an immense fur trading industry. Although

colonization of the area did not occur as quickly or enthusiastically as hoped by the Dutch government,

when settlement did occur, it was thorough and permanent. By the middle of the 16(X)s, the Dutch

province called New Netherlands was firmly established.^

As Hudson traveled up the River in 1609 he made many stops along the way. He often gave

these places names, usually corresponding to something that was present or witnessed. Some of these names still exist today. In a place thought to be the most northerly location of the Half Moon's voyage,

Hudson witnessed Native American children playing and named the place Kinderhook, meaning

"Children's Corner.""^

Within the following decade, the Dutch established trading posts along the River. The largest and

most significant was New Amsterdam on Manhattan Island. Two other posts of lesser significance were

also established. They were Rondout at the location of present day Kingston, New Yoric and Beverwyck

at Albany, New York.

The Dutch wished to encourage settlement in their newly acquired land. To do so, the States General of Holland, the country's governing body, issued two charters to the Dutch West India Company,

one in 1621 and another in 1629. These charters allowed company members to purchase land from the

Native Americans and establish colonies on it.^ The land would be purchased in eight mile strips along one or both sides of the River. A minimum of fifty persons was required to start a colony. The person

who obtained the land and started the colony was known as the "patroon" and the colony a "patroonship."

Rensselaerwyck (at the location of Albany/Troy, New York) was the largest and most well-known of

these patroonships. Persons who were not members of the company also were allowed to purchase land.

They could purchase lands from the Native Americans that did not exceed an amount which they could

readily improve.^ In 1623, a province was established called New Netherlands, covering Manhattan and

part of Long Island. The Dutch also claimed the rights to the water of the Hudson River, which they

called the "Mauritius River."^^ Two additional Dutch charters of 1640 and 1650 allowed other individual

settlers to establish much smaller colonies or farms. These settlers did not have to be members of the

company, but their grants or patents did not carry the same rights and privileges held by the patroons.^^

For protection purposes, this type of land purchase became popular in areas just outside the control of a

11
Chapter I: Van Ness Period 1780-1839

patroon or close to a fort or trading post. The Governor of the New Netherlands issued a warning that aU

individual setflements be established in clusters due to the fear of Native American attack. The village of

Kinderhook developed as a result of these types of individual settlements, as weU as the warning

regarding such attacks. Many Dutch coming to New Netherlands found settlement in the area inviting for

two reasons. First, settlers who did not desire or need the help of a patroon could settle there since it was

not under the control of a patroonship.^2 Second, the area was in close proximity to Fort Orange at Beverwyck, providing the settlers with an additional degree of safety from possible Native American

attack.

As colonies began to appear and settlement increased along the shores of the River during the

1640s and 1650s, the Native American population began to decline. The first relations with the Native

Americans were primarily the trading of goods and the selling of land, which were always based on

barters as the Native Americans had no use for the Dutch currency.^^ As settlement increased, skirmishes

began to occur between the Native Americans and the settlers. Slowly, the Native Americans were

pushed from the area in all directions. Although their removal by the settlers was unintentional, by the

late 1700s the Native Americans aU had moved from the River Valley. ^^

Aside from the Native American presence, establishment of the new settlements had other

dangers. The English posed a serious threat to the Dutch province of New Netherlands. In 1664 the

English successfully defeated the Dutch for control of the province, forcing the Dutch governors, but not

the settlers, to sail back to Holland. With the departure of the Dutch government began the influx of

German, French, and English immigrants. When the English took control of the province they also

changed a number of the Dutch names. The Mauritius River was renamed the Hudson River in honor of

the English explorer who charted it. The settlement of New Amsterdam was renamed New Yoric Town

and the province changed from New Netherlands to New York. Beverwyck also was changed to Albany.

The English takeover brought about an increase in settlement. However, the Dutch had made a strong

impact on the area which remained through the take-over. i^ The Dutch settlement in Kinderiiook was

strongly established and was not affected by the take-over.

The English established settlements by creating "manors," similar to the Dutch patroons. Four

noteworthy manors existed during English control of the Hudson River Valley. Rensselaerwyck, located

at Albany, was the largest. It was a Dutch patroon reestablished into an English manor. The Livingston

Manor was located approximately thirty miles south of Albany on the east shore of the Hudson River and

contained approximately 160,000 acres. The Philipse Manor and Van Cortland Manor both were located

to the south of Livingston Manor. From these, and other manors, settlers could either rent land (copy

holders) or purchase it (free holders) from the Lord of the Manor. In both cases they were expected to demonstrate political support of their Lord. ^^

The area surrounding Kinderhook was dense with farming, much of it orchards, throughout this time, beginning with large farms and estates and continuing later with smaller farms. Land ownership

usually was accomplished through large grants or patents sought by individual owners. These farms

ranged from smaU holdings of hundreds of acres to larger properties containing thousands of acres.

12
Chapter I: Van Ness Period 1780-1839

The small site that would become Peter Van Ness's Kleinrood, was first part of the 1664 Thomas

Powell Patent and then part of the 3000-acre Van Alstyne family holding. The Van Alstyne's large land

holding, and evidence that they owned more slaves than any other family in the Kinderhook area (as

many as eighteen per each of the Van Alstyne households), suggests the Van Alstyne farm was among the

largest in Kinderhook. ^^ Kleinrood was part of this large farm until the late eighteenth century.^^ Many

of these larger properties were divided and sold as smaller parcels after the initial large grant or patent.

Portions were divided among family members or sold outside the families. The Kleinrood parcel was a

result of the division of the Van Alstyne farm in the eighteenth century. Peter Van Ness, a Kinderhook

judge, purchased 260 acres of farmland around 1780 from the Van Alstynes.

Three different individuals from two families owned the site during the fifty-nine years that

encompass the Van Ness Period. Peter Van Ness first established the 260-acre farm between 1780 and

1787. He and his family lived in the existing Van Alstyne stone house and operated the property as a working farm. In 1797, Peter Van Ness constructed a portion of the main house that exists today and

named the farm Kleinrood. When Peter Van Ness died in 1804, he passed the main house and 137 acres of the farm to his son William Van Ness, who retained the Kleinrood name for his property. The

remaining land was passed to John Van Ness, Peter's oldest son. William retained his 137-acre property

until 1 824, when he was forced to sell it, for financial reasons, to William Paulding. Paulding, the Mayor

of New York City and a friend of William Van Ness, presumably purchased the property with the

intention of holding it for Van Ness's repurchase. Paulding never lived on the farm, operating it as an

absentee owner for profit. John Van Ness sold his portion of the farm to the Dingman family between

1810 and 1834. In 1839, Van Buren purchased the Paulding property.

The area surrounding Van Ness's Kleinrood, later to become Van Buren's retirement farm, has

experienced many changes throughout its history, but the natural context has remained relatively

unchanged. The Van Ness farm was situated in the Hudson River Valley which is enclosed by three

mountain ranges. To the north are the Adirondack Mountains, to the east the Green Mountains and to the

southwest the Catskill Mountains. The Hudson River flows south through the valley enclosed by these

mountains. The Van Ness farm was located approximately two miles east of the River on the southeast

edge of the village of Kinderhook, twenty miles south of the city of Albany, New York.

Figure 1.1 illustrates some of the large farms existing in 1686, prior to the Van Ness Period, along

with some of the later, smaller farms overlaid on top of them (the map was updated in 1914). 19 Figure

1.2 illustrates the environmental context of the area surrounding Kleinrood during the Van Ness Period.

Period plans, located at the end of the chapter, illustrate the Van Ness Period. Included are a 1" = 50' plan

of the house lot (Historic Core: Van Ness Period) and a 1" = 250' plan of the entire farm (Historic Farm:

Van Ness Period).^^

13
Chapter I: Van Ness Period 1780-1839

Figure 1.1: Kinderhook Patent Map of 1686, illustrating area patents of 1686 and a 1780 overlay of land

allotments of smaller farms (Collier, A History of Old Kinderhook , 124).

14
Chapter I: Van Ness Period 1780-1839

Adirondack Mountains

Albany/Rensselaerwyck

Catskill Mountains

Kingston/Roundout

LKinderhook

leinrood

Livingston Manor

, Van Cortland Manor

Philipse Manor

Green Mountains

New York Town

.' " ..^^^^ t North NTS

Figure 1.2: Environmental context: Van Ness Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

15
Chapter I: Van Ness Period 1780-1839

Setting

The Van Ness farm originally was part of the 3000-acre Van Alstyne farm holding. Between the

years 1780 and 1787, Peter Van Ness acquired 260 acres of the Van Alstyne land along Post Road, the

main route between Albany and New York City.^l This acquisition created a smaller property that could

be managed by an individual farmer, a part of which eventually became the core of Van Buren's

Lindenwald.

The 260-acre property Peter Van Ness purchased consisted of farmland and the Van Alstyne

stone house. Peter Van Ness owned other property in addition to this farm, including property on the

opposite side of Post Road.^^ Following his purchase of the 260 acres, Peter Van Ness and his family

hved in the stone house until 1797 when a new, main house was completed, giving the farm one of the

larger and more impressive houses of the Kinderhook area (fig. 1.4).

Peter Van Ness died in 1 804, leaving Kleinrood to his two oldest sons, John and WiUiam. A map

was produced in 1805 to document the division of the property between John and William (fig. 1.3).^

This map illustrates the six parcels, three for each son, created by the will. The parcel containing the stone house was left to John and the parcel with the new main house to William. Of the documented 260

acres, each son received 130 acres and a residence (fig. 1.5).^'* The lots and their acreage were identified

in Peter Van Ness's will and illustrated on the map as follows:

William P. Van Ness lots: Lot No. 1 WPVN: 31 acres (containing main house)

Lot No. 2 WPVN: 61 acres Lot No. 3 WPVN: 38 acres

John P. Van Ness lots: Lot No. 1 JPVN: 20 acres (containing stone house)

Lot No. 2 JPVN: 61 acres Lot No. 3 JPVN: 49 acres

William retained the name Kleinrood for his property and lived on the farm imtil 1810, when he

moved to New York City and Kleinrood became his country retreat.^^ John Van Ness did not reside on

his portion of the property, possibly leaving it for William to oversee. John sold his property (fig. 1.3: Lot #1 JPVN, Lot #2 JPVN and Lot #3 JPVN) sometime before 1834 to the neighboring Dingman family

who owned the farm to the north of Kleinrood.^^

When William Van Ness took possession of Kleinrood, he showed considerable interest in it, especially the grounds. It is presumed that he was responsible for many of the large trees that existed on

the site well into the twentieth century. His attention to the property is supported by a quote from A

History of Old Kinderhook : "The modest beginnings of that date [1797] were considerably improved by

Judge [WiUiam] Van Ness. . . ."^^ William's main concern, however, was his livestock. His greatest

interest was breeding horses, but he also raised sheep for the income they provided.^^

16
Chapter I: Van Ness Period 1780-1839

In 1824, when William Van Ness was forced to sell his property in an auction, William Paulding,

a friend of Van Ness, purchased it, presumably to hold for Van Ness's repurchase. Van Ness's sudden

death in 1826 caused Paulding to retain Kleinrood. Living in New York City, Paulding took little interest

in the Kinderhook farm. Since it was a considerable distance away and he already had a country house in

Tarrytown, New York, Paulding never took residence at Kleinrood. He operated the property as a working farm for profit, until he sold it to Van Buren in 1839. At the time Van Buren purchased the

property, he reported it had been neglected and was in poor condition.^^ This suggests that Paulding

made few, if any, changes during the fifteen years of his absentee ownership. Figure 1 .4 illustrates the

entire property under the ownership of Peter Van Ness. Figure 1 .5 illustrates how the original Van Ness

farm was divided after Peter's death, as well as the property purchased by William Paulding.

Figure 1.3: 1805 Map: Produced as a result of the will of Peter Van Ness in 1805, this demonstrates the

division of Kleinrood between John and William Van Ness (Photographic copy on file, MVB NHS).

17
Chapter I: Van Ness Period 1780-1839

^ North NTS

Figure 1.4; Kleinrood: 1780-1805, Peter Van Ness fam (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

^ North NTS

Figure 1.5: Kleinrood: 1805-1839, John Van Ness farm and William Van Ness/William Paulding farm

(Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

18
Chapter I: Van Ness Period 1780-1839

Natural Systems and Features

Topography

The topography of the Peter Van Ness farm consisted of two natural levels or terraces that

stepped down toward the Kinderhook Creek. The first terrace was at the level of Post Road and the

second terrace, below, sloped down to the banks of Kinderhook Creek.^^

The first terrace covered approximately 118 acres and contained two of WiUiam Van Ness's lots and one of John Van Ness's (fig. 1.3: Lot #1 WPVN, Lot #3 WPVN, Lot #3 JPVN). The elevation of this terrace ranged from approximately 220 feet to 235 feet, with the house lot (Lot #1 WPVN), and therefore

the main house being above 230, the highest point of the farm. A deep ravine cut through the first terrace

at the center of John Van Ness's lot (Lot #3 JPVN). Another smaller ravine ran along the southwest edge

of the house lot (Lot #1 WPVN). Both ravines cut through the first terrace to the slope leading down to the second terrace. At the northwest edge of the first terrace this slope dropped approximately thirty feet down to the second terrace. The second terrace, encompassing the remainder of the farm, contained

approximately 142 acres, including one of William's lots and two of John's (fig. 1.3: Lot #2 WPVN, Lot

#1 JPVN, Lot #2 JPVN). The average elevation of the second terrace was 190 feet. The enfire second

terrace was part of the flood plain of the Kinderhook Creek. These topographical forms (plateaus, slope,

and ravines) led to the arrangement of the lots as they appear on figure 1.3. Most of the lot boundaries

faU along the slope or ravines. The combination of these features fit together to form a stepped slope

toward the Kinderiiook Creek, creating a northwest-facing slope for the entire property.

Hydrology

The largest hydrologic feature in contact with the property was the Kinderhook Creek. This

smaU, freshwater stream formed the northwest boundary of the farm. Flowing in a southwest direction, it emptied into the Stockport Creek, which emptied into the Hudson River. The path of the Kinderhook

Creek, as the farm's northwest boundary, is illustrated on figure 1.3. Several smaller hydrological

features existed within the property. The ravine in the center of the first terrace (fig. 1.3: Lot #3 JPVN)

possibly had some type of water flow through it, either constant or seasonal. At the base of this ravine,

where it met the slope between the two terraces, was a small wetland of undetermined size and depth.^i

Several springs were located on the property during the Van Ness Period, although their exact

locations are not verified. A spring existed on the house lot (fig. 1.3: Lot #1 WPVN) that drained into the

ravine along its south border.^^ xhere was another spring at the intersection of the house lot boundary

and the farm road leading down to the second terrace, placing it in the slope between the first and second

terraces to the northeast of the road.^^ These springs possibly drained into ravines that eventually reached

the Kinderhook Creek.

19
Chapter I: Van Ness Period 1780-1839

Buildings and Structures

Several buildings and structures existed on the property during the Van Ness Period: the stone house, main house, carriage bam, and farm office. Other support buildings and structures existed but

cannot be adequately documented.^"^ The Van Alstynes had constructed at least two houses on the

property: the stone house on the second terrace and another house on the first terrace east of the current house lot.^^ After purchasing the property, Peter Van Ness resided in the Van Alstyne stone house for

approximately twenty years; he moved his family into the new house he built in 1797. The new main

house was a simple. Late Georgian/Early Federal brick house (fig. 1.6), much larger and more formal in

design than the stone house.^^ The new, main house was a rectangular block with two chimneys on each

end, four main rooms and a central haU on the first floor, and five rooms around a smaller central hall on

the second floor.

t—

\

t—

\

Figure 1.6: 1797 Peter Van Ness house (DSC, National Park Service, n.d.).

20
Chapter I: Van Ness Period 1780-1839

Figure 1.7: Carriage bam, 1937 (Photo # CLR-403. On file, MVB NHS).

The carriage bam (fig. 1.7) was located northwest of the house. The size of the carriage bam was

approximately thirty feet wide and sixty-five feet long.^^ It was a wood-frame building with clapboard

siding and a gable roof.

21
Chapter I: Van Ness Period 1780-1839

Figure 1.8: Farm office, 1936 (Photo # CLR-401. On file, MVB NHS).

The other building existing on the house lot was the farm office, west of the main house. The

farm office was a one-story, eleven-foot, square building (fig. 1.8).^^ It was a brick building with a hip

roof

The complex on the second terrace was comprised of the stone house and two buildings of

unknown use and origin.^^ Figure 1.3 shows the complex of the stone house and the two buildings

adjacent to it, which appear to be a privy and a stable or kitchen.

22
Chapter I: Van Ness Period 1780-1839

Vegetation

Before the Van Ness occupancy, the vegetation of the property was most likely limited to

agricultural fields and hedgerows. When Peter Van Ness purchased his 260 acres, he established orchards

and agriculture fields on the property. After the main house was built, Peter and, later his son William,

made improvements to the grounds around the main house."^^

Crops and orchards existed on the property prior to the construction of the main house. The stone house was surrounded with fruit trees and lilacs, and an orchard existed on the first terrace south of the stone house."*^ In 1797, improvements began to take place on the house lot surrounding the main house.

Between 1797 and 1805, Black Locusts (Robinia pseudoacacia) were planted along the entry drive

leading to the main house. These trees were planted in the form of an allee enclosing the drive. They

were spaced approximately forty feet apart in an alternating sequence along both sides of the drive from

the road to the main house.'^^

William Van Ness's tenure resulted in more attention to the grounds than during his father's ownership. In 1806 WiUiam hired a "master" gardener and ordered "seeds and shrubs" from New York

City for ornamental planting. As part of this order, William inquired about obtaining locust seeds as well. In addition, WiUiam inquired about the propagation of Sweet Brier (Rosa eglanteria) through different

methods and how it could be obtained from the "commons" were it grew wild. Presumably, he was

interested in it being propagated from any fields or woodlots, rather than a specific place. Whether

William ever planted Sweet Brier at Kleinrood is unknown.^^

As a close friend of William Van Ness, Van Buren had visited Kleinrood many times during

William's ownership. In later correspondence Van Buren mentions William's "excellent" gardens on the

property, as well as, after his purchase, an interest in reclaiming the Van Ness gardens."^"^ It is apparent

WiUiam Van Ness had substantial gardens at Kleinrood at the time he owned the property. Whether these

gardens existed during Peter's tenure is unknown.

After 1824, when Paulding obtained Kleinrood, the property began to deteriorate. During his

fifteen-year absentee ownership, he operated the property as a working farm. The front lawn and garden were neglected. As noted by Van Buren, in 1 839, they were in poor condition.^^

Many individual plants have been documented to exist on the property during this period and are iUustrated on the period plans at the end of the chapter.

Spatial Organization

In general, the property was composed of two large open spaces, one covering each of the two

terraces. The slope between the two terraces created the boundary between them. The second (lower)

terrace contained a large space that was composed of agricultural fields and the stone house complex on

the northeast end. The first (upper) terrace contained another large agricultural space. During this period.

23
Chapter I: Van Ness Period 1780-1839

the upper terrace was divided into two spaces: agricultural fields and the house lot, containing the main

house.

At the time Peter Van Ness purchased the property, the stone house was existing on the second

terrace in the midst of the agricultural fields. This location gave the stone house a vernacular setting. It could only be accessed by traveling through the fields. Peter Van Ness constructed the main house at the

highest point of his property, on the first terrace, overlooking his fields, Kinderhook Creek, and much of

the surrounding valley. The front of the main house faced Post Road and the hills beyond the road,

placing it at the front of the property with the fields behind. This formal arrangement was enhanced by a

large front lawn enclosed in a semicircular entrance drive leading to the main house ftx)m Post Road. The

drive, and Black Locusts lining it, created a sense of enclosure for the front lawn. This prestigious setting

contrasted with the vernacular setting of the stone house.

Within the house lot on the first terrace, a smaller space was created surrounding the grave of

Peter Van Ness, after his death in 1804. The grave stood amidst "... a climip of trees within a smaU

enclosure. ..." behind the main house. The clump of trees referred to may have been the pines seen on

the right side of figure 2.7."^^

Views & Vistas

From the main house on the first terrace, views over the remainder of the farm, as weU as panoramic views of the surrounding valley, were possible. The location of Peter Van Ness' grave, behind

the main house on the edge of the first terrace, provided views to both of his homes: the main house and

stone house."*^

Circulation

The entry drive entered the property from the south and northeast comers of the house lot along

Post Road. From these two entrances, the drive curved up to the front entrance of the main house,

forming the semicircle. The only other documented circulation route on the property was a road leading

from the main house to the stone house.^^ Other farm roads may have traversed the property but no

documentation of such roads was found. In addition, no documentation was found regarding the

construction materials of the known roads.

Before the Van Ness purchase of the property. Post Road traversed the farm along the slope

between the terraces and extending adjacent to the stone house. It was later moved, at an undocumented

time, to the location along the east side of the property. Figure 1.1 illustrates the original position of Post

Road.

24
Chapter I: Van Ness Period 1780-1839

Furnishings and Objects

The only documented furnishing on the farm during the Van Ness tenure is the fence which

followed along the northeast boundary of the property, at the division between Kleinrood and the

Dingman property. This fence, the Dingman fence, was post and wire and was painted white."^^

Summary

The first European contact of Henry Hudson, the early Dutch settlements, and the establishment

of the property as a small farm with a large and impressive farm house, all helped to set the stage for the

property's future. The basic elements constituting the farm were established by Peter Van Ness during

this first period of history.

Peter Van Ness created and greatly improved the 260-acre farm over the twenty-five years that he

owned it. He established orchards, agriculture fields, and constructed several buildings on the farm

including the main house, carriage bam, and farm office. When the farm was divided in 1 805 after Peter Van Ness's death, William Van Ness continued the Kleinrood name and further improved the farm,

especially the grounds. Following the Van Ness ownership, under Paulding's fifteen-year absentee

ownership, the property fell into disrepair.

By limiting the site to a manageable piece of farm property and constructing a large house along

the well-traveled Post Road, the Van Ness family established Kleinrood as an appealing property worthy

of serving as Van Buren's country seat following his retirement from the Presidency. Although this period ends with the property in a condition of deterioration, the farm continued to be recognized as an

established and respected country home.

25



! 1 ! nn hi

Wmr^i

ISISJ

ji

U in y

jjiiljiljl

is

u

n

a

Jl

L m

m

as

Oa. H

s ^

us

oo

^ u

o

(-2 KOOH

<S- ug;

!5f=!

Si

iS-

Chapter II: Van Buren Period

1839-1864

The historically significant time period for the property began in the spring of 1839, when Van

Buren purchased Kleinrood from Paulding. The 137-acre purchase was the beginning of Van Buren's

efforts to create a prosperous and self-sufficient farm in his hometown of Kindeitiook.

It seems logical Van Buren would choose to retire to Kinderhook, the place he loved so much.

Van Buren's choice of purchasing Kleinrood, the old Van Ness farm, was based on several of its appealing qualities. The most obvious was its location within the town of Kinderhook and its main house was one of the more stately homes of the area. It also was located on the heavily traveled Post Road

connecting Albany to New York City. Since Van Buren always had intended to have his friends and

colleagues visit his retirement home, the Post Road location made it a convenient stop for the many

people traveling that route. Furthermore, by purchasing this large property. Van Buren could pursue his

interest in farming and gardening. The dire condition of the property also allowed him the opportunity to shape and develop it to his own tastes and wishes, including experimenting with different fruit-producing

plants.

Van Buren's great interest in obtaining a farm of this magnitude, having never before even owned

a house, may have been due to his wish to emulate some of the men, and their ideals, he had followed

throughout his political life, including Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington.

Each had a very impressive estate of his own, the Hemitage, Monticello, and Mount Vernon, respectively.

For these men, the possession of an estate from which they could express their views and ideals to others, was important as a symbol of prestige and success in the political circle of the time.

With Van Buren's acquisition of the property in 1839, changes and improvements began

immediately. Before Van Buren took occupancy of his farm, he constructed stables, wood houses, and a hothouse and fish ponds in the garden. In addition. Van Buren changed the name of Kleinrood to Lindenwald. Van Buren's intention was to name the property "The Locusts" but he decided on

Lindenwald since The Locusts had been used in "The Spy" by James Fenimore Cooper. After taking

residency at the farm in 1841, at the completion of his Presidential term, he continued this impressive

woric pace. Still very active in politics. Van Buren ran the farm with the assistance of a foreman that lived on the property.^^ By 1845, Van Buren had acquired an additional eighty-four acres of farmland,

bringing the farm total to 221 acres. Three additional buildings were constructed on the property during

this period of activity, including two large bams and a cottage for the farm foreman. In 1847, after Van

Buren had completed his improvements to the property and became less active in politics, he dismissed

his foreman and ran the farm himself, personally overseeing all of its operations.

I>uring this time of vast improvements, Van Buren was creating a prosperous experimental and

working farm. His interests exceeded mere farming, although he operated his property to be self- sufficient and provide a profit from the crops. Van Buren had great interests in fruit-producing plants and

often experimented with propagation and new varieties. Of special interest to Van Buren, Lindenwald

had several varieties of grapes and extensive orchards with many different varieties of fruit trees. This

31
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

experimentation and production was Van Buren's concentration at Lindenwald. It was never the finely

manicured estate so popular elsewhere in the Hudson Valley.

After 1847, it appeared Van Buren was content with his farm and was finished making changes to the property, but this was only temporary. In hopes one of his sons would take ownership of his beloved

Lindenwald after his death. Van Buren and his youngest son, Smith Thompson Van Buren, reached an agreement that would result in Smith Thompson becoming heir to the property. Smith Thompson would

move onto the farm with his family and gradually take over operation and, eventually, ownership. In order to accommodate Smith Thompson and his family. Van Buren allowed his son to make alterations to the main house. From a design by the well-known architect Richard Upjohn, two years of renovations

began in 1849. From Peter Van Ness's simple Georgian/Federal house came a much larger, elaborate,

Italianate mansion. Along with these renovations to the main house came the construction of a gate house

at each end of the entry drive.

During the time Smith Thompson and his family lived at Lindenwald, Van Buren continued to concentrate on his farm while maintaining regular, although less frequent, political interaction. For the

most part, Van Buren was content to remain at Lindenwald. In 1853, Van Buren and his son, Martin Van

Buren Jr., took an extended trip to Europe to seek medical attention for Martin Jr. During this trip, Van

Buren began writing his pohtical memoirs with the help of his son. When Martin Jr. died in 1855, Van

Buren returned to Lindenwald. Upon his return. Van Buren continued writing his memoirs, as well as other political writings, woik which consumed a large amount of his time during the last years of his life. Much to Van Buren's dismay. Smith Thompson's enthusiasm to manage Lindenwald was short-lived.

This may have been due to the death of Smith Thompson's first wife shortly after the renovations to the

main house were completed. When Van Buren died in 1862, Smith Thompson and his second wife left Lindenwald, moving to New Yoik City.

Subsequently, Lindenwald, along with the remainder of Van Buren's substantial holdings,

remained in an estate period for one year. Since none of his children showed a particular interest in occupying his home, his will left the bulk of his estate, including Lindenwald, to be equally divided

among his three living sons.^^ In 1863, John Van Buren, his second eldest son, purchased the rights to Lindenwald from his two brothers, Abraham and Smith Thompson. Although John Van Buren had a successful law practice in New York City, he planned to retain Lindenwald as a country home, this arrangement proved both physically and financially difficult. He was forced to sell the farm after less than one year of ownership. Figure 2. 1 illustrates the site's environmental context during the Van Buren

Period. Period plans, located at the end of the chapter, illustrate the Van Buren Period. Included are a

1" = 50' plan of the house lot (Historic Core: Van Buren Period) and a 1" = 250' plan of the entire farm

(Historic Farm: Van Buren Period).

32
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

Adirondack Mountains

Catskill Mountains

Kinderhook

Lindenwald

^Clermont

Kingston •!] Montgomery Place

New York City

Green Mountains

t North NTS

Figure 2.1: Environmental context: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

33
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

Setting

When Van Buren purchased Kleinrood from William Paulding in 1 839 the property consisted of

137.32 acres.^2 Three subsequent purchases would bring Lindenwald to its maximum size in 1845 of 221

acres, which would be retained for the remainder of the Van Buren Period. The first addition was in 1843

when Van Buren purchased 28.23 acres from the neighboring Dingman family. Later that year he

purchased another 12.15 acres from them. Both of these purchases were parcels one time part of the

original Peter Van Ness farm and had been sold to the Dingman family after Peter's death. In 1845 Van

Buren made the last addition to his farm. From Peter Hoes and Lawrence Van Buren (Van Buren's

brother) he purchased 43.19 acres at the south end of the farm, on the opposite side of Mill Road. These

additions made the total acreage of Lindenwald 220.89 acres.

^^

Figure 2.2: Setting: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

34
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

In 1848, Van Buren stated that 194 acres of his farm were under cultivation-^"^ Presumably, this would not include the garden or front lawn. This figure does not allow for any unmaintained areas such

as woodlots or fields at Lindenwald, suggesting a very intense land use for the entire 221 acres. With the

exception of the slope between the terraces, every parcel of the farm must have been either planted with

crops or orchards or was a part of the house lot, including the garden and front lawn. Figure 2.2

illustrates the setting for the Van Buren Period.

Natural Systems

Topography

The topographical configuration of Lindenwald remained nearly the same as during the Van Ness

Period.^^ In the Van Buren Period the property boundaries changed slightly. The first terrace had

approximately 125 acres and the second terrace had approximately 89 acres.

In 1 840, Van Buren altered the ravine on the south edge of the house lot to create two fish ponds

at the edge of that lot. The topography on the second terrace was altered by Van Buren in 1 847 to drain

the wetland, creating additional agricultural fields. This was done by creating a series of ditches to drain

the water from the wetland.^^ With the exception of these two alterations, the topography of Lindenwald

remained the same as that of the Van Ness's Kleinrood.

Hydrology

The Kinderhook Creek was a part of the northwest boundary of the property. This comer of the

property was the only portion to abut the Creek during this period. The location of the Creek bed

changed many times over the years and may have had a different location than is shown in figure 1.3. The portion of the Creek that formed the northwest boundary of Lindenwald did not change.^^

The ravine and water flow that fed the wetland on the second terrace remained. In August of

1847 Van Buren drained the wetland by creating ditches. Van Buren stated "... a thousand miles of

Ditches, ..." implying the task was quite large.^^ The ditches may have drained into Kinderhook Creek.

A spring existed on the south end of the house lot which Van Buren used to feed the two artificial ponds

he created on the edge of the house lot. Figure 2.3 illustrates the topography and hydrology for the Van

Buren Period.

35
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

\

n •240

250 TOPOGRAPHY ^ HYDROI rX^.Y KEY:

1. Spring

2. Upper Pond

3. Lower Pond

4. Ravine

5. Wedand

^ North NTS

Figure 2.3: Topography & Hydrology: Van Buren Period (USGS, 1976. Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

36
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

Buildings and Structures

Several buildings and structures were existing on the property when Van Buren purchased it in 1839. The main house, built by Peter Van Ness in 1797, stood at the center of the house lot facing Post

Road. Also on the house lot were the carriage bam, northwest of the main house (fig. 1.7), and the farm

office, at the northeast comer of the garden (fig. 1.8).^^ The use of the farm office, during this period, is unclear, but during later periods it was used for storage. Its location within the garden suggests it was

associated with the garden, but the use is unknown. The condifion, or existence, of the stone house

cannot be docimiented after the Van Ness Period. Ruins of the building remained into the deProsse

Period (1917-1973), but whether the stone house was intact or in mins during the Van Buren Period is unknown. ^^ The stone house may have been occupied by Van Buren's farm foreman during the first few

years of his tenure on the property.

In addition to these existing buildings. Van Buren constmcted many new buildings and stmctures. A few stmctures were completed in preparation for his taking residence at the property. This immediate

constmction included a hothouse, stables, and wood houses (presumably for storing wood). The hothouse was constmcted within the garden, west of the main house, in 1840. A greenhouse was also in use on the

site in 1841. The origin of the greenhouse is uncertain. Although unlikely, it may have existed at the

time of purchase. It is more likely that the greenhouse was part of the immediate work included the

constmcfion of the hothouse. Figure 2.4, a circa 1841 sketch map of the farm, shows the garden and the

stmctures within it soon after Van Buren's purchase. The farm office can be seen in the east comer of the

garden, nearest the main house. Two stmctures also are shown in the north comer of the garden and may

represent the hothouse and greenhouse. It is uncertain what each symbol represents. ^^

Figure 2.4: c.1841 sketch map of Lindenwald (Martin Van Buren Papers, Syracuse University).

37
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

Additional work was undertaken in 1841 on ". . . stables [wing on house], wood houses, etc."^^ The stables mentioned may be part of the wings added to the rear of the main house, seen in figure 2.5, a

circa 1 843 sketch of the main house.^^ The wood houses referred to are otherwise undocumented. They

also may have been part of this rear wing on the main house.

Figure 2.5: c.1843 sketch of Lindenwald main house (Photo # CLR-201, photographic copy. On file, MVB NHS).

After Van Buren took residence in 1841, he constructed additional buildings on the property.

These included a cottage, for his farm foreman, and two large bams. The construction of the cottage and

one of the bams was complete by the summer of 1844. Van Buren wrote: ". . . built me what I call a

beautiful cottage (for my foreman) on the brow of the hill and a large hay bam in the meadows. . . ."^

The farm cottage was a smaU, two-story house reflecting the Federal style. It was built behind the main

house, on the edge of the first terrace (fig. 2.6). The bam, referred to as the "black hay bam," was

constmcted on the second terrace at the bank of the Kinderhook Creek (fig. 2.7). The "red hiUside bam"

constmcted in 1849, was built into the side of the slope between die first and second terraces just behind

the farm cottage (fig. 2.6).^^

38
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

Figure 2.6: Farm cottage and i«d hillside bam, c.1900 (Photo # CLR-002. On file. MVB NHS).

Figure 2.7: Black hay bam, c.1940 (Photo # CLR-471. On file, MVB NHS).

39
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

In 1849, the final two years of major improvements began on the property. These last improvements were to accommodate Smith Thompson and his family as they moved onto Lindenwald.

The alterations, designed and supervised by well-known architect Richard Upjohn, began that year and were completed in 1 850. The purpose of the alterations was to enlarge the main house, but much more

was done. The simple rectangular Van Ness house was increased greatly in size by a large addition along

the rear, a south and a west wing, and a four story tower. To accommodate these changes, the stable

wings were removed. Along with this tremendous increase in size, the exterior of the main house was

transformed from the original Late Georgian/Early Federal style to Italianate. Ornamentation was added

to the exterior including a small, finely detailed porch at the front entrance, a large gable and dormers on

the front facade, and ornamentation on the overhangs of the roof. The simple Van Ness farm house was

transformed into a large and elaborate mansion (fig. 2.8 and 2.9).

Figure 2.8: Lindenwald main house, pre- 1849 (DSC, National Park Service, n.d.).

^£..

Figure 2.9: Lindenwald main house, post-1850 (DSC, National Park Service, n.d.).

40
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

In addition to the alterations on the main house, two gate houses were constructed as part of the

Upjohn plan, one at each entrance to the drive. The two buildings were sixteen feet by twenty-three feet and were mirror images of one another, except for the dormer in the south side of the north gate house.

They were smaU, one and one-half story board and batten buildings with a wood-shingle, gable roof, field stone foundation, and full basement (fig. 2.10 and 2.11).^^

Figure 2.10: South gate house, 1993 (Photo # CLR- 1510. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 2.11: North gate house, c.1945 (Photo # CLR-426. On file, MVB NHS).

41
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

The buildings and structures of Lindenwald during the Van Buren Period were in a constant state of change. From the modest beginnings of the Van Ness farm, Lindenwald experienced an eleven-year

time span characterized by construction and renovation, ending in 1850. At the completion of these

improvements, the property had been transformed from a simple country home into a substantial and

successful working farm. The buildings and structures on the property at this time remained throughout

the period. They included the main house, north gate house, south gate house, farm cottage, carriage

bam, farm office, hothouse, greenhouse, red hillside bam, black hay bam, and stone house. Figure 2.12

illustrates the buildings and stmctures for the Van Buren Period.

BUILDING KEY:

1. Main House

2. North Gate House

3. South Gate House

4. Farm Office

5. Carriage Bam

6. Green House

7. Hot House

8. Fann Cottage

9. Red Hillside Bam

10. Stone House

11. Black Hay Bam

^

North

Figure 2.12: Buildings and Stmctures: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

42
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

Vegetation

As previously mentioned, the grounds, most specifically the gardens, were in a state of neglect at the time of Van Buren's purchase. The vegetation on the property was allowed to grow unmaintained for

fifteen years at the end of the Van Ness Period. Since the property was still in use as a working farm, the

fields were intact but the garden and house lot had grown wild.^^

Van Buren must have implemented a clean-up effort rather quickly on the grounds of the house

lot. By 1841 there was no evidence of any unmaintained areas near the main house. The house lot was

described in 1841 by a news article stating: "It [the main house] stands at a little distance from the road, in the midst of grounds planted with trees and shrubbery. . . ."^^ The entry drive was enclosed by an aUee of

Black Locusts (Robinia pseudoacacid) between thirty-four and forty-two years old when Van Buren

purchased the property in 1839.^^ The front lawn contained a large number of White Pines {Pinus

strobus) during this period, including a circular grove along the road in front of the main house. This pine

grove partially screened the view of the main house from Post Road.^^ Many individual plants on the

house lot can be documented to the Van Buren Period and are individually noted on the Historic Core:

Van Buren Period map at the end of this chapter.^

The Van Ness garden, located on the house lot, was also in a state of deterioration at the time of

Van Buren's purchase. Van Buren stated "The garden upon which vast sums were in former times

expended, was when I bought the place a cornfield with only here and there a poor tree. . . ."^^ xhig \^

confirmed in an 1841 news article: "... a garden to be made, for the old fine garden of General Van Ness

had gone to decay. . . ."^^ In 1839, Van Buren hired a gardener to ". . . revive and prepare the old Van

Ness plot. . . ." making it clear that the gardens were in a state of neglect and that he did create his gardens on the foundation of Van Ness's.^^ The form of the garden may have remained since Van Buren was able

to re-establish the garden. The size and location of the garden is illustrated on figure 2.4. Although Van

Buren did "revive" the Van Ness garden, he did not simply recreate it but greatly improved and expanded

what was once there. Van Buren's garden is described briefly in an 1841 news article: "A large garden

has been laid out, with a greenhouse, and a long wall for espaliers and for the protection of fruit trees. "^^ Construction of the greenhouse, wall and hothouse, as well as the ponds, were the major improvements to the garden. Although construction and existence of these garden structures can be documented, their

location is less certain. The probable locations of the greenhouse and hothouse were discussed above, but

the location of the wall within the garden is unknown.

Knowing that Van Buren experimented with different kinds of plants, the garden must have been

a combination of many types of flowers, vegetables, vines, and fruit trees. Some of the plants contained

within the garden are documented. An 1845 news article wrote: "In the garden we noticed some fine

samples of all fruits of the season. "^^ In addition to the fruit trees, plants within the garden consisted of

snapdragons, petunias, canterbury bells, pink and yellow sweet peas, roses, and strawberries.^^

Vegetables included beans, cabbages, peas, and tumips.^^ The greenhouse within the garden contained

"... a collection of exotic fruits and plants, among which were some fine grapes. . . ."^^ In 1851 Van

Buren harvested a grape crop large enough for him to produce a substantial amount of wine, stating: ". .

.

30 bushels of grapes [made] into 500 dollars worth of choice wine."^^ Although these are the only

43
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

documented garden plants, it is likely there were many others,

undocumented.

The contents of the hothouse are

Orchards were an important element of Van Buren's farm. In addition to fruit trees in the garden,

the farm had a south orchard, a north orchard, and a nursery. Orchard trees consisted of apples, pears, peaches, plums, and cherries. ^^ The north orchard was actually two separate orchards, having apple trees in the rear and pear trees in the front (fig. 2.13). The south orchard was apples (fig. 2.6). ^^ Although

specific information regarding the nursery was not found, it may have been within the garden or south

orchard. In 1848 Van Buren states "... I say nothing of my garden & nursery & orchards, but what

would you say to 15500 young apple trees & 2000 young pear trees for sale!"^^ The reference to such a large number of trees, and the fact they were for sale, may be a description of the nursery.

Figure 2.13: Pear orchard north of main house, front portion of north orchard, c.1900 (Photo # CLR311.5. On file, MVB NHS).

44
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

Van Buren also grew many kinds of crops on the farm. In 1841, he states that he had grain

growing ". . . higher than my head, and clover up to ones knees."^'* Van Buren completed a farm

inventory in 1850, providing a complete list of its contents, including produce and livestock for that year. Crops and vegetables included: wheat, rye, Indian com, oats, peas and beans, Irish potatoes, sweet

potatoes, barley, buck wheat, hay, clover seed, other grass seed, and hops. Also listed is the harvested

amount of each item in stock at that time. Indian com, Irish potatoes, hay, and oats were the most

plentiful items. The potatoes, which were growing as early as 1845, were noted by visitors to be an

impressive crop.^^ The 1850 inventory provides the best documentation of what was grown on the farm

throughout Van Buren's tenure, encompassing all crops mentioned during other years as weU.

Although the types of crops grown on the farm can be documented, it is difficult, if not

impossible, to locate where each of these was grown. It is probable that the crops were rotated to

different locations throughout the twenty-three years Van Buren owned the farm. The only crop locations

that can be accurately documented are the two rye fields located next to the orchards circa 1841, as seen

in figure 2.4.

As previously mentioned, Van Buren drained the wetlands on the lower terrace and cleared

shmbs to reclaim and expand the agricultural fields. At the completion of this and other farm

improvements in 1848, he wrote: ". . . under the plow 82 acres viz-30 in rye ... 20 com 28 oats & 4

potatoes. . . ." also ". . . 24 in fine clover for pasture and 85 in fine Timothy & a few acres of clover for

cutting. . . ."^6 From the above information, the documented crops grown on the farm and their

corresponding years are as follows:

1841: clover, grain, rye.

1848: clover (24 acres), com (20), potatoes (4), oats (28), rye (30), timothy (85).

1850: barley, beans, clover seed, grass seed, hops, Indian com, oats, peas, Irish potatoes,

sweet potatoes, rye, wheat, buck wheat.

The appearance that only a few crops were being grown in 1841, or even 1843, could be due to Van Buren not yet having acquired all of the property to complete his farm. The 1841 and 1848 lists in no way illustrate a complete inventory of what was being grown at that time; it was clearly just a mention

of some of the crops. On the other hand, the inventory of crops recorded in 1 850 seems reasonable

evidence of Van Buren's intention to create a prosperous and self-sufficient farm. Figure 2.14 illustrates the general pattem of the vegetation for the Van Buren Period,

45
Chapter II: Van Buren Period

'

1839-1864

VEGETATION KEY:

1. Front Lawn

2. Garden

3. South Orchard

4. North Orchard

5. Agricultural Field

6. Woodland

^ North NTS

Figure 2.14: Vegetation: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

46
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

The circa 1843 sketch of the main house (fig. 2.15), prior to renovation, and the circa 1849

Upjohn rendering (fig. 2.16), post renovation, are not entirely reliable references regarding the landscape.

In the past these iUustrations have been thought to be valuable sources documenting the vegetation of the

property for the Van Buren tenure. Due to the questionable reliability of these two sources, their use in

this report has been limited. ^^

^i^"[J^?A^x^ol^'*^

^^^^^^ of main house (Photo # CLR-201, photographic copy of original drawing. On iile, MVB NHS).

l^Zi'onni^^t^B^mSX^''^''^^

"^^"^^ ^°"'' ^^""''^ * ^^^"^^^' Ph^^^g'-^Phic "'Py of original

47
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

Spatial Relationships/Organization

The natural features of the site divided it into two large spaces, known as the first and second

terraces. The land use and activity of Lindenwald (as a working farm and a country seat) was overlaid

onto these terraces. The result was a spatial organization that presented the formal image of a country

seat, along Post Road on the first terrace, with the working farm behind it and on the second terrace.

The portion of the first terrace facing Post Road, known as the house lot, presented a formal

image to those visiting or passing by. This image was created by the combination of many elements:

symmetrical gate houses, entry drive and locust allee, front pine row, front lawn, and front garden, aU

leading to the main house, located at the highest elevation of the property. The rear portion of the house

lot, directly behind the main house, contained all of the support activities including the garden and

orchards. All aspects of the working farm were located behind the main house, away from public view, on the south portion of the first terrace and all of the second terrace.

Within the house lot, several smaller spaces existed. The front lawn, a major feature of

Lindenwald's formal image, was a large space defined by the entry drive and Post Road and enclosed by

the locust aUee and front pine row. The lawn had scattered trees within it but stiU maintained an

expansive and open character. The locust aUee, lining the entry drive, formed a corridor space that lead to the front of the main house. The trees in the aUee were spaced so that they created a vertical and

overhead enclosure for the drive. The vertical enclosure was created by the trunks of the trees and did not

fully enclose the drive. A fuU overhead enclosure for the drive was created by the canopies of the trees. The fi"ont garden was a smaller, more detailed space, within the front lawn. It was located at the front

entrance of the main house, defined by a circular pedestrian path, and enclosed by three Eastern White

Pines. The pines were large and the branches created an overhead canopy over most of the garden.

Within the pedestrian path, the lawn was finely manicured, as opposed to the higher lawn surrounding it (fig.2.17).88

Behind the main house, on the first terrace and still within the house lot, were several other

spaces: the garden, orchards, and pasture. The garden was a large rectangular space enclosed by fences

and trees. The northeast border, facing the main house, was enclosed by a fence. The southeast and

southwest borders were enclosed by fences and several trees. The northwest border was enclosed by the

trees of the south orchard. Inside its borders, the garden had an open character. The borders of the

garden had fences and many trees while the interior had lower plants. The two orchards, along the north

boundary and in the west comer of the house lot, created spaces formed by the massing of trees. The

trees were regularly spaced in a grid that formed a dense grove without a complete enclosure. The trees in the front portion of the north orchard were spaced further apart than the other orchards, creating less of an enclosure. The north orchard, garden, and south orchard formed the edges of a pasture directly behind

the main house. This pasture was very open and provided a spatial connection, in the form of a view, to the agriculture fields on the second terrace and beyond to the CatskiU Mountains.

The second terrace was a large open space bordered by the Kinderhook Creek on the north and

the transition slope on the west, south, and east. It was entirely covered with agriculture fields. The two

large bams and the stone house were located there.

48
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

Figure 2.17: Front garden at entrance to main house, c.1913 (Photo # CLR-302. On fde, MVB NHS).

Views and Vistas

The landform and spatial organization of the property allowed for several views to and from the

property. One important view was from the rear of the main house, across the fields to the Kinderhook

Creek and beyond to the Catskill Mountains to the southwest. Correspondence from H.D. Gilpin to Van

Buren in 1843 mentions this view:

I hope you do not intend to change your plan of keeping your farm

principally in a meadow - - the sweep of meadow down to the creek, bordered

by the woods and the hills beyond, is so beautiful that I would not if I were you, put either fences or com fields in the range.^^

Figure 2.4 shows the area behind the main house planted as a rye field, confirming Mr. Gilpin's

statement regarding the meadows. Whether or not Van Buren followed this advice is unknown. He

constructed the farm cottage within this view one year later. Several years later he constructed the red

49
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

hillside bam near the farm cottage. The roof of the bam also was within this view (fig. 2.6). This

suggests the view was not as valued by Van Buren as it was by Mr. Gilpin. The addition of these

structures were in the immediate view across the farrn to the creek but did not obstmct the view to the

Catskill Mountains. Van Buren may have considered these elements to be modest intmsions of the

immediate view.

From Post Road, the view of the main house was partially screened by the grove of pines. The

grove was located along the road, directly in front of the main house. The view from the main house to the road is undocumented. Figure 2.18 illustrates the spatial organization of the Van Buren Period.

\. n, ^' * ^Fann Activity Center

^*<psR^^!J'W5|>^!-f^^^^ House Lot

I I A' ^^Formal Property Frontage

Post Road

^

North NTS

Figure 2.18: Spatial Organization: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

50
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

Circulation

Several roads and paths accessed different areas of the property. The most prominent circulation

feature was the semicircular entry drive (fig. 2.19). The construction of the gate houses enhanced the

significance of the entry drive. The extension off of the entry drive circled the rear of the main house, and

appears to have been added during the Van Buren Period. Its arrangement around the Upjohn renovations

of the main house supports this assumption. No evidence suggests it existed during the Van Ness Period.

Two roads extended from the entry drive to rear areas of the farm. One road extended from the

south portion of the entry drive to the farm cottage and then to the stone house on the second terrace. This road passed directly adjacent to the farm office (fig. 2.19). Another portion of this road extended

from the main house, formed a triangular area between this road and the drive and continued to the farm

cottage. The rear portion of this road, as it reached the farm cottage, can only be documented in a general

location. A second road extended from the north comer of the main house and led to the stone house.

This extension passed the southwest facade of the carriage bam, providing access to the bam from the

main house. From the carriage bam, it extended to the stone house where it tumed and continued on the

second terrace, joining the extension from the farm cottage. The exact path of the leg extending ft-om the

carriage bam to the stone house cannot be confirmed from the available information, though its general

location is known.^

Along the outside edge of the small space at the entrance to the main house, a circular pedestrian

path existed. This path was approximately two foot wide and extended around the outside edge of the

lawn within the space (fig. 2.17).

Figure 2.19: South entrance drive and road to farm cottage, c.1913 (Photo # CLR-301. On file, MVB

NHS).

51
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

No documentation was found regarding the construction materials of the roads and paths.

Photographs from later years suggest they were compacted soil.^^ In addition to these roads, there may

have been other access paths to reach the fields, but they are undocumented at this time. Figure 2.20

illustrates the circulation for the Van Buren Period.

r-ronnATTONKEY:

1. Entry Drive

2. Front Garden Path

3. Road to Carriage Bam and Stone House

4. Road to Farm Cottage and Red Hillside Bam

5. Road to Black Hay Bam

^ North NTS

Figure 2.20: Circulation: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

52
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

Water Features

The Van Buren Period is the only time in the history of the property during which any designed

water features were constructed within the core. In 1 840, Van Buren hired a contractor to, among other

things, create fish ponds from the spring by the garden.^^ j^q fish ponds were created by damming the

ravine leading from the natural spring located on the south end of the house lot. The upper pond was held

by a stone dam at its west end. Van Buren later stocked these ponds with several kinds of fish including

trout, pickerel, and perch. The first, or upper, pond was along the southwest border of the garden (fig.

2.4). An 1845 news article in the Albany Cultivator states: "... two artificial ponds located in the garden.

. . ."93 While the exact locauon of the upper pond is documented, the exact location of the lower pond is less clear, it was located somewhere southeast of the farm cottage on the edge of the first terrace slope.^'^

The exact origin of the spring that fed the ponds also is unclear. Figure 2.21 illustrates the water features

for the Van Buren Period.

^ North NTS

Figure 2.21: Water Features: Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

53
Chapter II: Van Buren Period 1839-1864

Furnishings and Objects

Several furnishings and objects existed on the property during the Van Buren Period. The grave

and headstone of Peter Van Ness and the Dingman fence along the northeast boundary remained, and

several other features were added. Before Van Buren took residence at the farm he began inquiring about

the construction of a wall for espaliers in the garden. Van Buren discussed construction materials and

their costs; he considered a twelve-inch thick brick wall estimated between $600 and $1000 and a wood

plank wall estimated at $400. The 1841 article in the New Yoric Commercial Advertiser described: "... a long wall for espaliers and for the protection of fruit trees, ..." confirming the construction of wall; its location and materials are undocumented.^^ The front garden contained a pair of cast iron benches, one

located underneath each of the white pines flanking the entrance to the main house.^^

Many fences originated on the site during this period, but their location and materials are unknown. There were no fences around the fields in 1843, but this had changed by 1845 when the

Albany Cultivator states: "Several of the fields have been enclosed with new fences." However, the

article does not provide any other information. The only documented fence is the Dingman fence

mentioned above.^^ No details of the fence are known.

Summary

As the historically significant period for Lindenwald, the Van Buren Period also was the most

prosperous time for the property as a farm. After purchasing the deteriorating property in 1839, Van

Buren transformed it into a very successful working farm highly articulated in its spatial organization and

form. This was accomplished by the addition of eighty-four acres of land, reclamation of existing fields,

creation of new fields, and construction of many new buildings. The existing gardens and orchards were

reestablished and improved. In addition to the functional improvements of the farm, the house lot underwent aesthetic and functional changes. The 1849 renovations, designed by Upjohn, to the main

house and construction of two gate houses, emphasized and enhanced the formal image of the front of the

property.

The existing and vast improvements to the spatial organization allowed Van Buren to transform

Lindenwald into more than a farm. He was able to present the appearance of a country seat, with the

necessary formality and elegance. At the same time he was able to operate the working and experimental

farm he truly desired.

Near the close of this period, on 24 July 1 862, Van Buren died, leaving the farm to his three

Uving sons. In 1863, Van Buren's second eldest son John purchased the property from his brothers. His

brief ownership lasted less than one year, he sold Lindenwald to Leonard Jerome in 1 864.

54
Ill jllll

yml

ij

!!

m

ess hi

hi

esi Him

ilif

o;<Q

oS

5g

tt2;<

>

coo

h2

OH

m«< Co

to. i^

SZ JO

il

1

1

J

5 1

! 1

1

1

;

<5

1

r

f

5

1

:

1

i

1

1

1

1

j

1

1

1

1 i 9 8 9

/

\

/

1

\ \

i ]i|i„,„,,„,|iiHisnin!!!il!!ifii||i||llll|!jj|il!ll;ill!|iil

1 i nil !"!i!!s!i!!S!!Si!'!S!i^^'",!l!!'"'''Sl!.l''!!J" ! Sd-!'!!!;!!!!!!jH -- = = »"=;>===»=5=5E5SI!5»RBB»fi9BS)SS5HE.-H.- = HBS6(i?. |

1 , , , , , , , , , , , 1 n , , ,

, 1 , H n 1

.' 1 f.' i i f n f 1 i { n ;

!

, J n 1 H i ; n , , , , , / n n n |

1 J-'.^^^'nsin|_||lls|il|j|||||||y|j|jn|j||jJ||_||||||i|Sllllyjij]pJ

f 3 . =

» - >: -« ? 1 1 , 1 T n - 1 ? T

••; ^ ^ 7 «

= 7

• ? i 1 1 1 ? * t T ? ^ .; r' - ^ '; r ^

if 1 't 1 1 ? 1 i 1 -i 8 1 >; • M » •

'

"^ " " jTj

1 III

=5^;;;;^^ l3-22:2::5:!;j=."2i2I;322222i!2352:2fil

On w2

« .. OqUo

Hz

S2w Kg

eaz

-a: >

s

oo

ceo

ouj3

,,-f

9<^

£ 1

rtfc "" p

"

i

Chapter III: Wagoner Period

1864-1917

The Wagoner Period began in 1864 when Van Buren's son, John Van Buren, sold Lindenwald

(out of the family) two years after Van Buren's death. This time frame encompasses the last period during

which Lindenwald would remain intact as a working farm. Spanning fifty-three years, the period includes

four different owners for the property, the first three being absentee owners.

Leonard Jerome was the first of these owners. Jerome purchased Lindenwald from John Van

Buren in 1864 and owned the property for three years. Jerome operated the property as a working farm

but never lived there. Lindenwald was then owned by George Wilder from 1867 until 1873. Although he was known as a gentleman farmer and operated the property as a working farm. Wilder also never lived on the property. Lindenwald then was purchased by John Van Buren (distant relafive of Martin Van

Buren) and James Van Alstyne in 1873. This joint ownership lasted only five months, ending when

Adam and Freeman Wagoner purchased the property in 1874. The Wagoners brothers were local farmers

and Uved at Lindenwald, operating it as their working farm for 43 years. At the close of the Wagoner

Period, Adam Wagoner had sole control of the property. Adam sold 185 of the 221 acres to Dr. Bascom

Bimey in 1917. The Wagoner family retained the remaining 36 acres.

In general, the area around Lindenwald during this time period continues as a sparsely populated,

agricultural community. Period documents suggest that Kinderhook and its surrounding areas continued

to grow in development and population. Period maps illustrate a few more residences and farm

complexes than are illustrated on Van Buren Period maps.^^

The only major change to the property occurred at the end of the period: the Wagoners separate

thirty-six acres of land at the time of the Bimey purchase. This thirty-six acres, at the south end of the

farm, was retained within the Wagoner family. The Wagoner brothers, who owned the property for the

majority of this period, maintained Lindenwald quite well throughout their ownership, leaving the

property in good condition at the end of their tenure. This period, specifically the Wagoner ownership,

produced the earliest known photographs of Lindenwald, primarily of the front facade of the main house.

Several large scale maps of the surrounding area, created during this period, illustrate the property and some the buildings and structures existing at that time.

Period plans, located at the end of the chapter, illustrate the Wagoner Period. Included are a

1

" =

50' plan of the house lot (Historic Core: Wagoner Period) and a 1" = 250' plan of the enfire farm (Historic

Farm: Wagoner Period).

Setting

The only documented change to Lindenwald's setting during the Wagoner Period took place at the close of the period, in 1874, when Dr. Bascom Bimey purchased the property from Adam Wagoner.

Having had his brother. Freeman, declared incompetent, Adam Wagoner was in sole control of the farm

59
Chapter III: Wagoner Period 1864-1917

and sold 185 acres to Bascom Bimey, leaving thirty-six acres at the south end of the farm under Wagoner

ownership. 99

The Wagoners were known as thrifty and successful farmers in the Kinderhook area.^^

Together, the two brothers operated the property as working farm. In addition to their reputation as prosperous farmers, a circa 1905 photograph (fig. 3.1) illustrates crops growing on the south portion of

the front lawn, suggesting very intense farming for the property. Period photographs indicate the farm was weU-maintained during the Wagoner occupancy. The main house appears to have been in excellent

condition and the lawn area directly in front of the main house finely manicured (fig. 3.2).

Figure 3.1: Agriculture use (com field) of front lawn, c.1905 (Photo # CLR-303. On file, MVB NHS).

60
Chapter III: Wagoner Period 1864-1917

Figure 3.2: Front lawn and main house, c.1913 (Photo # CLR-304. On fde, MVB NHS).

Buildings and Structures

Of the ten buildings and structures existing on the property at the close of the Van Buren Period,

eight are confirmed to have existed through the Wagoner Period. They include the main house, north gate

house, south gate house, farm cottage, carriage bam, farm office, red hillside bam, and black hay bam.

The remaining buildings and stmctures from the Van Buren Period can not be confirmed to exist during

the Wagoner Period. They include the hothouse, greenhouse, and stone house. Other buildings and

stmctures first documented during this period and include a well house, wood shed, and Wagoner garage,

all located directly behind the main house.

61
Chapter III: Wagoner Period 1864-1917

The hothouse, greenhouse, and stone house are confirmed to have existed during the Van Buren

Period but are undocumented during the Wagoner Period. The Wagoner ownership followed several

years of absentee ownership during which the property was operated as a woridng farm for profit. During

the Wagoner ownership itself, the property was intensely farmed, possibly causing the hothouse and

greenhouse to fall into disrepair or even to be removed altogether. They were located at the west end of

the garden, adjacent to the fields. Therefore they may have been removed in favor of additional farmland.

There is no evidence anyone occupied the stone house after the Van Ness Period, suggesting it was left to deteriorate and may have been in ruins during the Wagoner Period.

Located behind the main house, the well house, wood shed, and Wagoner garage are first documented during this period. The well house was located behind the main house, over top of the well

that served it. It was a small wood frame construction approximately five feet square. It had a shingled

hip roof that allowed for a ceiling approximately six feet high. The sides were somewhat enclosed,

possibly with a type of lattice. A circa 1920 photograph (fig. 3.3) shows the well house in its Wagoner

Period location over the well. It remains undocumented whether this structure existed before the

Wagoner Period or if it was constructed during this time.

i«ag

Figure 3.3: WeU house, c. 1920 (Photo #CLR-423. On file, MVB NHS).

62
Chapter III: Wagoner Period 1864-1917

Two buildings were also located behind the main house across the drive: a wood shed and garage.

Like the well house, these buildings are first documented by their appearance in several photographs from

the Wagoner Period. The wood shed, as it was known later, was a one and one-half story wood frame

building approximately thirty-five feet by twenty-five feet (fig. 3.4 and 3.5). The origin of the wood shed

is unclear. It may have existed from the Van Buren Period, or even the Van Ness. Its description as a wood shed originates from the following period, therefore, its use during the Wagoner Period is unknown.

Its appearance and poor condition in the photographs suggest it was standing for a long time before the

photos were taken. Its sturdy construction and lack of foundation suggest that it may have been moved.

Archeological survey of the area suggests that it may have been rotated ninety degrees. The only

documented use and detailed description does not appear until the deProsse Period. ^^^

Figure 3.4: Wood shed, c. 1900 (Photo #CLR-004. On file, MVB NHS).

63
Chapter III: Wagoner Period 1864-1917

Figure 3.5: Woodshed, c. 1940 (Photo #CLR-4 16. On file, MVB NHS).

64
Chapter III: Wagoner Period 1864-1917

Adjacent to this building, to the northeast, was the garage. This garage, referred to as the

Wagoner garage, was also a wood-frame, one and one half story building approximately forty feet by

forty feet and is believed to have been constructed by the Wagoners (fig. 3.6). ^^2

Figure 3.6: Wagoner garage, 1969 (Photo # CLR-429. On file, MVB NHS).

At the close of the Wagoner Period, eight of the buildings from the Van Buren Period remained

and three buildings and structures are first documented during this period. The main house, north gate

house, south gate house, farm cottage, carriage bam, farm office, red hillside bam, and black hay bam

survived the period. The well house, wood shed, and Wagoner garage are first documented during this period.

Vegetation

Much controversy exists within past research regarding the condition of the vegetation on the

farm during the Wagoner Period. In previous reports, it has been assumed the grounds were in poor

condition throughout the Wagoner Period. The research for this report indicates it is more likely the

grounds began to deteriorate during the first ten years of multiple absentee ownerships, and these

65
Chapter III: Wagoner Period 1864-1917

conditions reversed after the Wagoners purchased the property. Photographs from the Wagoner tenure,

circa 1890-1900, the main source of information for this time period, suggest the property was very weU

maintained, especially the main house and the grounds directly around it. The garden area remains

undocumented and whether it was maintained through this period is unknown. Much of the front lawn

vegetation can be accurately documented from the photographs of this period. While a great deal of it survived from the Van Buren Period, the Wagoner Period photographs are the first documentation of the exact locations, and often of species.

This period provides detailed documentation of the circular garden space located at the front entrance to the main house. This small space was defined by a hierarchy of circular plantings of trees and

shrubs and the circular walk around its edge. The entrance to the garden was adjacent to the drive, across from the front entry to the main house. The circular path within the space separated the outside planting

bed from the inside manicured lawn. Three Eastern White Pines formed the outer most edge of the

planting bed, enclosing the space: one on either side of the entrance to the space and one at the far end

directly opposite its entry. Within the space created by the pines was a circular arrangement of shrubs.

There were five or six shrubs of different species spaced along the edge of the path. The number of

shrubs varied with time. The planting bed containing the pines and shrubs had a higher growth of grass or wild flowers in it, eight to ten inches in height. The area within the circular path had very finely

manicured grass, one to two inches in height. At the center of the space was an um and a smaU circular

planting bed approximately eight feet in diameter. Roses were planted in the um and within the planting

bed. Approximately eight plants surrounded the um and one was planted in it. Outside of this garden

space, the lawn continued to be maintained at a higher level, six to eight inches (fig. 3.7). ^^^

Many other plants are documented around the main house. At either side of the front porch was a Pegee Hydrangea, planted between the front windows. Ferns grew along both sides of the front porch.

Peonies were planted in pots and placed along the drive at the entry to the front garden space, three on

each side of the entry. Wistaria grew on the trellis at the southeast comer of the main house (fig. 2.17 and

3 7) 104 j^Q location and species of several trees and shmbs within the front lawn and aroimd the main

house has also been documented. They are illustrated on the Historic Core: Wagoner Period plan. ^^^

Very few other changes in the vegetation are documented for this period. The north and south

orchards existed throughout the Wagoner Period. The property continued to be intensely farmed. In a

circa 1905 photograph, com was planted on the south portion of the front lawn (fig. 3.1). The specific

years or length of time this lasted is uncertain but is likely to only have been a few years at the beginning

of the Wagoner tenure.

66
Chapter III: Wagoner Period 1864-1917

Figure 3.7: Front garden and front lawn, c.1913 (Photo # a.R-006. On file, MVB NHS).

Spatial Organization

The overall spatial organization of the property presumably remained as in the previous period.

The first and second terraces continued as the major spaces of the farm and the activity centered around

the house lot on the first terrace.

The small garden space at the front entry of the main house was well-defined during this period.

The pines surrounding created a strong overhead plane for the garden. This spatial enclosure was

strengthened by the height of the front lawn. Within the garden space, the lawn was maintained at a very

short height. The remainder of the lawn, surrounding the space, was maintained at a higher level (fig.

3.7). During the time when the crops were growing on the front lawn, the majestic and expansive sense of the lawn was lost.^^^

67
Chapter III: Wagoner Period 1864-1917

Circulation

There is no evidence of any changes to the circulation systems on the property during the

Wagoner Period. The entry drive remained as a prominent circulation feature of the property. Period

photographs show the drive consisted of compacted soil. The pedestrian path located within the front

garden remained and Wagoner Period photographs provide additional information regarding it. The path was a circular shape dividing the outside planting bed from the inside lawn area. It was approximately

two feet wide and also was constructed of compacted soil.^^^

The roads extending to the support and farm buildings and structures during the Van Buren

Period remained throughout the Wagoner Period. They included the roads from the main house to the

farm cottage and from the main house to the carriage bam and to the stone house site (fig. 2.17 and 3.8).

Also existing was the road from the stone house site to the farm cottage and red hillside bam.^^^

Furnishings and Objects

Several furnishings and objects existed on the property during the Wagoner Period. Some of

these remained from previous periods and others may have been introduced during this time. The

benches located underneath the pines at the entrance to the main house during the Van Buren Period

remained through this period, one bench under each of the pines.

From the photographs of this period, other furnishings and objects now are evident, including an

urn, flower pots, lawn furniture, a treUis, and fences. Within the front garden, an urn was located in the center of the small planting bed. Several flower pots flanked the entrance to this walk. Three pots were

located to either side of the entrance, descending in size as they moved away from the entrance. At the

south end of the circular walk, outside of the path, was a large tub somewhat buried in the ground. It appears to have been a planter but no plants are seen in it (fig 2. 17).

68
Chapter III: Wagoner Period 1864-1917

Figure 3.8: Entry drive, road to farm cottage, and garden fence, c.1913 (Photo # CLR-301.5. On file, MVB NHS).

A trellis was located approximately ten feet from the front south comer of the main house. Two

different trellises existed here during the Wagoner Period. In the early years a wood trellis approximately seven feet tall with a curved form, was in place. It appeared to have been painted a light color (fig 3.9).

At the end of the Wagoner Period a less sturdy, rectangular-shaped, wood trellis was in the same location.

It was approximately six feet tall and also appears to have been painted a light color (fig 3.10). Near the

trellis, on the opposite side of the entry drive, was a lawn swing. The swing appears to have been

stationary with two posts approximately ten feet tall with a cross member that held the swing. The entire

swing appears to have been constructed of wood and does not appear to have been painted (fig 3.10).

This swing is not in the earliest photos of the Wagoner Period, suggesting it was introduced later in this period.

69
Chapter III: Wagoner Period 1864-1917

Figure 3.9: Front view of main house, showing curved trellis, c.1895 (Photo # CLR-312. On file, MVB

NHS).

Figure 3.10: View of main house, showing rectangular trellis and lawn swing, c.1913 (Photo # CLR308. On file, MVB NHS).

70
Chapter III: Wagoner Period 1864-1917

Two wood posts, three to four feet tall, and used for tethering horses, stood along the entry drive.

Approximately thirty feet from the front comers of the main house, one was located at each side of the

approach to the main house (fig 3.1 1). Two fences are documented for this period. A post and wire fence

stood along the Post Road boundary of the property. This fence was approximately four feet tall and

appears to have been painted white. It was located between the fi^ont pine row and Post Road along the

fi-ont boundary of the house lot (fig 3.1). At the two entries this fence had wood gates across the drive.

They were composed of two hinged gates swinging inward and met in the center. The gates were

apparently made of wood and had a more ornamental character than the fence they joined (fig 3.12).

Another fence stood along the northeast and northwest boundaries of the garden. This wood picket fence was approximately four feet taU and seems to have been painted a light color (fig 3.2 and 3.8).

Figure 3.11:

NHS).

View of main house, showing hitching posts, c.1900 (Photo # CLR-31 1. On file, MVB

71
Chapter III: Wagoner Period 1864-1917

Figure 3.12: View along Post Road, showing front fence and gates to entry drive, c.1895 (Photo # CLR315. On file, MVB NHS).

Summary

The Wagoner Period is characterized by an initial ten years of deterioration and absentee

ownerships followed by the forty-three year residency of the Wagoners. The Wagoners' operation of the

farm maintained the property in good condition throughout their occupancy. The only major change

occurred at the close of the Wagoner Period when the farm experienced the first separation of land from

the original 221 acres of Van Buren's Lindenwald. In 1917, as the property moves into the deProsse

Period, thirty-six acres at the south end of the farm were separated from the farm and retained by the

Wagoners.

During this period Lindenwald was operated as more of a working farm for profit, with somewhat

less care and attemion than was given during the Van Buren Period. While the property seems to have

been maintained well, the maintenance had more of a utilitarian character. This image is supported by the

apparent loss of the hothouse and greenhouse, as well as the addition of crops growing within the front

lawn. Yet despite the loss of land and garden buildings, Lindenwald remained relatively intact and in

good condition as it was sold to Bimey and passed into the next period, the deProsse Period.

72
ll u

111] ml

89

9 S *#

m

m

iii

m

M

m

500 IOCLi

o

U

0:0

0.13

0.50

if!

55

fy

3 i^^"i

• HI i i

! 11 1 i 1 J 1 1

IIO(!0((M

I?

Ed 00

t/2B<u

US

oo

X

1-0! aoOH

«••

oO<

ill

- ^1

J?

Chapter IV: deProsse Period

1917-1973

The deProsse Period represents a time span of fifty-six years, during which time the property

changed from a working farm of the previous periods to use solely as a residence. The period began in

1917 when Dr. Bascom Bimey purchased 185 acres of Lindenwald as an investment Dr. Bimey and his

family fell in love with the property and made it their residence, rather than selling it as planned. Bimey

farmed the land ftx)m 1917 until 1925. Photographs suggest the property was well maintained during the

Bimey ownership. His daughter, Marian Bimey, acquired ownership in 1922 followed by her sister,

Qementine Bimey deProsse, in 1925. The family was away from Lindenwald for several years after this,

from 1925 to 1930. During this time, the property was cared for by the Schneck family, who rented the

farm cottage and helped on the farm. The Schnecks lived there until 1930, taking care of Lindenwald for

the five years the family was away.

Clementine and her husband, William deProsse, owned Lindenwald for thirty-two years, the

majority of the period. The deProsses had two children, Jeanne and William Jr., who were raised at Lindenwald. They also cared for several foster children at various times during their ownership.

Qementine deProsse recognized the historical importance of Lindenwald in its relation to Van Buren.

During her tenure, she tried very hard to have the federal or state government acquire Lindenwald as a memorial to Van Buren, proposing New York State use it as a summer residence for the Governor of New

York. Her unsuccessful efforts, the Depression, and World War II, resulted in severe changes to Lindenwald during this period.

The most substantial change was the separation of the remaining farmland from the parcel around

the main house. In 1946, 166 acres were sold to a local farmer. Following this sale, Lindenwald

consisted of thirteen acres surrounding the main house and a six-acre woodlot at the south end, making

Lindenwald solely a residence and no longer a farm. In addition to the sale of the farmland, many of the

historic buildings and stmctures on the property, over one-hundred years old during this period, were lost from decay, lack of maintenance, and fire. As a result of old age and several storms, much of the

prevalent and character-defining vegetation of the property also was lost or damaged during this period.

The environmental character of the area also underwent changes during the deProsse Period.

Electric service was added to the area during the same year, bringing a contemporary character to an area

that was previously so mral. New York State Route 9h was introduced and, subsequently, paved in 1937.

This period also saw an increase in development in the area, mostly along Route 9h. The farming

character of Post Road was altered by the introduction of Route 9h and the resulting new homes and

businesses developed on the new highway.

In 1957 Ken Campbell purchased the thirteen acres surrounding the main house. The property was somewhat deteriorated at the time and Campbell made many adjustments to the landscape and

buildings. The appearance of the main house was changed from Italianate to Neo-Colonial Revival and

the front lawn was scattered with decorative omaments such as fences, imitation well houses, and

trellises. Campbell constmcted a small shop near the south gate house and used the two buildings to

77
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

operate his antique business, displaying many of the items on the front lawn near the shop. For the last several years of the Campbell ownership the remaining thirteen acres were unmaintained and deteriorated

severely. This deteriorating and altered parcel was purchased by the National Park Foundation in 1973.

The deProsse Period is weU documented in photographs, as well as oral interviews of persons

who lived or worked on the property during the period. Period plans, located at the end of the chapter,

illustrate the deProsse Period. Included are a 1" = 50' plan of the house lot (Historic Core: deProsse

Period) and a 1" = 250' plan of the entire farm (Historic Farm: deProsse Period).

Setting

The deProsse Period began in 1917 when Dr. Bascom Bimey purchased 185 acres of the 221 -acre Lindenwald from Adam Wagoner. His acquisition included all but thirty-six acres of the farmland at the

south end of the property. ^^ Bimey maintained the property as a farm, selling some of the crops

produced there. Bimey transferred ownership of the 185 acres to his daughter, Marian Bimey, in 1922

and then to his daughter, Clementine deProsse, in 1925. ^^^ During both the Bimey and the deProsse

ownerships, various tenants lived in the gate houses and farm cottage and helped on the farm in lieu of

rent.

The deProsse ownership lasted thirty-two years. During this ownership, the family used the farm

to grow produce and crops for their own needs. They rented some of the farmland from approximately

1944 to 1946 to Ray Meyer and in 1946, Clementine deProsse sold 166 acres to Meyer. deProsse

retained 12.8 acres surroimding the main house and a six-acre woodlot across MiU Road. The 12.8 acres covered a portion of the first terrace, including the front lawn and part of the north orchard and garden.

^

The land purchased by Meyer in 1946 contained some of the first terrace, aU of the second

tertace, and most of the parcel across MiU Road. Meyer continued to use the land adjacent to Lindenwald

for agricultural purposes. While farming the property, Meyer removed the south orchard and garden.

Although the garden area was not part of his purchase, Clementine deProsse allowed him to farm it as well, in exchange for access to the com he was growing there. He also removed the rear portion of the

north orchard, containing the apple trees. Meyer sold the parcel across Mill Road at a later date for

development as residential lots.^^^

Route 9h, constmcted in the 1930s, was paved in 1937 and electric service was added.^^^ This

caused Post Road to became a secondary road and Lindenwald to become somewhat removed from the

passing traffic, rerouted along Route 9h at the comer by the south gate house. In combination, the loss of

the farmland, the deterioration of the buildings and grounds, and the rerouting of the passing traffic caused the property's formal character, which had been slowly fading, to be severely degraded.

The final private owner of the property was Ken Campbell, who purchased the deProsse's 12.8

acres surrounding the main house in 1957.^^^ Campbell used Lindenwald as his residence for the sixteen

years he owned it. From the shop he constmcted behind the south gate house he operated an antique

business, resulting in the sale of many of the main house's original Van Buren fumishings. Maintenance

78
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

of the grounds, which had decreased through the deProsse Period, was minimal during the Campbell

ownership. The final few years of the Campbell ownership demonstrate almost no maintenance at all. For the final few years of his occupancy, Campbell lived in the south gate house, continuing to sell antiques. At the close of the deProsse Period in 1973, the National Parte Foundation purchased the

unmaintained and overgrown 12.8 acres. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 illustrate the parcels of Lindenwald during

the deProsse Period.

2. Bimey Property: 43 acres

3. Wagoner Property: 36 acres ^ North NIS

Figure 4.1: Setting: Bimey (1917-1925) and deProsse (1925-1957) ownerships, deProsse Period,

(Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

79
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

KEY:

1. 129 acres deProsse Property: 1925-1946

Meyer Property: 1946-1973

2. 13 acres deProsse Property: 1925-1957

Campbell Property: 1957-1973

3. 37 acres deProsse Property: 1925-1946

Meyer Property: 1946-1973

4. 6 acres deProsse Property: 1925-1973

^ North NTS

Figure 4.2: Setting: deProsse (1925-1957) and Campbell (1957-1973) ownerships, deProsse Period

(Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

80
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

Buildings and Structures

At the beginning of the deProsse Period, there were twelve documented major buildings and

structures on the property, including: the main house, south gate house, north gate house, a garden

building, farm cottage, carriage bam, farm office, wood shed. Wagoner garage, well house, red hillside

bam, and black hay bam. Eight of these were lost during this period and two additional buildings were

constmcted. In addition, there were several privies and wells serving the major buildings and stmctures. The deProsse Period is the first time during which specific information regarding many of the property's

buildings and structures is accurately documented.

The main house underwent many changes during the deProsse Period, both on the interior and

exterior. On the exterior, a large omamental front porch, small rear porch, and much omamentation were

added. The porch added to the rear wrapped around the comer of the west wing (fig. 4.3). The exact date

of this addition is unknown, but it occurred between 1917 and 1936 and was later enlarged during the

deProsse Period (fig. 4.4).

^-—** '*•

' "'^-' *' "^ ^'•t'^-"

Figure 4.3: Rear porch on main house, 1937 (Photo # CLR-450. On file, MVB NHS).

81
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

Figure 4.4: Enlarged rear porch on main house. 1936 (Photo # CLR-463. On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 4.5: CampbeU front porch on main house, 1974 (Photo # CLR-530. On file, MVB NHS).

82
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

At the end of the deProsse ownership, the front porch was severely deteriorated and had to be

removed. When Campbell purchased the property, he added a large porch covering the entire front facade

of the main house. CampbeU also added ornamentation to the exterior of the main house, around many of

the windows and on the roof oveitiang, disguising the previously Italianate characteristics (fig. 4.5).

The south gate house was periodically used a residence during this period. Farm help lived in it until circa 1935. It had a one-hole privy next to it, but no well. The south gate house was vacant from

1935 until 1947, when the interior was renovated and it was labeled the "honeymoon cottage" for use by

Jearme deProsse after her marriage to Ned Akers (fig. 4.6).^^^ They lived in the south gate house for

three years. It was vacant again from 1950 until 1957. William deProsse, Jr. and his wife lived in the

south gate house for three months after their wedding in 1957.^^^ Beginning in 1957, Ken CampbeU used

it for his antique business. He lived in the south gate house for the last few years of his occupancy,

staying even after the National Parte Service took over the property.

Figure 4.6: South gate house, 1950 (Photo # CLR-434. On file, MVB NHS).

83
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

The north gate house (fig. 4.7) was occupied by farm help until the 1930s. At some time during

this occupancy, the garden building seen in figure 2.11 was moved from the garden and attached to the

rear of the north gate house. ^^^ This gate house had a weU and a two-hole privy at its northwest comer.

It was then vacant in the 1940s and was severely deteriorated in the 1950s. At this time it was sold to a family on Post Road and moved to their property where they used the lumber in the construction of their

house.

Figure 4.7: North gate house, n.d. (1890-1930) (Photo # CLR-003. On file, MVB NHS).

The farm cottage (fig. 2.6) was used as a residence for many years during the deProsse Period.

During the Bimey ownership, the Schneck family rented the farm cottage. The Schnecks moved out

around 1930, just after the Bimey family returned to Lindenwald. The deProsse family used the farm

cottage for a winter residence from 1930 until circa 1934. The size of the main house made it difficult to heat and, therefore, it was closed for those winters. From approximately 1935 to 1940, another family,

the Gansens, rented the farm cottage for their residence. It was vacant from 1940 until 1946, when Meyer

purchased the farmland, including the farm cottage. After his purchase, Meyer replaced the foundation on

the farm cottage and added electricity and plumbing. He also built an addition on the rear and dormers on

the roof. Meyer lived there for several years after his purchase (see Appendix F for floor plan). ^ ^^

84
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

The carriage bam (fig. 1.7 and 4.8) was northwest of the house and approximately thirty feet wide

and sixty-five feet long. It was positioned perpendicular to the house, its long axis running

northwest/southeast. The building had a main section approximately thirty feet square. Appendages at both ends made the entire length approximately sixty-five feet. The main section or bay of the bam was

divided into two areas. The west portion was for carriage storage and the east portion contained animal

stalls. The west portion had a sliding door on both the south and north walls for carriage access, and the

carriages were stored in the area along the west wall. The east portion was comprised of stalls along both

the north and south walls. The south wall had wood tie stalls for securing horses while the north wall had

box stalls for storing horses and other animals. It is unknown whether the bam was one large continuous

space or whether it was divided into an east and west section as it appears in figure 1.7. The building

contained a loft that extended its entire length. Figure 1 .7 illustrates the different roof height of the two

sections and it would seem the height of the loft in each section was also different. The east section had a lower roof and may have had a lower loft to accommodate this height. The exterior of the bam was

covered with six inch wood lap siding and the roof was covered with wood shingles. The carriage bam

was over one hundred years old at the start of this period and was deteriorating. As a result, it was

dismantled in approximately 1937. All of the debris from the building was removed from the site at that time (see Appendix F for floor plan).l^^

Figure 4.8: Carriage bam, n.d. (1890-1936) (Photo # CLR-001. On file, MVB NHS).

85
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

During the deProsse ownership, the farm office, which appears in good condition in a 1936

photograph (fig. 1.8), was used as a storage building and also as a smoke house. It is often referred to as the smoke house today, but was only used as such for one year during the deProsse ownership. The farm

office, as it is more commonly known, was a one story, eleven foot square building with a stone

foundation, brick walls, and hip roof. It had a wood floor laid directly on the ground and doors on three

sides, aU but the northwest. The building was removed sometime between 1957 and 1973, during the

Campbell ownership, leaving only the foundation. ^^o y^g j-gd hiUside bam (fig. 2.6) was the main

building of a small barnyard complex. The bam, constmcted into the slope behind the farm cottage, was

a large, two level building approximately fifty feet by seventy-five feet and approximately fifty feet tall to the roof peak. The rear of the bam faced the slope and had a raised ramp, or bridge, running from the top

of the slope, at the level of the first terrace, directly into the second level of he bam. The bam was

divided into many areas for use as animal or produce storage and work space. It was demolished around

1948 and the debris was removed from the property (see Appendix F for floor plan).i2i x^e black hay

bam (fig. 2.7 and 4.9) was a one-level building approximately seventy-five feet square and forty feet high

to the roof peak. The west end had an extension approximately twenty-five feet square containing a hay

press. The black hay bam was rented by locals for the production of alcohol for tWo years just before it was sold to Meyer as part of the farmland in 1946. To clear space for more crops, Meyer bumed the

dilapidated bam in 1948 (see Appendix F for floor plan). ^22

Figure 4.9: Black hay bam, c. 1940 (Photo # CLR-408. On file, MVB NHS).

86
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

The small complex of buildings directly behind the main house consisted of the wood shed,

Wagoner garage, two privies, and a few small structures (fig. 4.10). The wood shed (fig. 4.11) and

Wagoner garage (fig. 3.6) were connected to each other by a tool shed and pig pen. On the opposite end

of the garage, another shed, similar to the tool shed, was used to store left over slate for the roof of the

main house. It was called the slate shed and had been previously used as an ice house during the early

part of the period. Behind the wood shed was a three hole privy. Another two hole privy was located in

front of the wood shed (see Appendix F). During the begirming of the Campbell ownership, the wood

shed, two privies, and pig pen were removed. The Wagoner garage, tool shed and slate shed attached to it were the only part of this complex left standing. These removals were made by Campbell to construct a new garage behind the main house (fig. 4.12). The Campbell garage was a one-story, cinder block

building with an asphalt shingled, gable roof. It had four bays for cars and was twenty-five feet by fifty feet.123

Figure 4.10: Shed complex behind main house, c.1945 (Photo # CLR-419. On file, MVB NHS).

87
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

Figure 4.11: Wood shed behind main house, c.1940 (Photo # CLR-41 1. On fde, MVB NHS).

Figure 4.12: CampbeU garage, behind main house, c.1969 (Photo # CLR-418. On file, MVB NHS).

88
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

The well house, located on top of the well behind the main house during the Wagoner Period, was moved to the northeast comer of the Wagoner garage during the 1930s (fig. 4.13 and 4.14). Located in a grove of trees, it was converted to a play house for the deProsse children. It had either fallen down or been removed by the end of the deProsse Period, probably during the Campbell ownership. ^24

Figure 4.13: Well house converted into play house, c.1935 (Photo # CLR-427. On file, MVB NHS).

89
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

Figure 4.14: Slate shed in Wagoner garage and well house/play house, behind main house, c.1940

(Photo # CLR-407. On file, MVB NHS).

During the 1960s, Campbell constructed a small shop on the property from which he sold

antiques. The shop was located adjacent to the south gate house and was approximately twenty feet square with covered porches on the north and south sides (fig. 4.15).

In 1973, at the end of the deProsse Period, five buildings stood on the property: the main house,

south gate house. Wagoner garage, CampbeU garage, and the antique shop. The farm cottage was also

extant, but was on the Meyer property. AU were in relatively good condition with the exception of the

Wagoner garage which was crumbling.

Mechanical Systems

The first mechanical systems are introduced on the property during this period. In 1937, electric service was added along Route 9h, passing the property. From the road, the service was brought onto the

property by oveiiiead lines extending across the front lawn to the south front comer of the main house.^^^

A septic system was added to the main house in 1940. This system was located underground at the south comer of the hbrary wing of the main house. ^26

90
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

Figure 4.15: CampbeU antique shop, 1981 (Photo # CLR-537. On file, MVB NHS).

Vegetation

As the deProsse Period progressed, there was increasing lack of maintenance to the grounds and

the mature or Van Buren vegetation began to deteriorate. At the beginning of the period, during the

Bimey ownership, the vegetation appears well-maintained, although evidence is limited. During the

deProsse ownership, however, the grounds maintenance was minimal. The vegetation had no manicured

character and maintenance seems to have declined further as the years passed (fig. 4.16-4.19).

91
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

Figure 4.16: South gate house, c.1930 (Photo #CLR-413. On file, MVB NfHS).

Figure 4.17: East comer of main house, 1936 (Photo # CLR-421. On file, MVB NHS).

92
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

Figure 4.18: North gate house, c. 1945 (Photo #CLR-4 15. On fUe, MVB NHS).

Figure 4.19: Front lawn, c.1950 (Photo # CLR-405. On file, MVB NHS).

93
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

At the beginning of the Campbell ownership, the property exhibited a more manicured

appearance for a short time, although this image was the result of the finer maintenance of the front lawn.

The bulk of the vegetation actually was growing unchecked. By the final years of the Campbell

ownership the grounds fell into a complete state of decay once again; the vegetation grew wild and the

lawn was not maintained (fig. 4.20-4.22).

Figure 4.20: Front lawn, 1969 (Photo # CLR-459. On file, MVB NHS).

Figure 4.21: Front lawn, from tower of main house, 1969 (Photo # CLR-458. On file, MVB NHS).

94
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

Figure 4.22: Front lawn, 1969 (Photo # CLR-457. On file, MVB NHS).

A number of the major vegetation elements were altered during this period. The locusts in the

allee along the drive were dying and most were cut down and used for firewood during the 1930s. AH

three pines surrounding the front garden were lost during this period: one by a storm in 1937 and the other

two later, due to old age. The pine row and grove along Post Road were deteriorating and being

overgrown by invasive vegetation (fig. 4.21).

The orchards, approximately one-hundred years old at this time, were in poor condition. The

front portion of the north orchard contained pears that were too old to bear fruit by 1940. These pear trees were planted farther apart than normal, allowing for crops to be planted among them. The rear portion of

the north orchard was planted with apple trees extending from the carriage bam to the base of the first terrace. A curved road cut through the apple orchard from the carriage bam to the second terrace. The

south orchard was much smaller than either of these, consisting of the same apples as the north apple

orchard. It was located in front of the farm cottage and had only about twelve to fifteen rows of trees. Another orchard existed on the slope behind the farm cottage. It consisted of about fifty to seventy-five

Seckel Pear trees, a small orchard compared to the south and north. ^^7 Meyer removed all of the orchards on the farmland he purchased and converted the areas to fields for crops, leaving only the north pear

orchard. This front portion of the north orchard was allowed to deteriorate and become an overgrown

woodlot by the end of the period. The wood lot extended to Post Road and engulfed the north gate house

(fig. 4. 18). 128

95
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

Many details of the garden can be documented from this period. The garden undoubtedly

underwent changes, but many elements of Van Bureh's garden remained. The location of the garden was

the same, though some question remains about its size. Van Buren's garden was thought to extend to the

fish pond. The deProsse Period garden was only about one-half that size: approximately 300 feet by 150

feet. The area between the garden and the fish pond was pasture during this period. The layout of the

garden, with the grape rows and old pear trees bordering it on the south side suggest this order may have

always been the case. Contents of the garden at this time included: trees, vegetables, fruits, and

perennials. There were many trees within the garden, including locusts, elms, and approximately ten or twelve pear trees. The garden was surrounded by a fence on three sides and the south orchard on the

fourth. The north and east sides had a wood picket fence and the south side a wire fence (fig. 4.23). ^^9 The entire garden area, including the portion on the final 12.8 acre parcel, was plowed under and

cultivated by Meyer during the 1950s, before Campbell purchased the property. After this time, a small

vegetable garden was planted next to the wood shed.^^^

Several individual trees and shrubs were removed during this period by various causes, some new

trees were planted, and several old trees were replaced. These plants have been located and the

corresponding dates noted on the period plan: Historic Core: deProsse Period.

96
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

South

Apple Orchard

Pasture

Gate

a

Large 0P«> ^"'^ Black Locust No Fence

r 1 r

Potatoes

r

I J

"1

J Vining Vegeubles I

I I

\ I ^ Path

1

Vegetable Rows

U

U

H +1

Gate

s +

I )r ) c§ +

+ I

I

Asparagus Rhubarb +

+ V n ) 4

Farm Office +

Pear Trees -4- -+

Picket Fence

Road to South Field

Road to Main House

Lilies / --7

Road to South Gate House ^ North ^ NTS

Figure 4.23: Detail of Lindenwald garden, c.1940 (William deProsse, 1993. Re-drawn by Uschold,

1993).

97
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

Spatial Organization

The spatial organization of the property underwent major changes during this period. On a large

scale, the farmland was sold, greatly reducing the size, and use, of Lindenwald. This did not, however,

effect the property visually. The land was still operated for farming and the visual character of

Lindenwald was not severely altered. This sale did result in the removal of the south and part of the north

orchards, creating a more open character behind the main house.

On a smaller scale, several changes occurred. Defining features of the front lawn began to disappear, such as the row of pines along Post Road and the locusts along the entry drive. The smaU

garden space at the front of the main house, finely manicured during the Wagoner Period, was lost during

the deProsse Period. The circular grove of pines at Post Road in front of the main house also began to disappear. Only a few of the pines creating this screen remained at the end of the period. This allowed a more unordered character for the front lawn. These losses allowed for views onto the site from Post Road

that may not have been possible previously. Following this loss, seedlings and invasive plants grew up

along Post Road, countering the loss of the pine row. By the end of the Campbell owijership, the invasive

growth resulted in a very dense screen along Post Road, much more than the row of pines would have

provided. The loss of some of these elements was also countered by the growth of the wood lots to the

north and south of the drive. These two wood lots, previously the north orchard and the garden area, acted as defining features for the front lawn, countering the loss of the locusts on the drive, but changed

the views and vistas of the property. The growth of these wood lots blocked all of the views previously

existing from the house lot in those directions.

The creation of Route 9h also caused a major change in the spatial organization and the views and

vistas. Construction of this road rerouted traffic from Post Road, so that it no longer passed directly in

front of Lindenwald. The traffic on Route 9h would pass Lindenwald as it crossed Post Road. This

intersection was located at the comer of the house lot, directly adjacent to the south gate house. Passing

traffic would now view Lindenwald from the comer of the property, seeing the main house behind the

south gate house. It would no longer be evident that the property had a symmetry created by the front

lawn with gate houses at either end and the main house in the background at the center of the lawn. This

loss of spatial quality was furthered when the north gate house was removed. ^^^

Views and Vistas

The views and vistas of the property were altered during this period. The growth of vegetation

caused views to and from the property to be blocked. This included views to and from Post Road and some of the views from the rear of the main house over the farm. The views to the CatskiU Mountains

from the rear of the main house remained intact. Views also were possible to the Green Mountains from

the main house, but only from the tower (fig. 4.24).

98
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

129 Acres: Sold to Meyer. 1946 Remained Aghculmre

KEY:

\ Wood Lots & Invasive Growth, Blocking Views

1. North Wood Lot

2. South Wood Lot

3. North Orchari removed c,1950

4. South Orchard and Garden: removed c.1950

5. Locusts Along Entry Drive: lost c. 1930s

6. Circular Front Garden: lost c.1937

7. Remaining \'iew Across Farmland

8. Remaining View From Post Road & Rl 9h

^ North NTS

Figure 4.24: Spatial Organization and Views, deProsse Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

99
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

Circulation

Many of the circulation elements on the property were altered during this period. During the

Bimey and deProsse ownerships, the north drive was used as the main entrance. Due to the construction

of Route 9h, the south drive became a much more convenient route. The Campbells used the south drive

as the main entrance, allowing the north to become overgrown. With the introduction of Route 9h, Post

Road became a secondary road rather the primary route it was previously.

With the sale of the farmland, the circulation routes that extended onto that portion of the

property were cut off. They were no longer necessary and were lost by lack of use or were plowed under

by cultivation. This loss included the roads to the carriage bam, farm cottage, stone house site, and red

and black bams. A new road, from Route 9h, along the south side of the house lot, was implemented to access the farm cottage and farmland. This road was located just off of the remaining 12.8 acre Lindenwald parcel.

Water Features

Four documented water features existed on the property during the deProsse Period. They

included the two Van Buren fish ponds south of the main house and two additional ponds not previously

documented. The two fish ponds existing from the previous period were part of the farmland that was

sold to Meyer and subsequently were altered. The upper fish pond was enlarged slightly by Meyer and

used for irrigation purposes on his farm. The west end of the upper fish pond, which had the Van Buren

dam, was enlarged, thus removing the dam. The lower pond was lost sometime during the period. Its location on the ridge at the edge of the first terrace may have caused the end of it to coUapse over the edge

of the ridge into the second terrace.

Two other ponds are documented to exist during this period. After the new farm road was

constmcted adjacent to the upper fish pond, a small, shallow pond formed on the opposite side of the

road, due to the road slowing the flow of water from the spring to the upper fish pond. This small pond was approximately thirty feet long and ten feet wide and was used as the water source for the south gate

house, because it had no well. Its level fluctuated with the hydrology of the season. The second pond

documented for this period stood near the farm cottage, below the ridge, at the base of the lower fish

pond. This area was the location of the weUand that once existed on the property. This pond also was

enhanced by Meyer, giving it definition, rather than being merely a wetland. ^^^

Furnishings and Objects

Some of the furnishings and objects from the Wagoner Period survived into the deProsse Period

and several more were introduced. During the beginning of the period, the bench under the north pine in

the front garden suU existed. The bench under the south pine is not evident during this period at aU, but

both benches were missing by the late 1940s. The um in front of the main house remained through most

of the period, until Campbell moved it near the end of the period. It remained on the property to the south

100
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

of the main house (fig. 4.25). The rectangular trellis at the south comer of the main house remained until the Campbell ownership, at which time it was removed. At the rear of the main house, adjacent to the

vegetable gardens, several racks were set up for drying laundry. Some of these were present in the

Wagoner Period and some are documented only in the deProsse Period.

At the start of the deProsse Period, the garden had fences enclosing three of its sides. The north

and east sides had an elaborate picket fence made of wood and painted white. The fence had posts

approximately every six feet that were approximately five inches square. The pickets were spaced

approximately one and one-half inches apart. The pickets had flat, onion dome shaped tops and the

support posts had fully round tops of the same shape matching those of the front Victorian porch (fig.

4.26 and 4.27). 133

Several sections of fence were also added to the property during the Campbell ownership (fig.

4.28). The south and east sides of the Lilac grove south of the main house were fenced and both ends of

the entry drive had gates. These fences were approximately four feet high, constructed of wood timbers,

and painted white. The gates across the entry drives were white, wood gates of a simpler design than the

gates recorded there previously. A fence also existed around the Peter Van Ness grave, behind the main

house. This fence was constructed of large wood timbers and stood approximately one or two feet high.

It surrounded a square area about twenty feet by twenty feet around the grave (fig. 4.29).

'ft I'-

ll^

r'afiif'tm

1

i

Figure 4.25: Furnishings and objects, south of main house, 1974 (Photo # CLR-536.

NHS).

On file, MVB

101
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

Figure 4.26: Picket fence surrounding garden, c.1913 (Photo # CLR-301. On file, MVB NHS).

O

AA AAArt

'0!

Plan View

5" Square Support Posts

Pickets Spaced 1 1/2" Fence Height Approximately 4'-0" Onion Domes Reflect Style of Victorian Front Porch Balustrade Elevation

Figure 4.27: Detail of picket fence surrounding garden (William deProsse, 1993. Re-drawn by Uschold,

1993).

102
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

During the Campbell ownership, several decorative items were added. Several decorative objects were scattered around the front lawn and south side of the main house including: an artificial weU house,

bird bath, flag pole, arbor, wagon wheels, planters, and statues. Due to Campbell's antique business, there were many items for sale displayed on the property.i^'^

Figure 4.28: Furnishings and objects, south of main house, 1969 (Photo # CLR-453. On file, MVB

NHS).

103
Chapter IV: deProsse Period 1917-1973

Figure 4.29: Fence around Van Ness grave, behind main house, c.1960 (Photo # CLR-010. On file, MVB NHS).

Summary

The deProsse Period was an important time for Lindenwald. While it was the time during which

vast changes took place on the property, it is also the best documented. At the beginning of the period,

Bimey purchased Lindenwald, now reduced to 185 acres. The Bimeys and deProsses farmed the property

until they rented the farmland to Meyer in 1944 and sold it to him in 1946. This sale of 166 acres of the

farmland left 12.8 acres surrounding the main house and a six-acre wood lot.

During this period most of the historic farm buildings were demolished and two buildings were

added: the CampbeU garage and antique shop. Modem improvements, such as the construction of Route

9h and the addition of electric service were made. Vegetation elements, such as the orchards, garden,

locusts on the entry drive, pines along Post Road, and many individual trees were lost from old age and

storms.

By the end of the Campbell ownership, Lindenwald consisted of 12.8 acres, containing the main

house, south gate house, antique shop. Wagoner garage, and Campbell garage. The property was not

being maintained, the buildings were in poor condition, and the vegetation was severely overgrown. In 1973, the National Park Foundation acquired the property to save it from further deterioration.

104
H

III ^

1

1

89 m

mi

6^

-H C S2

^^

o

u

Q

rii5|l

HO!

OiO keI s

i-iz JO

ft.5o

Sul - Pa "

pl

\/

{ llinl|s|ll}}ini!!Ul!S!Lf}l!|j|jl|{lllh||!!ll||ll!j{j!Jill|nSSHnm|^^

S3-= = >3!5!!5EE£2E?EEE«;5;?;!5««*si5«5«»eSSa866 = ;;;£;;S = ;asaaSaSS = = 5JS»5?. 5» = 5 = iS>: = 5Sj

1 ' ^'f Ct'^f t£!tEiiEt£MtEt!f EM.(£jUhl'.-'''«»IH««"«HinnHinHIJ Jill; Jfil

1 ij^'iMj-"--"-"*•"^•-^--"'M:'f|-'^^iiyi/ilnl^lnm

ij. c = ccscrcr>;8iCii;«iat»;c;j£»ur>SSEEESe6;; ;!!; = a 5;5cs; c ii;«b!!»;s:!;i i ;t»5;;j;j;js;j

1 ,, m\iiinii,,,in! I in im. il inini ill [^'''iiiiuniumti]

"^"^--^ ie ? = = = : = :;: = = «;:: = = .i* = ai;s;u:j = :;s;:;i:.r;s; = ->i« J, »58i = ;jj«;ilj|

Is;

die

I H

H O

ai

cuU

Q

S k"

CH

yl

^ ?

o«65

? ii

= I

Chapter V: National Park Service Period

1973-1993

The National Parte Foundation, in order to save the remnants of Van Buren's Lindenwald from

further deterioration, purchased the 12.8 acres in 1973. At that time, 128 acres of the original Lindenwald

farmland were owned by a local farmer and 38 acres by another. Of the remaining 43 acres at the south

end of the farm, across Mill Road, 37 acres were part of a small, residential subdivision and 6 acres were

an undeveloped wood lot.

The 12.8 acres purchased by the National Park Foundation contained the main house, south gate

house, Campbell antique shop, and the Campbell and Wagoner garages. The buildings and vegetation

had not been maintained for several years. In 1975, the National Park Foundation turned the property over to the National Park Service, who established the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. To

accommodate use as a pubUc park, the site has undergone vast changes since the time it was obtained by

the National Park Service. Several of the first years were spent clearing the grounds of overgrown

vegetation and debris accumulated during the Campbell ownership. Since the completion of the clearing,

the grounds have been maintained in a park-like setting with few changes. At the same time, attention was directed toward the property's buildings and structures. The main house underwent extensive

restoration treatment, the south gate house was rehabilitated, and the north gate house foundation was

stabilized. Many other changes were made to the property during this time. Two mobile homes housing

the administrative offices for the Park, and a storage facility, were added to the rear of the property.

Utility systems also needed to be updated. A water storage tank for fire protection, sewage and storm

water systems, and a new electrical supply system were added to the property. Additional parcels of

surrounding property were purchased, both in fee and easements. This brought the Park land to a total of

38.6 acres.

The Park has been open to the public since 1977. The grand opening took place in 1987 upon

completion of the restoration of the main house interior and the site is operated as a house museum,

commemorating the political life of Martin Van Buren. Interpretation, by guided tour, concentrates on

the main house and its interior. While very limited information of the grounds is provided, visitors are allowed access to them and encouraged to walk around.

Period plans, located at the end of the chapter, illustrate the National Park Service Period.

Included are a 1" = 50' plan of the house lot (Historic Core: National Park Service Period) and a 1" = 250'

plan of the entire farm (Historic Farm: National Park Service Period). In addition, existing conditions

maps illustrating the property in 1993 are also located at the end of the chapter. Included are a 1" = 50' plan of the house lot (Historic Core: Existing Conditions: 1993) and a 1" = 250' plan of the entire farm

(Historic Farm: Existing Conditions: 1993).

109
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Setting

The area surrounding Lindenwald has remained generally in agricultural use, but has experienced some development along Route 9h, now a fifty-five mile per hour highway. While the area has remained

relatively rural and the town of Kinderhook has grown only slightly, its proximity to Albany suggests that future development is not unlikely.

The property boundaries have changed significantly but the visual setting of the current site has

retained its overall character of the previous periods. All of the land adjacent to Lindenwald has remained

in agriculture or, at least, undeveloped, maintaining the rural character (fig. 5.1 & 5.2).

Figure 5.1: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, aerial view from south, present park setting, 1978

(Photo # CLR-550. On file, MVB NHS).

110
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Figure 5.2: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, aerial view from west, present park setting, 1978

(Photo # CLR-551. On file, MVB NHS).

The original National Park Service acquisition consisted of Campbell's 12.8 acres. An additional

nine parcels, consisting of non-historic and historic Lindenwald parcels, were subsequently purchased.

Four parcels were purchased in fee, bringing the total to 20.3 acres owned in fee. Conservation easements were purchased on another five parcels, protecting them from development. The easements total 18.3

acres. The total property controlled by the Park, in fee and easements, is 38.6 acres.

^^^

111
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Parcels 01-101 and 01-102 make up the 14.3-acre historic core of the property owned in fee. Parcel 01-103 is an easement covering historic property adjacent to the core. Parcels 01-104, 01-107, and

01-108 are non-historic parcels, owned in fee that were acquired to accommodate a proposed visitor

facility. Parcels 01-105, 01-106, 01-109, and 01-111 are easements covering non-historic property

acquired as buffers surrounding the Park. Parcel 01-110 contains the portion of Post Road that extends in front of the Park. This 1.8-acre parcel is not owned by the Park at this time. It is owned by the Town of

Kinderhook, which has stated it would donate the parcel to the Park (fig. 5.3 & 5.4). ^^^

|||B^ A(ir«9g« NP$ Owuer^hip

|1J^^^^^^^

01-101 12.8 Fee Historic

01-102 1.5 Fee Historic

01-103 10.6 Easement Historic

01-104 0.6 Fee Non-historic

01-105 2.2 Easement Non-historic

01-106 1.7 Easement Non-historic

01-107 2.6 Fee Non-historic

01-108 2.8 Fee Non-historic

01-109 2.9 Easement Non-historic

01-111 0.9 Easement Non-historic

Figure 5.3: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site parcels (MVB NHS).

112
Chapter V: National Park Service Period

1973-1993

r^.

I

I Owned in Fee

I Conservation Easement

Historic Lindenwald Property

^ North NTS

Figure 5.4: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site parcels (Uschold. 1993. SUNY CESF).

113
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

As mentioned above, the majority of the original Lindenwald farmland currently is owned by a

local farmer, Ray Meyer, and is still in agricultural use. While many alterations to the farmland have

taken place, the property still provides the visual setting of agricultural use. The National Park Service

purchased 1.5 acres in fee from Meyer, bringing their historic core holding to 14.3 acres. This purchase

left Meyer's Lindenwald farmland holdings at 128 acres. Another 38 acres at the south end of the original

Lindenwald farm are owned by a local farmer and are still in agriculture use. Of the forty-three-acre

parcel of Lindenwald farmland across Mill Road, thirty-seven acres has been subdivided into several

individual lots and developed as residential properties. The other six acres, adjacent to the subdivision,

remain within the deProsse family (fig. 5.5).

I 1

I

I Historic Lindenwald Boundary

^ North NTS

Existing MVB NHS Boundary

Figure 5.5: Setting: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

114
Chapter V: National Parte Service Period 1973-1993

Buildings and Structures

In 1973, when the National Park Foundation acquired Lindenwald, six buildings and structures existed on the property: the main house, Wagoner garage, Campbell garage, south gate house, Campbell

antique shop, and north gate house foundation. Two of these were removed and three buildings were

added. The farm cottage still existed but was located on private property, the Meyer farm.

The main house, in a dilapidated state at acquisition, underwent extensive restoration efforts. The

non-historic front and rear porches were removed and the historic front porch was replaced. The interior was completed in 1987 and the exterior in 1991, returning the house to its 1850s appearance. The house

is now painted yellow with brown trim (fig. 5.6).

The exterior of the south gate house was also restored, with the exception of the original chimney,

which was left off because it was believed to be non-historic. The interior of the south gate house was

repaired and is now used as storage space. The exterior of the south gate house has been painted to match

the house (fig. 5.7). The interior has three rooms on the first level: a large room with a fireplace, once the

living room, and two small rooms that served as the kitchen and bath. Stairs from the bathroom lead to the upper level. The basement is accessed by steps on the exterior of the building. The north gate house

foundation was filled with debris in 1973. This fill was removed and the foundation was back-filled with

soil to ground level to stabilize it from deterioration. ^37 ^ one-foot high portion of the stone foundation

remains above grade. The foundation is now threatened by several Black Cherry (Prunus serotina) trees that have grown up around it. (fig. 5.8). The farm office foundation, constructed of flat stones at grade

level, is also extant. Since it is at grade level and located in an area maintained as lawn, it is becoming

overgrown and covered with grass (fig. 5.9).

H^B^Sr *^ iMtt l^jji

J0^

B ^

1

"^

Ki -=--

Figure 5.6: Lindenwald, main house, 1993 (Photo # CLR-141 1. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

115
Chapter V: National Parte Service Period 1973-1993

Figure 5.7: South gate house, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1316. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

^-**!wZ^ >^tfsJ^^ '^' ^

ftK^..^.'- r

;s^:?s^*{^«S^^^iS'.;

• » -;„'—., "W >^--V

Figure 5.8: North gate house foundation, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1654. J. Harris, NPS).

116
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Figure 5.9: Farm office foundation, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1666. J. Harris, NPS).

The Campbell garage was renovated for use as the maintenance shop for the Park in 1978. Three

bays are used for work and storage space and the fourth is office space. This garage also has been painted

yellow (fig. 5.10). The Wagoner garage collapsed in 1974 and the debris was removed from the property

(fig. 5.11). Campbell's antique shop was removed from the property in 1981 due to its visually intrusive

character and location (fig. 4.15).^^^

In 1977, a mobile home was added for use as Park offices. It was replaced in 1980 by a twelve

by fifty-six foot mobile home. This mobile home was supplemented in 1983 by a twenty-four by forty

foot, double wide mobile home and a vestibule was constructed between the new and old mobile homes

(fig. 5.12). Located behind the main house, the twelve foot wide mobile home now houses the curatorial

offices and the newer one houses the administrative offices. Another building, known as the pole bam,

located next to the offices, is used for curatorial storage and the maintenance office. The pole bam was

constructed in 1983-84 as a temporary structure to house curatorial items (fig. 5.13).^^^

117
Chapter V: National Parte Service Period 1973-1993

Figure 5.10: CampbeU garage: maintenance garage, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1 116. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.11: Wagoner garage, 1974 (Photo #CLR-501. On file, MVB NHS).

118
Chapter V: National Parte Service Period 1973-1993

Figure 5.12: Mobile homes: administrative and curatorial offices, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1118. Uschold,

SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.13.: Pole bam: curatorial storage and maintenance office, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1117. Uschold,

SUNY CESF).

119
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

The farmland, now owned by Meyer, had an extensive complex of buildings at the beginning of

the period and more buildings have been added to it during this period. The farm cottage is extant,

although it has been greatly altered. It has undergone a number of renovation and modernization efforts. Additions have been built on the west and north sides of the building. It is now being used as a residence

(fig. 5.14). The farm complex also contains a ranch house built in 1985. In addition, there are three silos, one large bam, seven garages and sheds, one hothouse, and one greenhouse (fig. 5.15 & 5.16).

Figure 5.14: Farm cottage, 1993 (Photo # CLR-11 12. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

120
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Figure 5.15: Meyer farm complex and 1985 ranch house, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1313. Uschold, SUNY

CESF).

Figure 5.16: Meyer faim complex, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1509. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

121
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Mechanical Systems

Water is provided to the Park by an underground well located behind the main house. This well was installed by the Park in 1978. The well provides the amount of water needed at the Park, however it

is not dependable for drinking water. The historic well that served the main house still exists at the rear of

the house (fig. 5.17). A steel cover has been placed over the well for protection. The sewage from the

Park buildings is handled by a 1000-gallon septic tank which was placed underground in front of the pole

bam. The septic system which served the main house and was implemented during the deProsse Period, was removed as non-historic in 1984. Four leach tanks were added, located around the main house, and

are used for disposal of the storm water run-off from the gutters of the house. These leach tanks are dry

wells constructed of concrete. On the north side of the front lawn, a 10,000-gallon water tank was placed

underground. It has no connections to the Park's other water supply and was added for the sole purpose of

fire protection.

Figure 5.17: Historic well for main house, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1 1 15. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

122
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

The electric service to the property was re-routed and improved in 1984. Electric service now

enters the property via an underground line on the north end of the front lawn. The line runs directly from

Post Road and goes straight to a transformer, located in the north wood lot near the main house. From

there it goes underground to the main house, continuing to the garage, mobile homes, and pole bam. The

south gate house receives its electric service directly from the line running along Post Road. An overhead

line runs from the Post Road line to the gate house. From the gate house, this overhead line continues to a pole at the edge of the south wood lot. This extension is no longer in service and stops at the electric pole

at the edge of the south wood lot. ^^^ The overhead electric line that previously served the main house

still exists, passing directly across the front lawn. It continues to serve the farm complex behind the Park

(fig. 5.18).

Figure 5.18: Electric service pole for Meyer farm complex, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1415. Uschold, SUNY

CESF).

123
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Vegetation

As with the majority of the site's landscape features, the vegetation experienced major changes

during the National Park Service Period. In 1973, the vegetation on the property was severely overgrown,

not having been maintained for several years.

The front lawn had become overgrown with weeds and saplings and was being greatly

encroached by the surrounding vegetation. Invasive plants had grown around aU of the trees and shrubs

within the lawn. The pine row and grove along Post Road was now a dense wall of plants, extending far into the front lawn. What was left of the north orchard had become a dense wood lot extending to, and

engulfing, the north gate house foundation. The area south of the main house, between it and the upper

fish pond, also had grown into a dense wood lot, now known as the south wood lot. The north and south

wood lots also were overgrowing their boundaries along the entry drive. The sides and rear of the two

garages had become overgrown with trees and shrubs extending into the north wood lot.

Over a period of years, beginning in 1976, vegetation was cut back and cleared from the property.

The lawn was cleared of all plants except the larger trees and shrubs. The pine row along the road was

cleared, leaving only the larger trees, of various species, to maintain the row. The north and south wood

lots were cut back a few feet from the entry drive and several feet from the south gate house, antique

shop, and north gate house foundation, leaving the larger trees. The vegetation surrounding the garages was cleared completely and the north wood lot cut back on its south boundary. Upon completion of the

clearing, lawn was established and maintained around all of these features (fig. 5.19-5.23).

Figure 5.19: Front south lawn, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1421. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

124
Chapter V: National Parte Service Period 1973-1993

Figure 5.20; Front lawn, pine row, & south drive, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1520. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.21: Pine row & front pine grove, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1423. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

125
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Figure 5.22: Pine row, 1993 (Photo # CLR-2061. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.23: Vegetation south of main house, 1993 (Photo # a.R-1308. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

126
Chapter V: National Paiic Service Period 1973-1993

Within these area—the front lawn, north wood lot, and south wood lot—plant materials have

been recorded. The plants within the front lawn have been located and identified. The major trees and

commonly occurring plants within the south and north wood lots have also been identified. This

information is presented on the plant list (Appendix G) and existing conditions map of the historic core: Historic Core: Existing Conditions: 1993. Over 230 individual plants of 30 species have been located on

the map.^"^^ Many existing stumps have also been documented. Several Black Locust stumps exist along

the entry drive within the wood lots and along the fence line on the north boundary of the historic core. ^^^

The vegetation today is finely manicured by the Park staff The lawn is regularly cut to a height

of approximately two inches, and the trees and shrubs are continuously trimmed of dead limbs and low

hanging branches. Several historic trees have been replaced in kind and various new plantings have been

added. The boundaries of the wood lots are maintained, but there is no other maintenance. The north

wood lot often is used by the maintenance staff as a discreet storage area and Black Cherry trees are often

cut for fire wood and used in the wood burning stoves in the maintenance garage. A small nursery is maintained behind the south wood lot. ft holds small conifers used for replacement and screening efforts in preparation for the proposed visitor center north of the historic core. The nursery includes Canadian

Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), Japanese Black Pine (Pinus thunbergii), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga

menziesii), and White Spruce (Picea glauca) (fig. 5.24).

Figure 5.24: Nursery at rear of site, 1993 (Photo # CLR-3002. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

127
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Spatial Organization

The spatial organization of the property remains divided into two large spaces, the first and

second terraces. The majority of each space is devoted to agriculture use and has a very open character.

The transition slope and its vegetation continues to divide these two spaces. A few changes and some

development has occurred on the property, but as a whole the spatial organization remains unchanged.

The first terrace is divided into two spaces: agriculture space and the Park. The agriculture space

contains the Meyer farm complex and several fields. The farm complex is concentrated around the farm

cottage, at the edge of the terrace. The fields on the first terrace have a more open character with the

orchards and garden cleared. The Park property, covering the majority of the house lot, is physically and

visually separated from the agriculture space. The combination of the NPS facilities and the north and

south wood lots act as a border that encloses the front portion of the property. This front portion of the

property is well-manicured with the entry drive, front pine row, and expansive lawn with scattered trees, leading to the main house and presenting a formal setting. The lawn is well-defined and finely manicured

and the north and soutii wood lots and scattered trees along the drive provide a dense boundary along the

sides of the lawn, enclosing it and directing attention to the main house.

The second terrace retains its open form, bordered by the transition slope and the Kinderhook

Creek. Only minor changes have occurred within this space. They include the loss of the bams and the

addition of several ponds along the edge of the transition slope. While these changes are significant to the

property, they have not effected the spatial organization of the terrace itself.

Figure 5.25: View of site from Post Road & Rt. 9h, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1507. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

128
Chapter V: National Parte Service Period 1973-1993

Views and Vistas

Due to the clearing within and along the edges of the front lawn, the views to and from the front

of the property were affected. While still clearly defined, the lawn had a more open character,

particularly along the Post Road boundary. It is now possible, once again, to obtain views of the main

house from the road and vice-versa (fig. 5.25 & 5.26).

The view from the rear of the property, to the Catskill Mountains, remains but has been confined

to the north comer of the house lot. Vegetation along the transition slope has grown to block this view

except from this extreme location. Vegetation on the farm and in the valley behind the Parte block much

of the immediate view of the vaUey, but the view to the Mountains is partially intact. Several buildings

have been added to the farm complex behind the Park, but, while visible, they do not block any views.

The view from the rear of the main house to the farm cottage and the Van Ness grave remains (fig. 5.27 &

5.28).

«8i1

•^•m

s^

Figure 5.26: View of Post Road & Rt. 9h from tower of main house, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1525.

Uschold, SUNY CESF).

129
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Figure 5.27: View toward farm cottage & Van Ness grave from main house, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1517.

Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.28:

CESF).

View toward CatskiU Mts. from rear of site, 1993 (Photo # CLR-3003. Uschold, SUNY

130
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Circulation

A number of changes and additions to the circulation systems occurred during this period. The

entry drive, overgrown with vegetation at the start of the period, was re-established. Previously

composed of compacted soil, crushed stone was added to the south portion of the drive, while the north

remains compacted soil. The south drive is used regularly by the Park maintenance staff; the north is rarely traveled on (fig. 5.29 & 5.30). The farm road, accessing the Meyer farm complex behind the Park, was compacted soil at the start of the period. In 1989 the farm road was paved with asphalt (fig. 5.31). In the location of the garden, a temporary employee parking area has been constructed. It is composed of

compacted soil and stone, accommodates approximately thirty cars, and is accessed by a road of the same

materials extending from the farm road, at the intersecfion with the upper fish pond (fig. 5.32). A series

of asphalt paths were constructed, connecfing the parking, maintenance garage, mobile homes, and pole

bam. Two paths were cut through the vegetation of the north wood lot. They provide the maintenance

staff access to their storage areas, visitor access to the visitor rest rooms, and visitor nature walks.

Figure 5.29: South drive, from main house toward south gate house, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1307.

Uschold, SUNY CESF).

131
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Figure 5.30: North drive, 1993 (Photo #CLR- 1604. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.31: Farm road, from Rt. 9h, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1312. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

132
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Figure 5.32: Employee parking area, from farm road, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1320. Uschold, SUNY

CESF).

Visitor parking for the Parte is along Post Road, in front of the site. Visitors park along the road

and walk across the front lawn or up either side of the entry drive. Handicap parking for two vehicles is available next to the maintenance garage behind the main house. It is accessed by the south entry drive.

The north drive is blocked (fig. 5.33 & 5.34).

Figure 5.33: Visitor parking, along Post Road, 1993 (Photo # CLR-131 1. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

133
Chapter V: National Parte Service Period 1973-1993

Figure 5.34: Handicap parking, rear of main house, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1 121. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

New York State Route 9h, which intersects Post Road in front of the Parte, is a very busy, 55 mph

highway. The intersection of this route and Post Road is directly in front of the south gate house. This is also the point where visitors access Post Road and enter the Park and Route 9h curves sharply to the

south, intersecting Mill Road a few hundred yards to the south. This intersection creates a traffic hazard

for any vehicle trying to access any of these roadways (fig. 5.35 & 5.36).

Figure 5.35:

CESF).

New York State Route 9h & Post Road, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1606. Uschold, SUNY

134
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Water Features

The only designed water feature within Park control is the upper fish pond. It abuts the farm road

and is located on a conservation easement controlled by the Park. The pond, enlarged by Meyer during

the deProsse Period, currently is used for irrigation purposes on his farm. On the opposite side of the

farm road is a small pond created as a result of the farm road's construction. This smaU shallow pond has

formed by the fill for this road. A culvert runs underneath the farm road, connecting this small pond with

the upper fish pond. This pond fluctuates greatly depending on the season. It is almost non-existent

during the dry summer months (fig. 5.36-5.38).

Figure 5.36: Upper fish pond and smaller pond flanking farm road, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1318. Uschold,

SUNY CESF).

135
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Figure 5.37: Upper fish pond, 1993 (Photo # CLR-3004. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.38: SmaU pond adjacent to fann road, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1319. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

136
Chapter V: National Parte Service Period 1973-1993

Meyer also altered the existing pond on the second terrace at the bottom of the transition slope

and constructed four additional ponds on the farm. The pond at the bottom of the slope was redefined and

is now also used for irrigation on the farm. Meyer constructed two additional ponds at the southwest end

of this existing pond. These three ponds directly abut the bottom of the slope (fig. 5.39-5.41). Two

smaller ponds were constructed within the slope between the first and second terraces. A southern one

located behind the farm complex and northern adjacent to the farm road leading to the second terrace (fig.

5.42 and 5A3)M'^

Figure 5.39: Existing pond at base of slope, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1 107. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

137
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Figure 5.40: Northern Meyer pond at base of slope, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1672. J. Harris, NPS).

z^^

Figure 5.41: Southern Meyer pond at base of slope, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1671. J. Harris, NPS).

138
Chapter V: National Parte Service Period 1973-1993

Figure 5.42: Northern Meyer pond within slope. 1993 (Photo # CLR-11 10. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.43: Southern Meyer pond within slope, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1669. J. Harris, NPS).

139
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Furnishings and Objects

While the staff was clearing the site of debris, all of the decorative items added by Campbell were

removed, including all fences he constructed on the property. The only furnishing saved was the urn

previously in front of the main house (fig 5.44). After the lawn was established, a replica of the urn was

placed in the original location in front of the main house. A one- foot square concrete pad was constructed

to support the urn. The original urn is kept in storage in the pole bam. A stone marker stands in front of

the south gate house, placed there by Campbell as a result of his antique business. The origin of the

marker was unknown at the time of the National Park Service grounds clean-up and it was, therefore, left in place (fig. 5.45).

Many small features on the site have not been documented previous to the research for this report.

At the base of the south entry, two circular brick features flank the drive. These features are brick

outlines and appear to have been planting beds. They have an eight foot circumference and surtound the

locations of the former white pines. A similar feature, made of stone, is present on the south side of the

north entry. Another brick outline exists within the lilac clump south of the main house. This brick

outline appears to be an edge of a walkway or the border of two planting beds around the lilacs. It is approximately two feet wide and eight feet long, fading into the shrubs. The remnants of a post and wire

fence are extant along the north boundary of the historic core. The remains of a horse wagon and a piece

of farm equipment are located within the north wood lot.^^

Figure 5.44: Urn in front of main house, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1662. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

140
Chapter V: National Parte Service Period 1973-1993

Figure 5.45: Stone marker in front of south gate house, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1601.

CESF).

Uschold, SUNY

Many contemporary items have been added to the Park. Two reproductions of the original front

lawn benches have been placed near the entrance to the main house (fig. 5.46). A flagpole and parte sign

also are on the front lawn, along the Post Road boundary. The flagpole is alimiinum and approximately

thirty feet tall. The sign is wood, approximately eight feet tall, and states the name of the Park (fig. 5.47).

Three aluminum sheds have been placed behind the maintenance garage and mobile homes (fig. 5.48).

Four portable toilets for visitor use are located in the north wood lot. They are positioned approximately

twenty-five feet into the woods near the north entrance to the main house (fig. 5.49).

141
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Figure 5.46: Benches on front lawn, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1659. J. Harris, NPS).

'1

tuft J

.1 "^1

I^Jl ^ , iJ 4

IlfF ^

' 11i

WiJByn a I

Figure 5.47: Park sign & flagpole in front of park, 1993 (Photo # CLR-3005. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

142
Chapter V: National Parte Service Period 1973-1993

'MB

Figure 5.48: Aluminum sheds at rear of park, 1993 (Photo # CLR-1 122. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

Figure 5.49: Portable toilets for visitor rest rooms, 1993 (Photo # CLR-3(X)6. J. Harris, NPS).

143
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Located on the Meyer property is the headstone and grave of Peter Van Ness and his wife. The

grave is no longer surrounded by a fence and the surrounding agriculture fields are now encroaching

within five feet of it (fig. 5.50).

Figure 5.50: Headstone for Peter Van Ness grave behind main house, on Meyer property, 1993 (Photo #

CLR-1102. Uschold, SUNY CESF).

144
Chapter V: National Park Service Period 1973-1993

Summary

At the start of this period the property consisted of a 12.8-acre parcel containing five dilapidated

buildings and greatly overgrown vegetation. But now, twenty years after acquisition by the National Park

Service, Lindenwald's main house has been restored, the overgrown vegetation has been removed, and the

property has increased to 38.6 acres.

The property's deteriorated state was remedied by extensive clearing of vegetation and debris,

restoration of the main house, rehabilitation of the south gate house, and the removal of intrusive, nonhistoric buildings. Management of the site as a public park accommodating visitors required the addition

of support facilities. These included the mobile homes, pole bam, staff parking, and visitor rest rooms. The treatment of existing historic buildings is complete and the landscape of the Park has been maintained

without any major alterations. Today the Park includes 24.9 acres of historic property, leaving 196 acres of Van Buren's farm holding now in private hands. Thirty-seven acres are developed as a residential

subdivision at the south end of the farm. 127.5 acres are held by Meyer and used for agricultural purposes

and another 36 acres, owned by Burch, also are in agriculture. The remaining 6 acres are an undeveloped

wood lot. The Meyer property, while unprotected by any easement at this time, still provides a visual

setting for Lindenwald as agriculture land. The subdivision, while different than its historic use, cannot

be seen from the Park.

145

in! liiiJiiiiJiijJJiJfL

J^csisicit'crcscrcoocciCcc

n

4

til

IS

il

fii Ml

< u

^ ft. U M

«y

H oJ a

<«

us

a:

ft. .J<zo

z

QO

2 <

so

ft- -c

k4 Co

DC £• =

3

'

i



1

lij lillhiJlii'r'iill • InlhJiJillnnlisiini

l:£:!s:£:s::;::sti83ss«E:c

ue

m

til

i4

s§

ito «o >

•<E!: » U.H iz H? St «o f!^^ y" QOgo toy

z H

t/5 u X

bd

e

BO

PH

uO<

Sm -

1 lUuiuiiiiuiiiiuninuiUinnllUluiWil 1 s SI 1 n n '

!

' h ' •

i i '^ - ^ M - - - ^

* H

«ri"-?ii?-?? = ?*- = ~^^^^---? = 5????5!5? = = ???l^5ISRBr. 8S !S5;;;S = 5 = £5 = 33a33S!)5!533355b35S5HH15a5555

1 iii|iiiiiynui!ini?iiiaii|iiiyu|li!iiith

1 |J]jlL5jj|ninillllllill21li5llHinMl;liM^P

n hunt 81 |5"«'*J« '"*""""'« ie'^^^ee jiiiliniflMlLnlhlJliiiLsiiiiy^^! n=-

£5.r = ;:r;rri;ttiii:uisiu«t»7jriiitrt«55;JSJtf« = = = ; = = ; ; 3 = 5 = S 3 3 3 ? 5 3 5 « 5 = 3 ! 5 » 6 • E • = : • J 5 ! = ! « ! 3 E S ; r » r ! 111.1] iiiiiiiiiiiiti j'.iiiiiiiiiiiniiii

li ^ = = = z = = = = = = = = =|, = ,r. , r , = = .-, r, ,.,,,.. = = -..:..,..=; r = , = . t . e , = = -.,:,-., I

il

cs

i iJJJJjJ

1 iviuUv \

hi

§2

oS

xz

IS j

OH

0.(5

a.<c.

5« r

-

zG i

il!

§« o a

l-Z 3>

E< J* r

Hi

VI. Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

This chapter of the Cultural Landscape Report contains three parts: (1) the statement of

significance and explanation of the period of significance for the Martin Van Buren National Historic

Site; (2) a comparison of the landscape features existing during the period of significance with the

landscape features existing today; and (3) an evaluation of the integrity of the site. The statement of

significance is an explanation of the site's eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. This

statement established the basis for the site analysis. The site analysis is a comparison and assessment of

individual landscape features which shape the character of the historic landscape and which resulted in an

evaluation of the integrity of the site as a whole.

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

According to the Secretary of Interior, a property is significant if it represents part of the "history,

architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture of a community. State, or the nation. "^^^^ A property can

achieve significance in several ways (four criteria):

A. Association with historic events, activities, or patterns

B. Association with important persons

C. Distinctive physical characteristics of design, construction, or form

D. Potential to yield important information ^"^^

As stated in the current National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, Lindenwald is significant in the area of Politics/Government under Criterion B: Association with an important person

and is also significant in the area of architecture under Criterion C: Design/Construction.

Under Criterion B, Lindenwald is significant due to its association with Martin Van Buren, a prominent politician in both state and federal governments during the nineteenth century. Van Buren had

a long and influential political career that began at the state level in New York and culminated with his

terni as the eighth President of the United States (1836-1840).

Van Buren's polifical career in New York State actually was longer and more influential than his career with the Federal government. Van Buren spent many years as a prominent lawyer, practicing in New York. He then served as Attorney General of the state for several years, becoming quite well-known

for his legal genius; followed by eight years as a United States Senator, representing New York State. During his long state career. Van Buren also played a significant role in the construction of the Erie

Canal. In 1828, he began a term as Governor, only to resign shortly thereafter to accept the position of

Secretary of State in Andrew Jackson's administration.

155
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

As a close friend and political ally of Andrew Jackson, Van Buren followed Jackson's Presidency

and continued the ideals and beliefs of that administration. Although Van Buren is one of the lesser

known Presidents, many of his achievements in office play a major role in society today. These include

the configuration of the independent federal treasury system and the formation of the Democratic and

Republican parties as they currently exist. Unfortunately, Van Buren was the victim of the first real political "campaign" for public office in the United States. As a result, he lost his party's nomination in

1840 and was forced to leave the White House sooner than he planned.

As was the case with most of Van Buren's associates and colleagues, men of their stature and

reputation often possessed large estates or country seats. In preparation for retirement, which Van Buren

had hoped would occur in 1844, he purchased a 137-acre farm in his native town of Kinderhook, New

York. Immediately following this purchase, while stiU President, Van Buren began to improve the farm,

which he renamed Lindenwald. Van Buren took residency in 1841 and, for two decades, devoted the

majority of his time to Lindenwald, operating it as an experimental and working farm. Van Buren

expanded the farm to 221 acres with agricultural fields, orchards, a nursery, and gardens. He

experimented extensively with different varieties and propagation of vegetable and fruit-producing plants.

These ranged from grape vines to apple trees to potatoes. Van Buren remained politically active,

although less frequently, from the impressive country seat he created. Van Buren's desire was to concentrate his farm on agriculture and experimentation. What he created was a property that could

fulfill this desire while acting as the estate or country seat expected of a man of his reputation.

Lindenwald gave the appearance of a formal estate while truly being a working farm.

Although Van Buren owned and invested in many properties, Lindenwald was the only one of his

residences he owned. It was this 221 -acre farm that Van Buren was so proud of and wished to show to all of his friends, relatives, and associates. Van Buren's evident love and devotion to his farm make it clear

that Lindenwald was an extremely important part of the twenty-one years he lived there, experimenting

with plants and managing the farm. The period of significance for Lindenwald in the area of

Politics/Government, under Criterion B: Association with an important person, is from 1839 to 1862, the

time which Van Buren owned Lindenwald. ^"^^

Significant under Criterion C: Design/Construction, Lindenwald's main house is a significant

example of Italianate architecture and also is a well-preserved work of the prominent, nineteenth centuryarchitect Richard Upjohn. The main house originally was constructed in 1797 as a late Georgian/Early

Federal rectangular building. During Van Buren's ownership, major renovations, designed and supervised

by Upjohn, were implemented over a two year period: 1849-1850. The result was a greatly enlarged

Italianate house.

The overall period of significance for Lindenwald, encompassing the aspects of both Criterion B

and C, is from 1839-1862, the entire span during which Van Buren owned Lindenwald.

As part of the statement of significance, the current National Register of Historic Places

Nomination Form was reviewed. At the time the nomination form was completed, landscapes were not

generally recognized as contributing to the property's significance. As a result, the landscape, or any of

its character-defining features, was not mentioned on the form. Based on the analysis of the characterise
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

defining landscape features, and the determination of significance and integrity of the existing landscape,

the National Register Nomination Form should be amended to include the landscape and its characterdefining features. They should be included as significant features of the property under Criterion B: Association with an important person. As clearly stated throughout this report, it was the entire property,

as a farm and a country seat, that was important to Van Buren. The entire property therefore, the

landscape which includes the buildings and structures, is significant in its association with Van Buren.

SITE ANALYSIS

Based on the period of significance, an assessment of each individual character-defming feature

present during the period and/or existing today was made.^"^^ A brief description of each feature's historic

and existing state precedes its analysis. In the analysis, the features were listed as existing or not existing.

Second, a determination was made regarding the contribution of each existing feature to the significance

of the property. A contributing feature is one "...present during the period of significance, and possesses

historic integrity reflecting its character at that time or is capable of yielding important information about

the period."l'^9 A non-contributing feature is one "...not present during the significant period, or due to

alterations, disturbances, additions, or other changes, it no longer possesses historic integrity reflecting its character at that time or is incapable of yielding important information about the period." ^^^ Following

the site analysis, the integrity of the property, as a whole, was assessed.

Environment (Natural and Socio/Cultural)

Historic: Scattered along the Hudson River were many small towns and villages. Lindenwald was located on Post Road, the main route which connected these developments extending from

Albany to New York City. The Hudson Valley was sparsely populated with orchards,

agricultural farms, and many large estates.

Existing: The use of Post Road as a main route has been replaced by New York State Route 9. Many of the small towns, as well as Albany and New York City, have grown immensely.

Commercial and residential development has occurred along most of this route. Although

substantially less in number and size, many orchards and farms still exist in the Hudson Valley,

especially in the northern portion, the vicinity of Lindenwald. The resulting overall environment,

although substantially more developed, is still rural and agriculturally based in the northern

portion. Aside from the development of the socio/cultural overlay, the natural environment has

not changed.

Analysis: Existing, contributing.

While the environment has undergone changes, as the result of development, the Hudson Valley,

and especially the area surrounding Lindenwald, has retained its rural character and agricultural

base.

157
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

Setting

Historic; Lindenwald's immediate setting was extremely rural and the only surrounding

development consisted of other farms and orchards. Farms bordered the north and south sides of

Lindenwald, the Kinderhook Creek on the west, and Post Road on the east. The property

consisted of 221 acres of intensely used, agricultural land. Approximately 190 acres were

improved land, mostly orchards or agriculture fields. The main house, front lawn, and entry drive were at the front of the property facing Post Road, a two-lane, dirt road connecting New York

City and Albany.

Existing: Surrounding land use is either agriculture or residential, maintaining a very rural character. Lindenwald has been reduced to thirteen acres, but the majority of the original

farmland is still used for agriculture. The main house, front lawn, and entry drive retain some of

the formal character facing Post Road, but the road is now rarely used and has a dead end

approximately 300 yards north of Lindenwald. New York State Route 9h, a fifty-five mile per

hour highway, now passes adjacent to the south end of the property and has replaced the need for

Post Road.

Analysis: Existing, contributing. In comparison to the development that has occurred in the Hudson Valley, the immediate

surroundings of Lindenwald have been bypassed. The most substantial change to Lindenwald's

setting is the difference in the acreage of the property. Although all of the farmland has been

separated from the remaining thirteen-acre house lot, the majority of the land is virtually

unchanged. It remains in agriculture and visually maintains Lindenwald's historic setting.

Lindenwald's immediate surroundings are still in agricultural use, but the addition of NYS Route

9h has affected the property. NYS Route 9h caused Post Road to become a secondary and,

eventually, a dead end route. It directed traffic from passing along the front of Lindenwald to now only passing the south comer of the current property, diminishing the symmetrical and

formal character previously experienced by passing Lindenwald on Post Road. Because the

agricultural setting is extremely important to the historic character of the property and further

development would diminish it, Lindenwald's setting is a priority for treatment.

Natural Systems and Features

Topography

Historic: Lindenwald's topography consisted of two main terraces, the first (upper) and second

(lower), separated by a transition slope. Each terrace had a gentle, westerly slope toward the

Kinderhook Creek. The first terrace was cut by two ravines which led to the second terrace. Two

ponds were contained within the smaller, northern ravine which was fed by a natural spring that surfaced just south of the main house. The ravine continued to the second terrace where it terminated in a depressed area at the base of the transition slope. The larger ravine originated to

158
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

the east of Lindenwald and also terminated in the depressed area on the second terrace. This

depressed area was cut by artificial ditches allowing it to drain into the Kinderhook Creek.

Existing: The overall topography of Lindenwald remains unchanged. The two terraces remain

and continue to slope toward the Kinderhook Creek. Changes have occurred on a smaller scale. Several contemporary ponds have been constructed within the transition slope and on the second

terrace at the base of the slope. Three are at the base of the slope where the depressed area

existed and two are within the slope. The historic northern ravine and lower of the two historic

fish ponds no longer exist. The upper historic pond has been enlarged slightly and no longer has an outlet.

Analysis: Existing, contributing.

Due to the property's continued agriculture use, the existing topography has undergone only

minor changes and still reflects the overall historic character. The existing topography is not

threatened and, therefore, is not a priority for treatment.

Hydrology

Historic: The hydrology of Lindenwald consisted of a westerly drainage pattern, toward the

Kinderhook Creek. Within the property, two natural springs and a wetland existed. One spring was located on the house lot, south of the main house. It drained through the ravine on the house

lot, feeding two artificial ponds on the first terrace. The water continued to the wetland in the

depressed area at the ravine's base, on the second terrace. This wetland was traversed by a series

of ditches that allowed it to drain into the Kinderhook Creek via a small ravine extending to the

Creek. Another spring existed in the transition slope between the terraces, at the west edge of the

house lot. It also drained into a ravine leading to the Kinderhook Creek.

Existing: On a large scale, the drainage patterns of the property remain as they did during the

period of significance: a westerly slope toward the Kinderhook Creek. The natural spring on the

house lot exists and continues to feed the upper pond, but the ravine leading away from it no

longer exists. The upper pond now has no outlet and is used for irrigation on the farm. The lower

pond no longer exists. The spring in the transition slope continues to drain into the ravine leading

to the Kinderhook Creek. The depressed area that was once the wetland below the transition

slope has been altered. Three ponds have been constructed there. Two additional ponds have

been constructed within the transition slope between the terraces.

Analysis: Existing, contribufing.

Many small alterations have been made, but the overall hydrology continues to reflect the historic

character. The existing hydrology is not threatened and, therefore, is not a priority for treatment.

Spatial Organization

Historic: Lindenwald was physically divided into two spaces: the first and second terraces. Each terrace was a large open space; a wooded slope separated them. The first terrace contained

the house lot, which faced Post Road and presented a formal character for the front of the

159
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

property. This included the gate houses, entry drive and locust allee, front pine row, fix)nt garden,

and front lawn, all leading to the main house. Directly behind the main house was a cluster of

support facilities including the garden, farm buildings and structures, orchards, and pastures. The

remainder of the first terrace and all of the second terrace were devoted to agriculture fields. This

arrangement created a formal character for the property as seen by anyone visiting or passing by,

keeping all of the woric aspects to the rear of the property.

Existing: The overall spatial organization of the property remains the same. The first and

second terrace continue to be farmed, but the associated support activities are now clustered

around the farm cottage. The parcel across Mill Road has been developed for residential use. The current NPS property encompasses the front portion of the house lot. The south gate house,

entry drive, front pine row and front lawn remain intact, but the north gate house, locust allee, and

front garden have been lost. The front of the property retains it formal character, but the loss of

these elements has diminished it. The cluster of support facilities behind the main house also

have been lost. The loss of the garden and orchards has given the area behind the main house a very open character.

Analysis: Existing, contributing.

The historic spatial organization of Lindenwald remains intact. The layout of the agriculture

fields is virtually identical, with the exception of the parcel across Mill Road. The farm's support

activities have moved from the house lot to the area surrounding the farm cottage and all bams

also are now located there, as opposed to their historic location on the second terrace. The

character of the activity and farm buildings and structures is more contemporary.

While many of the elements that created the formal character of the front of the property have

been lost, much of the character has been retained. The north and south wood lots have

maintained the sense of enclosure, although more dense, once defined by the locust allee. The

symmetry created by the combination of the gate houses, entry drive, locust allee, and front pine row is not as strong but is still evident. The lawn has a more manicured character today, but the

form remains.

Although the spatial organization is intact, it is threatened by possible development of the

agriculture and surrounding land. Therefore, it is a priority for treatment.

160
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

^^\..-,

\. n

^ ^ 1 1* //

Finn Activity Center

House Lot

.,»Vifeg

Form«l Property Fronuge

PoaRMd

Figure 6.1: Spatial Organization of Lindenwald Farm, Van Buren Period (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

,.^n

KJndeibookCteek.'

I

' C \ <

Agriculture Area

House Lot

Fonn«l

Property Fronuge

Post Road

Figure 6.2: Spatial Organization of Lindenwald Farm, 1993 (Uschold, 1993. SUNY CESF).

161
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

Buildings and Structures

Main House

Historic: During the first eleven years of the period of significance, the main house was a simple, rectangular. Federal house. Beginning in 1849, two years of renovations, designed by

well-known architect Richard Upjohn, transformed the main house into a much larger, elaborate

mansion. Reflecting the Italianate style, the renovated house had a four story tower, west and

south wings, and a Victorian front porch.

Existing: Both the exterior and the interior of the main house have been restored to the 1850s

appearance, reflecting the Upjohn design.

Analysis: Existing, contributing.

As a resource itself, the main house retains high integrity, demonstrates all aspects of integrity

and continues to reflect its historic character. Although the existence, nor condition, of the main

house are not threatened, its importance to the property's historic character make it a priority for treatment.

Carriage Bam

Historic: The carriage bam was approximately a thirty-five feet by sixty-five feet, one-story,

wood-clapboard building. It had a hay loft overiiead and stalls for animal and carriage storage on

the ground level. It was located to the north of the main house. The carriage bam existed when

Van Buren purchased the property and remained through the period of significance.

Existing: The carriage bam no longer exists. It was tom down and removed from the property in

1937. The location now is cultivated farmland.

Analysis: Not existing.

Extensive information regarding the size, layout, constmction materials, and location of the

carriage bam is documented. The carriage bam was important to the historic character of the

property. Housing both carriages and animals, it was an essential element of a nineteenth-century

property such as Lindenwald and, therefore, is a priority for treatment.

Farm Office

Historic: The farm office was constructed circa 1800 and existed through the period of

significance. It was an eleven feet square, one-story, brick building located at the east comer of

the garden. Its use during the period of significance is unknown.

Existing: A portion of the farm office foundation exists, but the building itself was removed

circa 1960.

162
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

Analysis: Foundation elements existing, contributing.

Extensive information regarding the size, layout, construction materials, and location of the farm

office is documented. Although its exact use is unknown, it was part of the garden which was a very significant feature to Van Buren, making the farm office important to the historic character

of the property. Therefore, it is a priority for treatment.

Stone House

Historic: The stone house existed during the period of significance, but its condition is undocumented. It is unknown whether it was in use or already abandoned during the period of

significance. Other than being constructed of stone, little is known regarding the design or appearance of the building. The general location of the stone house and its outbuildings is documented.

Existing: Neither the stone house nor its ruins exist today. The location now is cultivated

farmland.

Analysis: Not existing.

The lack of documentation regarding the stone house and its use suggests that it was not

important to the historic character of the property, and, therefore, it is not a priority for treatment.

Greenhouse

Historic: The greenhouse was constructed in the beginning of the period of significance and was

located in the north comer of the garden. No further details of the building are known.

Existing: No physical evidence of the building exists in its historic location. The location now is cultivated farmland.

Analysis: Not existing.

The greenhouse was important to the historic character of the property. Associated with the

garden, it was an essential part of the propagation and experimenting Van Buren was conducting

and was, therefore, important to the very nature of Lindenwald. Its location is an important

archeological site and the feature is a priority for treatment.

Hothouse

Historic: The hothouse was constructed in the beginning of the period of significance and was

located in the north comer of the garden. No further details of the building are known.

Existing: No physical evidence of the building exists in its historic location. The location now is cultivated farmland.

Analysis: Not existing,

163
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

The hothouse was important to the historic character of the property. Associated with the garden,

it was an essential part of the propagation and experimenting Van Buren was conducting and,

therefore, was important to the very nature of Lindenwald. Its location is an important

archeological site and the feature is a priority for treatment.

Stables and Wood House

Historic: The exact location and layout of the stables and wood house is undocumented. They

were either wings attached to the rear of the main house or were a separate structure located

behind it.

Existing: No physical evidence of the stables and wood house exists in their presumed location.

The location now is lawn and woodland.

Analysis: Not existing.

The stables and wood house were important to the historic character of the property. They were

structures constructed by Van Buren to fulfill his needs. Their location is an important

archeological site and the feature is a priority for treatment.

Farm Cottage

Historic: The farm cottage was a small, one and one-half story Federal building built by Van

Buren in approximately 1843. It was located on the edge of the first terrace, amidst the fields,

and was the residence of the farm foreman.

Existing: The farm cottage exists, but has been altered on both the exterior and the interior. Additions have been made and the building has been renovated several times. It now serves as a private residence.

Analysis: Existing, contributing.

The farm cottage was a substantial building for a nineteenth century farm employee residence. Its existence and interpretation are integral to understanding how important and valuable the farm was to Van Buren. Recognizing the many changes the farm cottage has undergone, the location

and spatial mass of the building still contribute to the historic character of the property. Further

alterations may damage its ability to contribute to the historic character of the property and,

therefore, it is priority for treatment.

Black Hay Bam

Historic: The black hay bam, a large building located on the second terrace adjacent to the

Kinderhook Creek, was constmcted circa 1843 by Van Buren to accommodate his growing need

for crop storage. The building had a large wing on the south side containing a hay press.

164
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

Existing: The building was burned in the 1950s to clear the land for additional crop space. No

physical evidence of the bam exists in its historic location. The location now is cultivated

farmland.

Analysis: Not existing.

The black hay bam was important to the historic character of the property, but its isolated

location detached it from the rest of the farm. Interpretation of its existence as part of the

woricing farm is important, but it was located far from the core activities of the farm and could

not be seen from the main house. Therefore, it needs to be interpreted, but it is not a priority for treatment.

Red Hillside Bam

Historic: The red hillside bam was constmcted in 1849 by Van Buren. It was built into the

transition slope behind the farm cottage and was used for crop storage and housed animal.

Existing: The building was demolished in the 1950s. No physical evidence of the bam exists in

its historic location. The location now is in successional growth.

Analysis: Not existing.

The red hillside bam was important to the historic character of the property. While its location,

close to the core of the farm, make it significant for interpretation of the farm, information is limited to general aspects of its constmction. Therefore, it is not a priority for treatment.

South Gate House

Historic: The south gate house was built as part of the Upjohn design in 1849. One of a pair of

gate houses at the entries to the drive, it was a small, one and one-half story building with a full basement. It was used as a residence for farm employees.

Existing: The exterior of the south gate house has undergone thorough restoration efforts to retum it to its 1 850s appearance, but it still retains a few details of past renovations. The interior

has been renovated and is used for storage space.

Analysis: Existing, contributing.

The exterior of the south gate house retains its historic character and the existing building

contributes to the historic character of the property. Some evidence of modernization efforts still exists on the exterior of the building. Its importance and prominent locafion make it a priority for treatment.

North Gate House

Historic: The north gate house was constmcted in 1849 in conjunction with the south gate

house. As the primary entrance to the property, the north gate house was slightly larger then the

165
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

south gate house. Having a large dormer on the second level, it was otherwise identical to the

south gate house and also was used a residence for farm employees.

Existing: The stone foundation to the north gate house exists. The basement portion has been

back-filled while a one-foot section remains above grade. An extensive growth of volunteer

Black Cherry trees is growing in and around the foundation.

Analysis: Foundation existing, contributing.

The pair of gate houses, located at the two entrances to the property, were part of the formal

image the property possessed during the period of significance. Their presence not only added to the symmetrical design of the front of the property, but, more importantly, gave the impression someone important lived at Lindenwald: someone who needed to have the entrance of their

property monitored. The existing foundation and other documentation confirms the location,

size, shape, and construction materials of the original building. The foundation is currently

threatened by the invasive Black Cherries growing around it. In combination with the south gate

house it was important to the historic character of the property and is a priority for treatment.

Maintenance Garage

Historic: The maintenance garage was not present during the period of significance.

Existing: The maintenance garage is a concrete block building with three bays and a small

office. It was constructed in approximately 1960 during the Campbell ownership of the deProsse

Period and is located directly behind the main house.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

The maintenance garage contrasts with the historic character of the property and has no

significance of its own. Its location and contemporary appearance make it intrusive to the historic

character and a priority for treatment.

Mobile Homes

Historic: The mobile homes were not present during the period of significance.

Existing: Two mobile homes, attached to each other and including two additions, serve as the

administrative and curatorial offices for the park. They were installed during the NFS Period and

are located behind the maintenance garage.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

The mobile homes greatly contrast with the historic character of the property and have no

significance of their own. Their location and contemporary appearance make them intrusive to the historic character and they are a priority for treatment.

166
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

Pole Bam

Historic: The pole bam was not present during the period of significance.

Existing: The pole bam is a temporary storage facility adjacent to the mobile homes. It was

constmcted to serve as office space for the Chief of Maintenance and storage for both

maintenance and curatorial staffs.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

The pole bam does not reflect the historic character of the property and has no significance of its own. Its location and contemporary appearance make it intmsive to the historic character and a

priority for treatment.

Meyer Farm Complex

Historic: With the exception of the farm cottage, discussed above, the buildings and stmctures

of the Meyer farm complex were not present during the period of significance.

Existing: The Meyer farm complex is comprised of one house, three silos, one large bam, seven

garages and sheds, one hothouse, and one greenhouse, not including the farm cottage which is discussed separately above. One of the sheds was constmcted at an undocumented date previous

to the Meyer ownership. All of the other buildings were constmcted during the Meyer ownership

of the farmland.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

The Meyer farm complex does not reflect the historic character of the property and has no

significance of its own. While these buildings and stmctures are contemporary in nature, they are necessary to suppx)rt the agricultural use of the property and are not a priority for treatment.

Mechanical Systems

Utilities

Historic: A well was located behind the main house and was the main water supply. The well

existed through the period of significance but it is unknown when the well was first constmcted

and what form it took at ground level. It is the only documented utility that was present during

the period of significance.

Existing: The historic weU behind the main house exists, but it is no longer used. It has a contemporary steel cover over the top of it at ground level. Contemporary mechanical systems

have been added to the property to meet current needs. They include a new water well near the

mobile homes, an underground septic system near the pole bam, an underground storm water

drainage system around the main house, and underground water tanks on the north lawn for fire protection. Electric service also has been added to the property via both underground and

167
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

overhead Unes. A transformer located in the north wood lot is the base for the underground

electric system.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

The well contributes to the historic character of the property as an element of the period of

significance, but the form the well took at ground level is unknown. A well house covering it is documented after the period of significance, but it is unknown when the well house was

constructed. The current steel cover on the well does not reflect the historic character, but does

protect the well fix)m damage as weU as providing a safety cover. Its location is directly adjacent

to the drive and rear entry to the main house. Due to the location, current condition, and historic

significance, the well is a priority for treatment.

The contemporary mechanical systems used and installed by the park have been placed discreetly on the property. The only intrusive utilities are the overhead power lines that extend across the

front lawn. One line extends directly passed the main house and continues to the Meyer farm

complex. This power line provides no service to the park property. It merely crosses the park

and extends to the Meyer farm complex. Another line, extending from Post Road, provides

electric service to the south gate house. The intrusive and contemporary character of the electric

lines makes them a priority for treatment.

Site Engineering Systems

Upper Fish Pond Dam

Historic: A field stone dam existed at the west end of the upper fish pond during the period of

significance. It had a wooden sluice regulating the water flow from the pond into the ravine.

Existing: The dam no longer exists. It was removed when the west end of the pond was

enlarged by Meyer.

Analysis: Not existing.

Although the dam was part of the control system, regulating the water flow of the pond, the pond

itself was important to the historic character of the property. Therefore, the loss of the dam does

not greatly affect the historic character and it is not a priority for treatment.

Vegetation

Black Locust AUee

Historic: An allee of Black Locusts enclosed both sides of the semicircular entry drive. The

locusts were planted circa 1800, making them approximately forty years old at the beginning of

the period of significance. They were arranged in an alternating sequence along both sides of the

drive and existed through the period of significance.

168
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

Existing: One of the original Black Locusts exists and two replacement Black Locusts have been

planted on the south portion of the drive. Other scattered trees, of various species, have been

planted or are volunteers along the drive, but no sequence or pattern is created by the existing

trees.

Analysis: Not existing.

The Black Locust allee contributed to the historic character of the property, as an integral spatial

defining element of the formal character of the front portion of the property. The trees existing

along the drive are scattered and possess no sequence and, therefore, do not reflect the historic

character. The Black Locust allee was important to the spatial organization and formal character

of the property and is a priority for treatment

Front Lawn

Historic: The front lawn encompassed the area defined by the entry drive and Post Road. With

the exception of the front garden, the lawn was maintained in a rustic character, kept to an

approximate height of six inches. The lawn had scattered trees within it, but had an overall open

character.

Existing: The front lawn continues to be defined by the entry drive and Post Road, but it is now

uniformly manicured to a height of one or two inches. Many scattered trees exist within the lawn,

but an open character is maintained.

Analysis: Existing, contributing.

The front lawn contributed to the historic character of the property, as an integral element of the

formal character of the front portion of the property. The overall expanse and extents of the front

lawn have been maintained, but the rustic character has been lost. While the lawn, as a feature,

still exists, its character has been modified to a finely manicured, park-like setting. The

importance of the front lawn to the property's historic character make it a priority for treatment.

Front Garden

Historic: A small, circular garden area existed at the front entrance to the main house. It was

enclosed by three large Eastern White Pines, several shrubs, and a pedestrian path. The lawn

within the garden was finely manicured, as opposed to the rustic character of the lawn that

surrounded it.

Existing: The front garden no longer exists. The location now is maintained as part of the front

lawn. The three Eastern White Pines that enclosed it have been replaced. Due to damage to their

leaders, the replacement pines have developed a globular form rather than an upright form.

Analysis: Not existing.

The front garden contributed to the historic character of the property, as an integral element of the formal character of the front portion of the property and, therefore, it is a priority for treatment.

169
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

Front Pine Border and Grove

Historic: A row of Eastern White Pines stood between the front lawn and Post Road. It was a singular row of trees not symmetrically spaced. A grove of Eastern White Pines stood at the center of the row, directly in front of the main house. The grove screened views of the main

house from Post Road and was approximately eighty feet wide and irregularly shaped.

Existing: Several of the historic pines of the row and grove exist. Volunteer plants have grown

up within the row, forming a double row in some areas. Many, but not all, of the volunteer plants

also are Eastern White Pines. The northern end of the row contains a large number of Black

Cherries. The grove remains mostly intact and is free of volunteers, but several of the historic

pines have been lost.

Analysis: Existing, contributing.

The pine row and grove are important to the historic character of the property. The combination

of existing historic and volunteer plants in the row and grove reflect a character very similar to that of the period of significance. The present pine row is less ordered and contains a greater

variety of trees than it did historically. Its importance as defining feature for the front of the

property make it a priority for treatment.

Garden

Historic: The garden was approximately 150 feet wide and 300 feet long and was located south

of the main house. It was a combination of vegetables, flowers, fruit trees, and vines and was

enclosed by fences.

Existing: The garden no longer exists. The location now is a temporary parking area for paik

employees.

Analysis: Not existing.

The garden was important to the historic character of the property. Its absence greatly diminishes

the ability to interpret Lindenwald's historic character, therefore, it is a priority for treatment

North and South Orchards

Historic: The north orchard extended along the north portion of the house lot and was divided

into two sections. The front contained pear trees and the rear was apple trees. The south orchard was located at the west end of the garden, contained apple trees, and was less than one-half the

size of the north orchard. The species of the apple and pear trees are unknown, but they had

growth habits with singular, upright trunks, and overhead canopies.

Existing: The orchards no longer exists. The location of the front of the north orchard now is successional growth woodlot (north woodlot). The location of the rear of the north orchard now

is cultivated farmland. The location of the south orchard now is cultivated farmland.

170
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

Analysis: Not existing.

The orchards were extremely important to the spatial and historic character of the property as major elements in both the working and experimental aspects of Lindenwald. The existing

woodlots and cultivated fields provide an entirely different character than existed during the

period of significance. The importance of the orchards make them a priority for treatment.

Nursery

Historic: The exact location and layout of the nursery are unknown. It contained fruit tree seedlings and was probably located adjacent to the garden or north orchard.

Existing: The nursery no longer exists. The probable location now is cultivated fields and

successional growth woodland.

Analysis: Not existing.

Other than its existence, little is known regarding the nursery and what it consisted of. The lack

of documentation suggests it may not have been extensive. Therefore, it is not a priority for treatment.

Agricultural Fields

Historic: The entire second terrace and portions of the first terrace were maintained as agricultural fields for different varieties of crops.

Existing: All of the second terrace is maintained as agricultural fields. The first terrace, behind

the main house and at the south end of the first terrace are maintained as agricultural fields. The

parcel across Mill Road is no longer used for agriculture, it now contains residential development.

Analysis: Existing, contributing.

The farmland is not part of the MVB NHS. The majority of the farmland remains in agricultural use and, for the most part, are owned by Meyer. Future development of the Meyer property is a serious threat due to insufficient protective measures exist and the current status of the Meyer

farm suggests that the property may be sold in the near future. The agriculture fields are a

priority for treatment.

North Woodlot

Historic: The north woodlot was not present during the period of significance. The location of it was the front portion of the north orchard.

Existing: The north woodlot is a successional growth woodland overgrowing the location

previously the front half of the north orchard, containing pear trees. The woodlot contains a large

concentration of Black Locust and Black Cherry trees.

171
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

While the area of the north woodlot was vegetated during the period of significance, it was an

orchard and not the dense woods it is today. The character of the existing woodlot is much

different than that of the orchard and has a different affect on the property as a whole. The

orchard was sparsely planted and had a pattern; it allowed access and views into it and beyond.

The woodlot does not allow any views into it or beyond. Its dense vegetation prohibits access, except where paths have been cut through the understory. The woodlot presents a tall, dense mass as opposed to the low, open character expressed by the orchard. The contrasting character

of the north woodlot to the historic orchard make it a priority for treatment.

South Woodlot

Historic: The south woodlot was not present during the period of significance. The location

now is pasture.

Existing: The south woodlot is a successional growth woodland overgrowing the location

previously a pasture adjacent to the historic garden. Like the north woodlot, the south woodlot

contains a large concentration of Black Locust and Black Cherry trees.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

Like the north woodlot, the south woodlot is a taU dense mass of vegetation, very different from

the pasture that existed there during the period of significance. The woodlot blocks views and

creates a much more enclosed feeling. The contrasting character of the south woodlot to the

historic pasture make it a priority for treatment.

View and Vistas

Farmland From Main House

Historic: A view of the majority, if not all, of the farmland was possible from the rear of the

main house during the period of significance. The north and south orchards did block some of the

immediate views of the farmland, but would not have affected the overall views.

Existing: A partial view of some of the farmland directly behind the main house is possible from

the house lot. Vegetation in hedgerows and woodlots, contemporary farm buildings and

structures, and contemporary NPS buildings combine to block or interfere with most of the views

of the farmland.

Analysis: Not existing.

Singularly or in combination, vegetation, farm buildings and structures, and NPS buildings block

or interfere with all of the views of the farmland. The NPS buildings are the most damaging to the views. They are located in an area historically a pasture and would have allowed views. The

172
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

contemporary farm buildings and structures clustered around the farm cottage interfere with

views only in the sense that they alter the historic character. They do not block any views that

would not have been blocked by vegetation, and still would be if the buildings and structures were removed. The vegetation, both in the woodlots and in hedgerows, blocks much of the

views. The woodlots block views that the north and south orchards would have been part of but

would not have blocked. The hedgerows have grown considerably and now block much more of

the views than they would have historically. The views are important to both the spatial and

historic character of the property and are a priority for treatment.

Catskill Mountains From Main House

Historic: The northern portion of the CatskiU Mountains was visible from the rear of the main

house.

Existing: The northern portion of the Catskill Mountains is now visible from the extreme north

portion of the house lot. No off-site features interfere with the view.

Analysis: Not existing.

While the view can still be achieved from the extreme north portion of the house lot, it is no

longer possible from the rear of the main house, presumably the more important location for the

view. The existing view is much more limited than the historic view. The combination of the

hedgerows and contemporary farm buildings and structures block the view. The views are important to both the spatial and historic character of the property and are a priority for treatment.

Main House From Post Road

Historic: The main house was partially visible from Post Road. A grove of Eastern White Pines

completely screened the view directly in front of the main house and the Eastern White Pine row

along the road partially screened more of this view from the road. Scattered vegetation within the

front lawn also screened some of the view.

Existing: The main house is partially visible from Post Road. The existing grove of Eastern

White Pines continues to screen some of the view directly in front of the main house. The

Eastern White Pine row along the road partially screens more of the view of the house from the

road. The Eastern White Pine row, historically a singular row of mostly Eastern White Pine, is now more dense in some areas while less in others. Therefore, it allows clear views in some areas and no views in others. Scattered vegetation within the front lawn also screens some of the view.

Analysis: Existing, contributing.

While much of the vegetation that affected the view has changed in size and species, the overall

result maintains the historic views. The views are important to both the spatial and historic

character of the property and are a priority for treatment.

173
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

Post Road From Main House

Historic: Post Road was partially visible from the front of the main house. The vegetation along

the road and within the lawn screened some of the view.

Existing: Post Road is partially visible from the front of the main house. The vegetation along

the road and within the lawn screens some of the view.

Analysis: Existing, contributing.

While much of the vegetation that affected the views has changed in size and species, the overall

result maintains the historic views. The views are important to both the spatial and historic

character of the property and are a priority for treatment.

Main House From NYS Route 9h

Historic: New York State Route 9h was not present during the period of significance.

Existing: The south comer of the house lot is visible from New York State Route 9h. The

resulting view is the main house seen across the lawn, behind the south gate house. Views of the

property from NYS Route 9h are only possible for vehicles traveling north. The view is blocked

by vegetation between NYS Route 9h and Post Road for vehicles traveling south.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

NYS Route 9h is now the main road passing Lindenwald, replacing the use of Post Road. The

views from NYS Route 9h are very different than those that would have been possible from

travelers on Post Road. Vegetation entirely blocks the view from the north, while a partial view

from the south is possible. These views, as opposed to those of Post Road during the period of

significance, do not allow any understanding of the symmetry and formal arrangement of the

front of the property. The views are important to both the spatial and historic character of the

property and are a priority for treatment.

NYS Route 9h From Main House

Historic: New York State Route 9h was not present during the period of significance. The

property across Post Road contained a farm, but the view is unknown.

Existing: New York State Route 9h and the traffic on it can be seen from the main house.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

As the main road passing the property. New York State Route 9h has a much different character

than Post Road provided during the period of significance. It is a paved, two-lane highway

handling a much larger volume of traffic than Post Road, made of compacted soil, ever

experienced. The views are important to both the spatial and historic character of the property

and are a priority for treatment.

174
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

Circulation

Entry Drive

Historic: A semicircular entrance drive approached the main house, extending ft-om Post Road

fi-om two locations and meeting at the front of the house. As it approached the house, the drive

divided and circled the house. It was one lane and constructed with compacted soil.

Existing: A semicircular entrance drive approaches the main house, extending from Post Road

from two locations and meeting at the front of the house. As it approaches the house, the drive

divides and circles the house. It is one lane and constructed with compacted soil. The south

portion has crushed stone over the top of the soil.

Analysis: Existing, contributing.

The only alteration made to the drive since the period of significance is the addition of crushed

stone along the south side. The crushed stone is minimal and does not greatly affect the historic

character. The current condition of the entry drive is very similar to its historic and, therefore, it is not a priority for treatment.

Roads to Farm Cottage. Carriage Bam, and Fields

Historic: A series of roads connected the different areas of the farm to the main house. Roads

extended from the main house to the carriage bam, farm cottage, stone house, bams, and

agriculture fields.

Existing: The main house is not connected to any other areas of the farm. The majority of the

historic roads have been plowed under within the agriculture fields. Some of the roads within the

fields remain, but no connection exists to the main house. Visual traces of some portions of these

roads exist in the ground configuration within the house lot.

Analysis: Not existing.

Most of the features that were connected by these roads no longer exist, but the most important

aspect of these roads is they connected the main house to the remainder of the farm. Without

them, that connection is lost, making them a priority for treatment.

Farm Road

Historic: The farm road was not present during the period of significance. The road is located on a fence line that existed along the edge of the garden, south field, and south orchard.

Existing: The farm road connects the Meyer farm complex and farm cottage to Post Road, at the

intersecfion of Post Road and New York State Route 9h. It is paved with asphalt and is approximately twenty feet wide. It is also used for access to the park employee lot.

175
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

The farm road is intrusive to the historic character of the property. It separates the existing upper

fish pond from the house lot. Historically, the fish pond was part of the garden. The farm road

breaks the coimection between the fish pond and the garden location. Its intrusive character

makes it a priority for treatment.

Pedestrian Path in Front Garden

Historic: A circular pedestrian path surrounded the lawn within the front garden. It was

approximately one to two feet wide and was constructed of compacted soil.

Existing: The path, and the front garden, no longer exist. The location now is part of the front

lawn.

Analysis: Not existing.

The pedestrian path was an important element in defining the front garden, and, therefore, is a

priority for treatment.

Employee Paricing

Historic: The parking area was not present during the period of significance. Its location was

part of the garden.

Existing: A parking area accommodating approximately thirty cars exists where the garden

historically was located. It was created as a temporary parking area and is constructed of

compacted soil and crushed stone.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

The location of the parking area, allowing a large number of cars within the core of the property,

detracts greatly from the historic character and, therefore, is a priority for treatment.

Visitor Paricing

Historic: The visitor paricing was not present during the period of significance. Its location was

a fence line along the front of the property.

Existing: Visitors park their cars along the side of Post Road in front of the main house. No

changes have been made to the road or the adjacent lawn to accommodate this use.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

Visitor parking did not exist during the period of significance. The use of the area, directly in front of the property, as visitor parking, detracts from the views to and from the property.

Vehicles lined along the road in front of the property diminishes the historic character, making it a priority for treatment.

176
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

Universal Access Paiicing

Historic: The location of the universal access parking was part of the road leading from the main

house to the carriage bam.

Existing: Universal access parking accommodating two vehicles is located next to the

maintenance garage behind the main house. It is constructed of crushed stone on top of

compacted soil.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

Universal access to the main house needs to be maintained. The current location is adequate and

the accommodating changes do not greatly affect the historic character of the property. The

universal access parking is not a priority for treatment.

Trails in North Woodlot

Historic: The north woodlot and its trails were not present during the period of significance.

Existing: The north woodlot has a series of pedestrian trails cut through its understory. A trail leads to the visitor restroom accommodations, a second trail extends to a small work and storage area created and used by the maintenance staff of the park, and a third trail leads through the

north woodlot to the north boundary of the house lot.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

The trails themselves do not detract from the historic character. They allow access to contemporary features discreetly located within the north woodlot. It is the north woodlot as a whole that detracts from the historic character of the property. The trails are not a priority for treatment.

Asphalt Pedestrian Paths

Historic: The asphalt pedestrian paths were not present during the period of significance. Their

location was pasture.

Existing: A series of pedestrian paths connect the contemporary MPS features located behind the

main house and are used by the park staff for administrative and maintenance purposes. The

paths are constructed of asphalt and are approximately three feet wide.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

The asphalt paths, as an element of the contemporary features they connect, detract from the

historic character of the property and are a priority for treatment.

177
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

Water Features

Upper Fish Pond

Historic: In 1840, Van Buren had two ponds constructed within the ravine just below the spring on the south end of the house lot. The upper fish pond was located directly below the spring, at the south edge of the garden. It had a dam at its west end that regulated the water flow into the

ravine to the lower pond. The upper pond was stocked for fishing.

Existing: The upper pond exists but has been altered. The west end was enlarged, removing the

dam, and the outlet has been blocked. The upper pond is used for irrigation on the Meyer farm,

and rarely reaches its level capacity.

Analysis: Existing, contributing.

Although the dam and ravine, the pond's outlet, have been removed and the west end has been

slightly enlarged, the upper pond maintains its general form and shape, contributing to the historic

character of the property. The pond's condition is not greatly threatened and, therefore, it is not a

priority for treatment.

Lower Fish Pond

Historic: Below the upper fish pond, further down the ravine, the lower fish pond was

constructed. It was located at the edge of the first terrace and also was stocked and used for

fishing.

Existing: The lower fish pond no longer exists. The Meyer farm complex is now located there.

Analysis: Not existing.

The lower fish pond was quite distant from the core of the house lot and the exact location, size,

and shape are unknown. With the upper fish pond intact, the loss of the lower fish pond does not

greatly affect the historic character of the property. It is not a priority for treatment.

Small Pond at Spring

Historic: The small pond was not present during the period of significance.

Existing: A small pond has formed on top of the spring on the south end of the house lot. It developed when the farm road was constructed and a depression was created between the spring

and the entrance to the culvert leading to the upper fish pond.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

This small pond is insignificant, not greatly affecting the historic character of the property and is not a priority for treatment.

178
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

Meyer Ponds

Historic: The Meyer ponds were not present during the period of significance.

Existing: In the area surrounding the farm cottage, Meyer has constructed five ponds. Two

ponds are located within the transition slope and three are located below the slope, where the

wetland historically was located.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

The Meyer ponds are not evident from the current NPS property and therefore, do not affect it. The ponds are all contained within the farmland and have been constructed in areas not greatly

affecting the historic character of the property. Therefore, the ponds are not a priority for treatment.

Furnishings and Objects

Van Ness Grave

Historic: In 1847 a headstone was placed over the grave of Peter Van Ness by his son, John Van

Ness. It was an elaborate, engraved, stone marker. The Van Ness grave site is located at the edge

of the first terrace behind the main house.

Existing: The Van Ness grave marker is intact, but is being encroached upon by the agriculture

activity that surrounds it.

Analysis: Existing, contributing.

The Van Ness grave and headstone contributes to the historic character of the property and are threatened by current farming activity, making them a priority for treatment.

Fences

Historic: The Dingman fence, a post and wire fence, stood along the north boundary of the

property. It was painted white and belonged to the neighboring Dingman farm. Many other

fences surrounded the fields on the farm during the period of significance. Which fields were

surrounded and the types of fence used are undocumented.

Existing: Scattered remnants of the Dingman fence exist along the boundary. They consist of a few posts with wire attached to some of them. No fields currently have fences surrounding them.

Analysis: Not existing.

The remnants of the Dingman fence are very minimal. They are buried within dense vegetation

and are only identifiable with close inspection. The lack of information regarding other fences

hinders the ability to represent them in an accurate manner, and, they are not a priority for treatment.

179
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

Garden WaU

Historic: During the period of significance, a wall was constructed within the garden for

espaliers to hold grape vines. Its materials, size, and location are unknown.

Existing: The waU no longer exists.

Analysis: Not existing.

The wall in the garden is an important element in the garden, but the current information does not

allow accurate representation. Its location continues to be farmed, further negating the possibility

of investigation, making it a priority for treatment.

Benches

Historic: Two benches were located in the front garden. They were constructed of cast iron and were located underneath each of the pines flanking the front entrance of the main house.

Existing: Two contemporary reproductions of the original benches are now located on the front

lawn. One bench is located next to the pine on the north side of the entrance to the main house

and the other is in the center of the lawn.

Analysis: Existing, contributing.

Although the benches are not the originals, they are accurate reproductions. They are not located

in the original locations but are moveable. The size of the pines, which are replacements of the

originals, at the front entrance to the main house do not yet aUow for the benches to be placed

underneath them as they were historically. They are important to the historic character and are a

priority for treatment.

Mounting Platform

Urn

Historic: A square stone was located next to the drive near the north entrance to the main house.

Van Buren used the stone as a mounting platform to climb onto his horse.

Existing: The mounting platform no longer exists.

Analysis: Not existing.

The mounting platform is important to the historic character of the property and is a priority for treatment.

Historic: It is undocumented whether the urn was present during the period of significance. An

urn is documented to have been existing at the center of the front garden circa 1890. It is most

likely to have existed during the period of significance, possibly even before.

180
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

Existing: The urn that was located on the property as early as 1890 is in storage on the site. A

contemporary reproduction of the original urn is displayed where the center of the front garden

would have been. The urn is placed on a small concrete pad to support it.

Analysis: Existing, contributing.

Although the displayed urn is not original, it is and accurate reproduction. It is undetermined

whether the urn existed during the period of significance or was added after. It is most likely that

it was added during or before the period of significance and it is a priority for treatment.

Brick and Stone Edgin g

Historic: It is undocumented whether the brick and stone edging was present during the period

of significance.

Existing: Several small brick outlines exist on the property near the main house. Three circular

outlines, two of brick and one of stone, surround areas at the entries to the drive; they are the

previous locations of Eastern White Pines and are approximately eight feet in diameter. Another

brick outline, linear and two feet wide, extends through the lilac cluster at the south end of the

main house. All of these outlines apparently defined planting beds that once existed.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

The origin of these features is unknown. They could have been present during the period of

significance but it can not be documented at this time. It is more likely that they originated after the period of significance. Therefore, they are not a priority for treatment.

Stone Marker

Historic: The stone marker was not present during the period of significance.

Existing: A stone marker stands at the side of the road in front of the south gate house. It was

placed on the property during the Campbell ownership as an item for sale in his antique business.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

While the stone marker may have historic significance of its own, it was not present on the

property during the period of significance and is a priority for treatment.

Wagon and Farm Equipment Remnants

Historic: The origin of the wagon and piece of farm equipment are undocumented. They are located in the area of the north orchard.

Existing: Remnants of a wagon and a piece of farm equipment exist in the north woodlot.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

181
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

While their origin is unknown, their current location, historically the north orchard, suggests that they were not located there during the period of significance. They are not a priority for

treatment.

Flagpole and Park Sign

Historic: The flagpole and park sign were not present during the period of significance.

Existing: A flagpole and sign stating the name of the park are located in front of the main house

at Post Road.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

While the need for the flagpole and sign are recognized, their contemporary design and current

location detracts from the historic character of the property, making them a priority for treatment.

Sheds

Historic: The sheds were not present during the period of significance.

Existing: Three aluminum sheds are located near the mobile homes behind the main house and

are used for maintenance storage.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

The aluminum sheds contrast greatly with the historic character of the property and therefore are a priority for treatment.

Visitor Restrooms

Historic: The visitor restrooms were not present during the period of significance.

Existing: Four portable toilets, located within the north woodlot near the main house, act as the

visitor restroom facilities.

Analysis: Existing, non-contributing.

The visitor restroom facilities are inadequate and do not meet the needs of the park. They also

greatly contrast with the historic character of the property. However, they have been discreedy

located to minimize their affect on the historic character. Combined, their inadequacy and

contrasting character make them a priority for treatment.

182
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

STATEMENT OF INTEGRITY

Based on the significance of Lindenwald and the analysis of the existing property, the integrity of

the property as a whole must be evaluated. "Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. "^^^ According to the Secretary of the Interior, historic properties either retain their integrity or they do not. Assessment of integrity is based on the condition and existence of the physical features of

a property and how they convey its significance.

In order to evaluate and assess integrity, seven aspects, or qualities, that define it have been

estabhshed. The seven aspects are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feehng, and

association. 152 /^ property significant for its association with a person "ideally might retain some features

of all seven aspects of integrity." Although it is a combination of these aspects that produce integrity,

some, whether individually or in combination, may be more important than others in defining integrity. ^^^

As documented in the statement of significance, Lindenwald was extremely important to Van

Buren. It fulfilled the role of his working and experimental farm while simultaneously projecting the

image of a formal country seat as a base for his political activity. All seven aspects of integrity are important for this property. However, location, design, and setting are the most important for

Lindenwald.

The following is a description of the property's existing condition in regards to each of the seven

aspects of integrity as they relate to the property's significance under National Register Criteria B:

Association. As a resource itself, the main house, also significant under National Register Criteria C:

Design/Construction, retains high integrity in all seven aspects.

Location

Lindenwald retains high integrity of location. It is located in the same place as during the period

of significance. The location of Lindenwald is extremely important to its integrity because it is one of the

very reasons for which Van Buren chose this property. Lindenwald was located in his native town of

Kinderhook and was just south of Albany, New York State's capitol. Also, Lindenwald was on Post

Road, the main route between Albany and New York during the period of significance.

Design

Lindenwald retains partial integrity of design. The overall layout of the property is intact,

including the formal entry and front lawn facing Post Road and working fields behind it (privately

owned). The spatial arrangement of the agricultural fields is almost idemical to that of the period of

significance. Design is important because it was the very aspect that allowed the dual role Lindenwald

performed—the working farm desired by Van Buren with the appearance a formal country seat.

The garden and orchards, very important features of the property, along with several of the farm

roads no longer exist and contemporary intrusions have been added to the property, detracting from the

historic design. They include such features as the mobile homes, pole bam, garage, and parking lot.

183
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

While these alterations are contemporary and detract fi'om the historic character, they do not damage the

overall design and organization of the property.

Setting

Lindenwald retains high integrity of setting. While the addition of New York State Route 9h has

detracted from the historic setting to some degree, it does not greatly affect the character of the property

and its surroundings. The rural character and agricultural surroundings remain intact. Setting is important because it was necessary for Lindenwald to have rural surroundings to maintain its character as both a working farm and a country seat.

Materials

Lindenwald, as a whole, retains low integrity of materials. Two extant structures, the main house

and south gate house, and several historic plants on the property demonstrate materials of the period of

significance. Remaining historic features do not retain substantial amoimts of their historic materials.

Workmanship

Lindenwald, as a whole, retains low integrity of workmanship. Only the main house and south

gate house demonstrate any integrity of workmanship. Many of the features that would express the

workmanship of the property are no longer extant.

Feeling

Lindenwald retains partial integrity of feeling. The use of the property as a farm is sfiU very

evident, although the presence of the contemporary farm buildings detracts from the historic feeling. The

area surrounding the main house does not retain its historic feeling. The historic formal front entrance,

although somewhat rustic in its character, and the household activities of the house lot no longer exist. The finely manicured lawn and park-like setting do not reflect the historic feeling.

Association

Lindenwald retains partial integrity of association. While the property itself remains intact, it was

the combination of its many features that it made it important to Van Buren. They included such features

as the formal entrance, elaborate house, gardens, orchards, and agriculture fields. Of these features, the

garden and orchards, which were of special interest to Van Buren, are no longer extant.

Integrity of Property as a Whole

Lindenwald possesses some degree of integrity in all seven aspects. It posses high or partial

integrity in the three aspects important to this property, location, design, and setting. This evaluation of

the seven aspects, with consideration of their relative importance to the property, was then used to determine the integrity of the property as a whole. Although assessing the integrity of a property can

184
Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

sometimes be subjective, it is based on a complete understanding of the property, its features, and how

they relate to the significance.

As previously stated, historic properties either retain integrity, or they do not, meaning a property

either does or does not convey its significance. Assessment of the seven aspects, keeping in mind their

respective importance to the property, clearly illustrates that Lindenwald does retain integrity. The

location, overall design, and setting have been retained and at least some properties of the remaining

aspects also have been retained.

185

Conclusion

Martin Van Buren clearly was an influential figure in the political development of the United

States. His efforts while President are still evident today. Lindenwald, his home for twenty-three years,

is a memorial to his life and to his contributions to this country. In addition to commemorating his

political career, Lindenwald represents a true picture of the whole man—both the politician and

gentleman farmer. Though the farm operated as an experimental and working farm, it also maintained the

appearance of a politician's country seat, a symbolic use typical of Van Buren's political era. Even after he retired from the Presidency, Lindenwald continued to be the base of Van Buren's political activity.

The main house has been restored to its historic appearance and now serves as a museum,

honoring Van Buren's political career. However, the historic research documented in this report has

identified the landscape as equally important to Van Buren. Although many changes have occurred on

the property since the time Van Buren lived there, this report also clearly shows that the overall form of

the property remains intact, and retains its integrity as both the country seat and the working and

experimental farm.

Thus, although 131 years of landscape change have disguised the farming aspects of Lindenwald,

the formal character of the original country seat is still evident. It is hoped that the implementation of a

preservation treatment plan will make this character even more evident to future generations.

187

Endnotes

Introduction

^ The categories were developed by Professor George W. Curry, Regina M. Bellavia, and David Uschold,

Research Assistants, Faculty of Landscape Architecture, State University of New York, College of Environmental

Science and Forestry, after careful analysis and discussion of existing reference materials regarding the documentation of landscape features. If no information was found regarding a particular landscape feature for a

certain period, that landscape feature was not listed within the text of that particular chapter of the report. The

materials analyzed to create the list of landscape features were:

Christine Capella Peters, "The Physical Treaunent of Cultural and Historic Resources: Guidelines for Rehabilitating

Designed Historic Landscapes" (Master's thesis, SUNY CESF, 1990), 59.

U.S. Department of Interior. Cultural Landscape Inventory (CLI) Draft User Manual For Field Testing In FY 1992.

The draft was prepared by the Park Historic Architecture Division, National Park Service, Department of Interior,

Washington, DC, 1992.

U.S. Department of Interior. Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Landscapes. The draft was prepared by the Preservation Assistance Division, Technical Preservation Services Branch of the National Park Service, Department

of Interior, Washington, DC, May 1992.

2 Historic Core: Existing Conditions: 1993. The on-site field survey of the current National Park Service

property was completed by Assistant Professor Scott Shannon and Research Assistant David Uschold, Faculty of

Landscape Architecture, SUNY CESF, 10-12 August 1992. The property was surveyed with a transit and tape measure for horizontal information. The necessary landscape features on the property were located during this work, including: vegetation, buildings and structures, mechanical systems, circulation elements, and furnishings and

objects. In addition to being located, the vegetation was also identified. This information was overlaid onto the 1979 Eustance and Horowitz survey of the NPS property boundary for the historic core. Topography for the area

directly around the main house was overlaid from Topographic/Planametric Base Map of the Martin Van Buren

National Historic Site; NPS, 1981.

^ The base map of the entire Van Buren farm was created from a combination of an 1805 map of the property

(fig. 1.3), property deeds from Van Buren's purchases, a 1959 aerial photograph of the area, and 1976 United States Geological Survey maps (see Appendix F). Project scope and physical constraints of the work for this report did not allow for the entire farm to be documented in the same amount of detail as the historic core.

^ The existing conditions and period plans for each chapter were constructed for this report, by the author,

using a combination of the above sources and the established conditions of the specific time periods.

Chapter I: Van Ness Period

^ Edward Collier, A History of Old Kinderhook, (New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1914), 8-9.

^ Paul Wilstach, Hudson River Landings, (Indianapolis: The Bobs-Merril Company, 1933), 46.

189
Endnotes

"^ Collier, A History of Old Kinderhook , 1

.

^ Wilstach, Hudson River Landings, 46-48.

9 Wilstach, Hudson River Landings, 50.

1 ^ Wilstach, Hudson River Landings, 46.

1^ Harold Donaldson Eberlein, The Manors and Historic Homes of the Hudson Valley, (Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott Company, 1924), 24.

12 ColUer, A History of Old Kinderhook, 43^5.

1^ Wilstach, Hudson River Landings, 52.

^^ William A. Stokinger, "Historic Grounds Report, Lindenwald, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site," Cultural Resources, National Park Service (Department of the Interior, 1981), 40.

15 WUstach, Hudson River Landings, 78-80.

16 Wilstach, Hudson River Landings, 84-85.

17 Collier, A History of Old Kinderhook, 552-559. An approximate average of the first United States census done in 1790 shows six persons living in each household, as well as two slaves per household, confirming that eighteen slaves for one household is very large.

1

8

ColUer, A History of Old Kinderhook, 45^6.

1^ Vrooman, Isaac, "Map of the Division of Kinderhook", 1686. This map (fig. 1.1) originally was drawn in 1686 by surveyor Isaac Vrooman. It was updated in 1914 by Edward Collier with 1780 information for inclusion in his book, A History of Old Kinderhook. All of the numbered lots within the "Allotments" are the product of this update. The numbered lots show the division of the original and much larger grants under the patent, as well as the smaller properties that were later developed from the division of the large farms. Although there are a few large

holdings on the map, most are approximately 50 to 150 acres in size. The Thomas Powell Patent can be seen on the map, but the Van Alstyne farm was not yet established.

20 When considering all five time periods, the Van Ness Period has the least amount of documentation available regarding the property. Little information is known about the Peter Van Ness tenure and even less about the Paulding ownership. The best source of information available regarding the Peter Van Ness ownership comes

directly from his will, including an 1805 map produced as a result of the will. The William Van Ness tenure provides slightly more documentation about the site, primarily from his letters and papers. The Paulding ownership

remains almost undocumented. A good portion of the information on the Van Ness Period comes from Van Buren

190
Endnotes

himself; he made many comments about the property previous to his ownership and also about the existing

conditions at the time of his purchase.

The lack of information regarding the Van Ness Period hinders the ability to document the farm's appearance at that time. Through a combination of documentation from several periods, this obstacle was overcome. Information

regarding the Van Ness Period is combined with later period documentation and is used to determine the appearance

of the landscape for the earlier, less documented periods.

2^ Stokinger, "Historic Grounds Report, Lindenwald, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site," 43.

22 The extent of Peter Van Ness' other parcels could not be documented.

23 The map (fig. 1.3), dated 19 October 1805 was drawn by M. Dickie. It illustrates the lands of Kleinrood, and

how they were divided to be passed on from Peter Van Ness to his sons John and William as a result of his death in 1804.

24 Peter Van Ness Will, 1804, Columbia County Historical Society, Kinderhook, New York. The will of Peter Van Ness states his property as 260-acres, and the two portions he gave to his sons as 130-acres each. The figure of

130 acres did not include roads, as stated in later surveys. The actual total of William Van Ness's portion of the property consisted of 137 acres. The total of John Van Ness's portion remains documented as 130 acres and was not

investigated further.

25 Stokinger, "Historic Grounds Report, Lindenwald, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site," 48.

26 "Field Notes of General William Pauldings Farm in Kinderhook as Surveyed 29th September 1834" (Deed).

L. Dingman, J. & A. Dingman M. Dingman to Martin Van Buren (Deed), 25 July 1843. L. Dingman, J. & A. Dingman M. Dingman to Martin Van Buren (Deed), 7 September 1844. Columbia County Historical Society.

Portions of each of the three lots willed to John Van Ness by his father Peter Van Ness were purchased by Van

Buren and rejoined with the farm. Van Buren purchased them from the neighboring Dingman family. The Paulding

survey of 1834 confirms that John Van Ness sold land to Casparus Dingman, who owned the neighboring farm,

north of Kleinrood. The date that John Van Ness sold the land, and how much of his land the Dingmans actually

obtained, is unknown. By 1845 Van Buren had purchased a piece of all three of John Van Ness's lots. Since he

purchased all of these lots from the Dingman family it is assumed that they purchased all of John Van Ness's land

when he sold it sometime between 1810 and 1834.

27 ColUer, A History of Old Kinderhook. 376.

28 Stokinger, "Historic Grounds Report, Lindenwald, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site," 48.

29 Martin Van Buren to Levi Woodbury, 9 September 1839; Levi Woodbury Papers, Library of Congress,

Washington, D.C. Martin Van Buren to Francis P. Blair, 24 July 1841; Francis P. Blair Papers, Library of Congress.

Smith Thompson Van Buren to (unknown), 29 July 1839; Martin Van Buren Papers, Syracuse University, Syracuse,

New York.

191
Endnotes

^^ As with most of the natural aspects of the site, documenting the topography for the Van Ness Period is difficult. The typical correspondence and map sources that exist from the period rarely pertain to any aspect of the topography, leaving insufficient information to begin documentation. The existing topography today has undergone some obvious changes since the Van Ness Period, but a careful comparison of period sources and existing

topography can provide a fairly accurate picture of the overall topography that existed during the Van Ness Period.

While this technique cannot provide very detailed information, it can provide a general sense of the topography that existed.

By overlaying the 1805 map (fig. 1.3) on top of current USGS maps (1976), topographical forms can be noted. Analyzing property boundaries, slopes, and water features can provide substantiating evidence for the Van Ness

Period topography. In addition, since the property has been farmed since the Van Ness Period, it can be assumed

major topographical forms were not altered.

^1 Ralph M. Aderman, The Letters of James Kirk Paulding (Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1962),

449. "Field Notes of General William Pauldings Farm in Kinderhook as Surveyed 29th September 1834," (Deed)

Columbia County Historical Society.

Several sources indicate the presence of a wetland on the property. The combination of these sources confirm the base of this ravine as the most probable location for the wetland. Martin Van Buren stated the existence of "muck

beds" on the second terrace (Aderman, The Letters of James Kirk Paulding , 449). A deed survey of the property

mentions a "fly or bog" along the property boundary between the same lots (fig. 1.3: Lot #2 WPVN, Lot #3 JPVN).

137 years later, the 1976 USGS maps also show a wetland in that same location. The combination of these sources

supports this as the location for the wetland.

^^ Stokinger, "Historic Grounds Report, Lindenwald, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site," 60. The

existence of this spring and ravine is confirmed by Van Buren's use of them in 1840 to construct water features on

that lot.

The 1805 map (fig. 1.3) shows a feature in the location where the spring is believed to have been. The symbol

shown on the 1805 map, a series of dots, corresponds with the location of an existing natural spring near the south west boundary of the house lot. The assumption that this symbol refers to water is supported by the fact that the spring was thought to be the only hydrological feature on the property previous to Van Buren's ownership. The

location of this spring is corroborated in documentation of the Van Buren Period. This symbol is also shown in a

semicircular fashion on the neighboring property just to the northeast of the main house. The explanation for this representation is unknown.

^^ "Field Notes of General William Pauldings Farm in Kinderhook as Surveyed 29th September 1834," (Deed)

Columbia County Historical Society. The location of this spring is only documented as being above the intersection of the road and boundary, placing it in the slope between the terraces.

^^ The 1805 map (fig. 1.3) shows eight buildings and structures on the property. The representation of some of

the buildings is clear: stone house, main house, carriage bam and farm office. On the house lot, the central building

is the main house, due to its representation with two chimneys, two floors and adjacent to the entry drive. The two

symmetrical buildings behind the main house are the farm office to the west, and carriage bam to the north.

192
Endnotes

Although out of proportion, these two buildings appear to be small, one-story support buildings for the main house,

as represented by the door reaching the roof and the absence of windows. The building to the west is the farm

office. A c. 19 13 photograph (fig. 4.29) and existing remains of the foundation document the location and physical

appearance of the farm office (fig. 1.8), consistent with the map illustration. The building to the north is shown

where the carriage bam was located. Although the farm office and carriage bam are shown as being the same size, the carriage bam was much larger. The origin and use of the two buildings shown to the northeast of the main house

is unverified.

The stone house and its support buildings are shown to the northwest of the house lot. The location shown is consistent with the known location of the stone house. The use and origin of the two buildings near the stone house

are unverified. The smaller building may be a privy, and the larger may be a kitchen or stable.

Through the combination of the information derived from the 1805 map (fig. 1.3) and other sources, it can be

documented that the farm office and carriage bam were constmcted during Peter Van Ness's occupancy of the main

house (1797-1805). In Van Buren's correspondence to friends and relatives, he frequently discussed activity at his farm, including the addition of the buildings and stmctures during his tenure. Van Buren never mentions the constmction of either a carriage bam or a farm office and both of these buildings appear on a c. 1841 map of the property (fig. 2.4). Since these stmctures were not constmcted, but were present, during the Van Buren Period, they

must have been constmcted during the Van Ness Period. It is unreasonable to assume they were built before the main house was constmcted in 1797 since no other residence existed in that location. Confirmation that a carriage

bam existed on the property during William Van Ness's tenure is documented in a letter from Comelius Van Ness to William Van Ness in 1815. In the letter, Comelius asks William to purchase a carriage for him stating "... bring it on loan a vessel to Kinderhook and put it in your carriage bam until I can send for it." (Comelius P. Van Ness to William P. Van Ness, 28 May 1815; Van Ness Papers, New York Historical Society, New York, New York.).

William Van Ness often discussed his improvements on the property in correspondence with his friends and his brothers. He never mentions the constmction of a carriage barn although one existed during his tenure. It is probable that it was constmcted by Peter Van Ness and was already standing when William inherited the property,

supporting it as the building illustrated in the 1805 map (fig. 1.3). As with the carriage bam, neither Martin Van

Buren or William Van Ness ever mention the constmction of any type of building in the location of the farm office. This building clearly appears on the 1805 (fig. 1.3) and the c.1841 maps (fig. 2.4). The location is confirmed by a C.1913 photograph (fig. 4.29) and extant remains of the foundation. This building may also be attributed to the Peter Van Ness tenure.

^^ Stokinger, "Historic Grounds Report, Lindenwald, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site," 40-48. The

second house was most likely across Post Road and not on the Kleinrood property.

^^ The 1805 map (fig. 1.3) demonstrates a comparison between the two buildings, showing the new, main house

as a much larger and more formal building than the stone house.

3^ A more detailed description of the carriage bam, in its 1930s state was obtained from several sources

associated with the property during the deProsse ownership. This information is presented within chapter 4, the deProsse Period.

^^ A more detailed description of the farm office, in its 1930s state was obtained from several sources associated

with the property during the deProsse ownership. This information is presented within chapter 4, the deProsse

Period.

193
Endnotes

^^ Peter Van Ness Will, 1804, Columbia County Historical Society. Oral interview, Seymore McGee with

David Uschold and Michael Henderson (Curator, MVB NHS), 27 February 1992. Seymore McGee lived his entire

life on Post Road, near Lindenwald. He periodically performed grounds and maintenance work on Lindenwald

during the 1930s. Peter Van Ness's will describes the location of the stone house on the second terrace. Seymore

McGee confirmed the location of the stone house by extant remains of the foundation location.

^^ Very little documentation of improvements occurring during the Van Ness Period exists. With a combined

use of later photographs, written documentation, oral interviews, and a survey of some of the existing trees at the

site, ages of some of the vegetation can be estimated and the planting dates placed within the different time periods.

^^ Peter Van Ness Will, 1804, Columbia County Historical Society. Peter Van Ness's will states the location of

the orchard south of the stone house.

Collier, A History of Old Kinderhook, 393. A 1793 letter from Gertrude Van Ness (Peter's wife) to a friend talks about the surroundings of the stone house: "... delightful fields and meadows with which we are surrounded, fruit trees all decorated with blossoms of variegated colors. My lilacs look elegant

"

^2 The Black Locusts along the drive were planted some time between the completion of the main house in 1797

and when they appear on the 1805 map (fig. 1.3), placing their planting in the Peter Van Ness tenure. Seymore

McGee stated the entry drive was lined with large locust trees during the 1930s and described and sketched the planting pattern as an alternating scheme from one side of the drive to the other side. Oral interview, Seymore

McGee with David Uschold and Michael Henderson (Curator, MVB NHS), 27 February 1992. A combination of

Seymore McGee's description and figures 4.29 and 3.11 have been used to calculate the distance between the locusts as approximately forty feet

Identification of the trees shown lining the drive in figures 4.29 and 3.1 1 was confirmed as Black Locusts (Robinia

psuedoacacia) by two experts: Dr. Norman Richards, Professor of Forestry, SUNY CESF, 3 November 1992; Dr. Donald Leopold, Associate Professor of Environmental and Forest Biology, SUNY CESF, 16 November 1992.

S.T. Van Buren to M. Van Buren Jr., 31 July 1839, Martin Van Buren Papers, Syracuse University. Van Buren

considered naming the property "The Locusts" when he purchased it in 1839. This verifies the existence of locusts as a substantial plant on the site before 1839.

^^ Sam Startwout to William P. Van Ness, 14 & 17 April 1806; Van Ness Papers, New York Historical Society.

Sweet Brier is a type of rose that grows six feet tall and is often found in a hedgerow. ^ Martin Van Buren to Levi Woodbury, 24 July 1841; Martin Van Buren Papers, Syracuse University. Martin

Van Buren to Levi Woodbury, 1 September 1839; Levi Woodbury Papers, Library of Congress.

^^ Martin Van Buren to Levi Woodbury, 24 July 1841, Francis P. Blair Papers, Library of Congress.

46 ColUer, A History of Old Kinderhook, 39 1

.

194
Endnotes

^^ As with spatial relationships, information regarding views and vistas may be extracted from what is already

known about the property. From a combination of the 1805 map (fig. 1.3) and documentation of topography on and

off of the site, some sense of views and vistas can be obtained.

^^ "Field Notes of General William Pauldings Farm in Kinderhook as Surveyed 29th September 1834," (Deed)

Columbia County Historical Society. The road is described as leading to the stone house in the low lands and the

intersection of the road and the boundary of the house lot is located on the survey. No other information is given.

^9 "Field Notes of General William Pauldings Farm in Kinderhook as Surveyed 29th September 1834," (Deed)

Columbia County Historical Society.

Chapter 11: Van Buren Period

^^ Martin Van Buren to James S. Wadsworth, 8 June 1844, Papers of the Wadsworth Family, Library of

Congress. It is unknown where on the farm the foreman lived since the cottage was not yet constructed. He may

have lived in the stone house, the basement of the main house, or possibly the farm office building.

^^ Martin Van Buren Last Will and Testament, Martin Van Buren Papers, Syracuse University.

52 "Field Notes of General WilUam Pauldings Farm in Kinderhook as Surveyed 29th September 1834;" (Deed);

William and Maria Paulding to Martin Van Buren (Deed) 1 April 1839; Columbia County Historical Society. The

1834 survey states the parcel contained 137.32 acres. The 1839 survey states that the parcel covers 130.29 acres plus roads. The "roads" apparently make up the additional seven acres unaccounted for in the 1839 survey. When

later documentation is considered, it becomes clear that the 137.32 acre figure from the 1834 survey is the accurate

total for this portion of the original Van Ness farm.

5^ L. Dingman, J. & A. Dingman M. Dingman to Martin Van Buren (Deed) 25 July 1843; L. Dingman, J. & A. Dingman M. Dingman to Martin Van Buren (Deed) 7 September 1844; Peter Hoes & Lawrence Van Buren to Martin Van Buren (Deed) 1845; Columbia County Historical Society.

Martin Van Buren to (unknown), 22 June 1848, Martin Van Buren Papers, Syracuse University. This 1848

correspondence stated that Lindenwald contained 225 acres, 4.11 acres more than is documented. TTie total of the land Van Buren purchases and the 1864 deed to the property document Lindenwald containing 220.89 and 220

acres, proving that the 225 acres was not accurate and may have just been a round figure used by Van Buren to describe the farm. As stated above, the accurate figure is 220.89 acres, and will be rounded to 221 acres for this report.

54 Martin Van Buren to (unknown), 22 June 1848, Martin Van Buren Papers, Syracuse University. " The process for determining the topography for the Van Ness Period, combining historical information with

the existing topography of the site today, was used for the Van Buren Period. The topography for the Van Ness

Period was overlaid with any changes that occurred during the Van Buren Period.

195
Endnotes

^^ Aderman, The Letters ofJames Kirk Paulding, 464.

^^ The 1805 map (fig. 1.3) and the 1959 aerial photograph (Appendix F) show the location of the Kinderhook

Creek bed. These sources show many similarities but also many differences in the location of the creek bed. A time

span of 154 years remains between the two sources, during which the Creek's path is undocumented. Professor of

Environmental Studies, John Felleman and Assistant Professor of Forest Engineering, Paul Hopkins, both of SUNY

CESF, examined the 1959 and 1967 aerial photographs (Appendix F), April 1993, SUNY CESF. From this examination, many possible paths the creek may have taken during its history have been identified.

The small portion of the creek, which contacted the property at the north west comer, remains in the same location

as it was during the Van Ness Period. This is shown by the comparison of the 1805 map (fig. 1.3) and the 1959

aerial photograph (Appendix F). This portion of the creek bed stays constant on these two sources, suggesting it remained in that location during the interim years of the Van Buren, Wagoner, and the deProsse Periods.

^^ Aderman, The Letters ofJames Kirk Paulding, 464.

^^ As discussed in the Van Ness Period, the main house, farm office, carriage bam and stone house were

existing during that period. Sources from the Van Buren Period confirm the assumptions these buildings were

existing at the time Van Buren purchased the property in 1839.

While the renovations designed by Upjohn were being implemented in 1849 Van Buren made a curious statement:

". . .William P. [Van Ness] came and disfigured everything his father had done. I succeeded him, & pulled down

without a single exception every erection he had made. . . ." (Martin Van Buren to Francis P. Blair, 9 April 1849,

Library of Congress). This statement suggests several possibiUties: (1) Van Buren tmly did tear down all that was

standing on the property, leaving only the main house, (2) Van Buren exaggerated the scale and intensity of the improvements that were made, (3) Van Buren's statement was precisely the truth; he may have torn down all of

William Van Ness's "erections," leaving only Peter Van Ness's buildings. This would account for four buildings on

the property: the main house, carriage bam, farm office and stone house. The third possibility is the most likely for several reasons. Van Buren's tone in the letter alludes to Peter Van Ness's improvements as being of good quality

and taste, while in his opinion William Van Ness's alterations were not. Van Buren therefore may have torn down

all of William's erections and left the buildings constructed by Peter Van Ness. As previously stated in the Van Ness

Period: Buildings and Structures, the farm office and carriage bam are both products of Peter Van Ness's tenure. Also, in many letters Van Buren talks of his improvements to the property and never once mentions building either a farm office or any structure in the garden other than a greenhouse and a hothouse. This would verify the farm office and carriage bam to be Peter Van Ness buildings. The possibility that the carriage bam was built by Van Buren is unlikely. Van Buren seems to have discussed his improvements to the farm within his correspondence to his friends even more so than William Van Ness did. Since Van Buren never mentions the constraction of a carriage bam on

the property it must have already existed when he purchased the property in 1839. This would leave these buildings

to be Peter Van Ness constructions, not demolished by Van Buren as stated in the quote.

^^ Oral interview, Seymore McGee with David Uschold and Michael Henderson (Curator, MVB NHS), 27

February 1992. Seymore McGee noted that the stone house was extant during the deProsse Period but was in a state of ruin. No evidence suggests that it was used after the Van Ness Period. It may have been abandoned after Peter Van Ness moved into the main house in 1797. Census records after 1840 do not note habitation.

196
Endnotes

^^ Stokinger, "Historic Grounds Report, Lindenwald, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site," 71. Hill, "The

Farmer's Monthly Visitor," 1845. Hill's 1845 article in the Albany Cultivator states "hot houses" as plural but Van

Buren references "the hot house" as a singular building in 1843. From this it is assumed there was one hothouse and one greenhouse and they are the structures represented on figure 2.4.

This sketch map is undated and has been assigned the date of c.1841 by undocumented sources. The only accurate

date that can be assigned to the map is between 1840 and 1843. The map shows the ponds, greenhouse, and

hothouse, making it a post- 1840 map. The map also shows the original 137.32 acre property purchased by Van

Buren before he made additional land purchases, making it pre-1843. For purposes of this report and to maintain

consistency, the map will retain the c.1841 label as it is already known.

^^ Martin Van Buren to Andrew Jackson, 30 July 1841, Martin Van Buren Papers, Syracuse University.

^^ It is not clear what the stables contained. Since the carriage house already existed behind the main house and

the wings on the house did not appear before Van Buren's tenure, it is assumed the stables referenced may have been

part of what is seen extending off of the rear of the house. It also is possible they were the appendages to the carriage bam.

^^ Martin Van Buren to James S. Wadsworth, 8 June 1844, Wadsworth Family Papers, Library of Congress.

^^ Oral interview, Seymore McGee with David Uschold and Michael Henderson (Curator, MVB NHS), 27

February 1992. Seymore McGee identified the structures in figure 2.6 as the farm cottage and red hillside bam and

in figure 2.7 as the black hay bam. He also illustrated the approximate location of the buildings on a map of the farm. A more detailed description of these buildings, in their 1930s state was obtained by several sources associated

with the property during the deProsse ownership. This information is presented within chapter 4, the deProsse

Period.

Martin Van Buren to Gorham A. Worth, 3 June 1847, Martin Van Buren Papers, Syracuse University. Martin Van

Buren to Francis P. Blair, 9 April 1849, Francis P. Blair Papers, Library of Congress. The exact constmction date

for the red hillside bam is not certain, it may have been built in either 1847 or 1849. In 1847 Van Buren states that there are twenty-six contractors on the farm, but does not mention what they are doing (Martin Van Buren to Gorham A. Worth, 3 June 1847). No known work was going on at this time and most of the improvements already were complete. Later, in 1849, he states "My last years crop showed a necessity for more bam room & my men are helping to get out the timber. . . ." (Martin Van Buren to Francis P. Blair, 9 April 1849). The 1847 count of twentysix workers may have been for many jobs including general farm work. The 1849 work more likely produced the red hillside bam due to the specific mention of a bam and reference to "helping to get out the timber."

^^ It has never been proven whether the large gable on the north gate house was part of the original constmction

or if was added at a later date. It seems most likely that it was added at a later date, possibly during one of the later periods during which the north gate house was used as a residence for workers on the property. Without the additional gable, the north gate house would have appeared identical to the south gate house. The gable differs in detail from that of both the north and south gate houses. The ornamentation on the gable was much heavier than the omamentation on the main stmctures themselves. Also, the window in the gable, while similar to those of the main

stmctures, has at least twenty glass panes as opposed to four of the other second floor windows. William deProsse

197
Endnotes

stated that the interior of the gable appeared to be original to the construction, stating it was of quality workmanship

consistent with the gate house itself, unlike the later alterations done to the gate house. It therefore remains

undocumented whether the gable was original or was added later (fig. 2.10 and 2.1 1).

6^ Martin Van Buren to Levi Woodbury, 24 July 184 1, Francis P. Blair Papers, Library of Congress.

^^ New York Commercial Advertiser. 1841.

69 The Black Locusts from the Van Ness Period still existed in the beginning of the deProsse Period (1917-

1973), confirmed by their appearance in figure 4.29 and by William deProsse, Seymore McGee, and Bob Metz's

recollections of them during the 1930s, verifying they must have existed during the interim years of the Van Buren

and Wagoner Periods as well. Having been planted between 1797 and 1805, they were approximately thirty-four to forty-two years old in 1839.

Bob Metz was a foster child of Clementine deProsse and lived at Lindenwald from 1934 to 1942. William deProsse was Clementine deProsse's son and lived at Lindenwald while he grew up, from 1930 to 1957.

Collier, A History of Old Kinderhook, 378. A visitor to Lindenwald in 1891 discusses Van Buren passing time on

his farm listening to the "locusts drone" in the wind. The manner in which they are mentioned suggests that they were a substantial vegetation feature on the property.

S.T. Van Buren to M. Van Buren Jr., Martin Van Buren Papers, Syracuse University. Martin Van Buren considered

naming the farm "The Locusts" when he purchased it in 1839 substantiating the existence of the locusts before his purchase.

^^ Collier, A History of Old Kinderhook, 378. The pines mentioned are confirmed to be White Pines by later photographs and by existing White Pines on the site. The size of the White Pine grove can be determined from an

existing outline of it. The entire pine grove is not evident but some of the trees or evidence of them exist.

^^ An age survey was done by National Park Service employees in 1976; neither methodology or surveyors can be documented. Some of the ages reported in the survey are questionable. A new age survey of the vegetation on

the site was completed by coring and visual analysis. Dr. Donald Leopold, Associate Professor of Environmental

and Forest Biology; Professor George W. Curry, Research Assistants Karen Day and David Uschold, Faculty of

Landscape Architecture; SUNY CESF; 8 July 1993.

^2 Martin Van Buren to Levi Woodbury, 24 July 1841, Francis P. Blair Papers, Library of Congress.

^^ New York Commercial Advertiser. 1841.

^'* Martin Van Buren to Levi Woodbury, 1 September 1839, Levi Woodbury Papers, Library of Congress.

^^ New York Commercial Advertiser . 1841.

"76 Hill, "The Farmer's Monthly Visitor," 1845.

198
Endnotes

^^ New York Commercial Advertiser. 1841.

Angelica Singleton Van Buren to Mrs. R. Singleton, 4 & 6 October 1843, Angelica Singleton Van Buren Papers,

Library of Congress. This reference and quote was taken from Stokinger's "Historic Ground Report, Lindenwald,

Martin Van Buren National historic Site," the primary source was not consulted.

Martin Van Buren to Elizabeth Blair, no date, Blair and Lee Family Papers, Box 227, File 17, Letter 3, Princeton

University Libraries, Princeton, New Jersey.

^^ Martin Van Buren to Levi Woodbury, 24 July 1841, Francis P. Blair Papers, Library of Congress.

79 HUl, "The Farmer's Monthly Visitor," 1845.

80 Martin Van Buren to Francis Preston Blair Sr., 15 July 1851, Francis P. Blair Family Papers, Library of

Congress.

^^ Oral interview, Seymore McGee with David Uschold and Michael Henderson (Curator, MVB NHS), 27

February 1992. Oral interview. Bob Metz with David Uschold, 15 February 1993. Oral interview and written

correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June 1993. The location of both the north and south

orchards can be confirmed from later photos: figures 2.6, 2.13, 3.7, 3.11. Figure 2.4 shows both the north and south

orchards as they stood on the house lot. Seymore McGee, Bob Metz, and William deProsse confirmed the location of the north and south orchards. Seymore McGee and William deProsse described the north orchard as being much

larger than is shown on the 1841 map, extending across a rye field northeast of the main house. Their recollections,

from the 1930s, may be of a larger and expanded Van Buren north orchard, later than the c.1841 map. They

described the north orchard as extending from the north portion of the entry drive to the brow of the hill and from

the north boundary fence to twenty feet north of the carriage bam. This would encompass the areas shown as the north orchard and rye field on figure 2.4. Considering the date of figure 2.4 (c.l841) and the Van Buren discussion

of the large amounts of orchard trees later, in 1848, he may have expanded the north orchard to reach the north

drive.

The contents of the orchards can be documented by many sources. New York Commercial Advertiser. 1841.

Angelica Singleton Van Buren to Mrs. Richard Singleton, 21 July 1843, Angelica Singleton Van Buren Papers,

Library of Congress. George H. Martin to Martin Van Buren, 11 December 1843, Martin Van Buren Papers,

Syracuse University. Aderman, The Letters of James Kirk Paulding , 427-430. Martin Van Buren to Gorham A. Worth, 30 September 1846, Martin Van Buren Papers, Syracuse University. Martin Van Buren to Francis P. Blair,

22 April 1848, Martin Van Buren Papers, Syracuse University. Martin Van Buren to (unknown), 22 June 1848,

Martin Van Buren Papers, Syracuse University. Gouvemeur Kemble to Martin Van Buren, 13 April 1848, Martin

Van Buren Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, Massachusetts (this reference was taken from

Stokinger, "Historic Grounds Report, Lindenwald, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site," 71, the primary source was not referenced).

A more detailed description of the orchards, in the 1930s, was obtained by several sources associated with the property during the deProsse ownership. This information is presented within chapter 4, the deProsse Period.

199
Endnotes

^2 Oral interview and written correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June and 6 September

1993.

^^ Martin Van Buren to (unknown), 22 June 1848, Martin Van Buren Papers, Syracuse University.

^'^ Martin Van Buren to (unknown), 30 May 1841, Blair and Lee Family Papers, Box 227, File 16, Princeton

University Libraries.

85 Hill, "The Farmer's Monthly Visitor," 1845.

8^ Martin Van Buren to (unknown), 22 June 1848, Martin Van Buren Papers, Syracuse University.

8^ The c.1843 sketch of the main house (fig. 2.15) shows many trees surrounding the house. It does not, however, show an accurate arrangement of the known trees and cannot be used to document any locations of

plantings. If the drawing were accurate, it would show the two White Pines flanking the entrance to the house.

Neither of the original pines are shown in the drawing. If they were shown, they would block much of the view of

the front of the house and may have been left out for that reason. This inconsistency raises concern regarding the landscape information shown in this sketch. As a result, its use for landscape documentation is unreliable and,

therefore, was not used.

The c.1849 water color painting done by Richard Upjohn & Company (fig. 2.16) has no definite date. It remains

unclear whether this rendering was produced by Upjohn as part of the redesign proposal for Lindenwald or whether

it was produced after the renovations took place. The former seems more likely since an illustration of the proposed

changes must have been completed prior to Van Buren's allowing such major changes to his home. In either case,

the interpretation of the landscape does not appear to be an accurate depiction, but rather an exaggerated illustration of the landscape features in order to better display the main house. Many landscape features (discussed in their respective landscape feature sections of this chapter) of the Van Buren Period are represented, although somewhat

distorted in the rendering, such as the southern White Pine, at the entrance to the main house, the benches

underneath the pines, and the circular pedestrian path in front of the main house. The use of this rendering for documentation, therefore, must recognize this degree of artistic license. Subsequently, the use of this rendering for landscape information has been limited to secondary documentation from collaboration of other evidence.

88 This space at the front entrance to the main house first appears in the c. 1849 Upjohn rendering (fig. 2.16) and

later in several photographs, c.1890 (fig. 2.17, 3.2). It is unknown whether this feature was implemented as part of

the Upjohn plan or if it existed prior to 1849.

89 Henry Gilpin to Martin Van Buren, 21 April 1843, Martin Van Buren Papers, Syracuse University. ^ Oral Interview, Seymore McGee with David Uschold and Michael Henderson (Curator, MVB NHS), 27

February 1992. Oral Interview, Bob Metz with David Uschold, 15 February 1993. Oral interview and written

correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June 1993. These sources provided information that was

combined to document roads on the property.

200
Endnotes

Figure 2.19 clearly shows a road extending past the farm office. This was confirmed by Seymore McGee lo be the road extending to the farm cottage.

Evidence of the road extending from the main house exists in the ground configuration southwest of the main house,

clearly showing the remains of a road leading in the direction of the farm cottage. The ground configuration behind

the main house was confirmed by Seymore McGee to be the remains of the road creating the triangular space next to the farm office and continuing to the farm cottage.

A road extended to the second terrace behind the main house during the Van Ness Period to reach the buildings

shown on figure 1.3. This road is confirmed by Seymore McGee and Bob Metz to have existed in the later deProsse

Period, suggesting it remained from the Van Ness Period until the deProsse Period.

9^ Evidence (photographs) from later periods suggests the roads were single lane and all of the circulation elements were constructed of compacted soil. Archeological investigation of the existing roads, most specifically the entry drive, could provide information regarding construction materials.

^2 Stokinger, "Historic Grounds Report, Lindenwald, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site," 48.

93 Hill, "The Farmer's Monthly Visitor," 1845.

^^ Oral interview and written correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June 1993. Oral

interview, Seymore McGee with David Uschold and Michael Henderson (Curator, MVB NHS), 27 February 1992. The location of the upper pond was noted and confirmed as the existing pond. They also described the location of

the lower pond and Seymore McGee illustrated the location during a walk on the property at the time of the

interview.

9^ Martin Van Buren to Levi Woodbury, 1 September 1839; Levi Woodbury to Martin Van Buren, 9 September

1839, Levi Woodbury Papers, Library of Congress. New York Commercial Advertiser. 1841.

An espalier is latticework constructed to train plants to grow on.

9^ The benches first appeared in Upjohn's c.1849 rendering of the main house (fig. 2.16). It is uncertain whether

the benches existed previous to the renovations or if Upjohn suggested they be included. This same style of bench

appears again in many photographs as early as c.1895 and c.1900 (fig. 3.10, 3.12) and again in c.1913 photographs

(fig. 2.17, 3.2). In these photographs the benches are both in the same locations as seen in the Upjohn rendering, at the base of the White Pines flanking the entrance to the main house.

97 Hill, "The Farmer's Monthly Visitor," 1845. Henry Gilpin to Martin Van Buren, 21 April 1843, Martin Van

Buren Papers, Syracuse University. William and Maria Paulding to Martin Van Buren (Deed) 1 April 1839;

Columbia County Historical Society. This deed, along with many others, states a fence was located on this border,

however it is never described.

201
Endnotes

Chapter HI: Wagoner Period

9^ "Kinderhook: 1865," copy on file, MVB NHS. This map shows an increase in the density of settlement for the Kinderhook area, especially the village itself, when compared to an 1856 map of the same area: "Map of the Town Kinderhook," 1856; original map located at the National Union Bank, Kinderhook, New York; copy on file, MVB NHS.

99 Adam E. Wagoner to Bascom H. Bimey (Deed), 15 November 1917. Columbia County Court House,

Hudson, New York.

100 ColUer, A History of Old Kinderhook, 378.

101 Oral interview and written correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June and 6 September

1993. Brona G. Simon, "Historic Grounds Report, Lindenwald, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, Volume U

Archeological Section," 37. William deProsse concurs with Simon that the building may have been turned. deProsse described the building as being very sturdy in its construction and unusual that such a building would not have a foundation.

The materials and details of the wood shed are consistent with those of the carriage bam, a Van Ness structure. No

other evidence suggests that it was a Van Ness construction. The foundation discovered during the archeological

research would bring the building closer to the house. If it existed during the Van Buren tenure, it may have been

moved after the Upjohn renovations in 1849, being to close to the rear of the house. Van Buren had an outdoor/summer kitchen before the Upjohn renovations, but its location is unknown. It is possible that this was it, but this building had no fireplace or chimney, suggesting that it was not a kitchen.

102 Oral interview and written correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June and 6 September

1993. More detailed descriptions of the woodshed and Wagoner garage, in their 1930s state were obtained by

several sources associated with the property during the deProsse ownership. This information is presented within

chapter 4, the deProsse Period.

103 Dr. Donald Leopold, Associate Professor of Environmental and Forest Biology, SUNY CESF, 16 November

1992. Dr. Leopold identified the plants in figure 3.7 as roses.

104 Dr. Donald Leopold, Associate Professor of Environmental and Forest Biology, SUNY CESF, 16 November

1992. Dr. Leopold identified the plants in figure 3.7 as Pegee Hydrangeas and the plant in figure 3.8 as Wistaria.

105 The north and south orchard can be seen in many photographs (fig. 2.6, 2. 13, 3.7) and are documented to exist

in the following period.

106 The photograph that illustrates the com growing on the front lawn is c.1905 (fig. 3.1). Earlier, c.1900 (fig. 3.12), and later, c.1913 (fig. 3.9), photographs of the same period do not show any crops on the front lawn,

suggesting this was only a temporary situation.

202
Endnotes

1^^ The entry drive and pedestrian path, and their apparent construction material, can be seen in c.l900 and

C.1913 photographs (fig. 2.19, 3.2).

1^^ Oral interview, Seymore McGee with David Uschold and Michael Henderson (Curator, MVB NHS), 27

February 1992. Oral interview and written correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June and 6

September 1993. The continued existence of these roads in the deProsse Period proves their existence during the Wagoner Period.

Chapter IV: deProsse Period ^^ Adam E. Wagoner to Bascom H. Bimey (Deed), 15 November 1917. Columbia County Court House.

11^ Written correspondence, William deProsse to David Uschold, 6 September 1993. Stokinger, "Historic

Grounds Report, Lindenwald, Martin Van Buren National Historic Site," 105-106.

^^^ Written correspondence, William deProsse to David Uschold, 6 September 1993. Clementine deProsse to Dudley Ray Meyer (Deed), 28 March 1946. Columbia County Court House.

^^2 Written correspondence, William deProsse to David Uschold, 6 September 1993. Oral interview, Ray Meyer

with David Uschold and Richard OuUette (Chief of Maintenance, MVB NHS), 8 June 1993.

^^^ Oral interview, Seymore McGee with David Uschold and Michael Henderson (Curator, MVB NHS), 27

February 1992. Oral interview and written correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June 1993.

^^^ Clementine deProsse to Ken Campbell (Deed), 31 May 1957. Columbia County Court House.

^^^ Oral interview and written correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June and 6 September

1993.

11^ Written correspondence, William deProsse to David Uschold, 6 September 1993.

^^^ Oral interview, Seymore McGee with David Uschold and Michael Henderson (Curator, MVB NHS), 27

February 1992. Oral interview and written correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June 1993. Seymore McGee and Wilham deProsse documented some details and the removal dates of the north gate house and

the garden structure appended to it. William deProsse stated that the building seen attached to the gate house was

previously located within the garden and had been moved here.

^^^ Oral interview and written correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June and 6 September

1993. Oral interview, Ray Meyer with David Uschold and Richard OuUette (Chief of Maintenance, MVB NHS), 8 June 1993.

^^^ Oral interview, Seymore McGee with David Uschold and Michael Henderson (Curator, MVB NHS), 27

February 1992. Oral interview. Bob Metz with David Uschold, 15 February 1993. Seymore McGee and Bob Metz

203
Endnotes

both described the location of the carriage bam and located it on a map of the property. The location each illustrated was the same and corresponded to the locations shown in the 1805 (fig. 1.3) and c.1841 maps (fig. 2.4). They

confirmed the building in figure 1.7 as the carriage bam.

Oral interview and written correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June 1993. William deProsse

identified the building in figure 1.7 as the carriage bam, gave a detailed description, and drew a floor plan it

Using figure 1.7, and a person appearing in it as a scale figure, the size of the building can be estimated. The main

section of the bam can be estimated at forty-three feet long and twenty-three feet tall. Without the photographs,

Seymore McGee estimated the size to be about forty feet long and twenty-five feet tall. Seymore McGee stated this size for the main section of the bam, not including the appendages at either end. Using figure 1.7, the entire length

is approximately sixty-five feet.

Oral Interview, Seymore McGee and Bmce Stewart (Superintendent, MVB NHS), 2 July 1990. Seymore McGee

described the floor plan of the interior of the carriage bam and assisted in preparing a drawing of it. He also described the exterior finish of the bam. This is confirmed by figure 1.7. The siding appears to be the same and

wood roofing can be seen undemeath the tar paper covering the roof. Seymore McGee assisted in tearing the bam

down and removing the debris from the property.

1^^ Oral interview, Bob Metz with David Uschold, 15 February 1993. Oral interview and written

correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June and 6 September 1993. Oral interview, Bmce W.

Stewart (Superintendent, MVB NHS) with David Uschold, 8 June 1993. The building was still existing when the deProsses sold the property in 1957, but was no longer present when the National Park Foundation took ownership

in 1973; only the foundation existed. William deProsse and Bob Metz described the interior and exterior of the building. William deProsse described the building as being approximately twelve feet square. The extant foundation for the farm office is eleven feet square.

121 Oral interview, Seymore McGee with David Uschold and Michael Henderson (Curator, MVB NHS), 27

Febmary 1992. Oral interview, Ray Meyer with David Uschold, 8 June 1993. Oral interview and written

correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June 1993. Seymore McGee and Ray Meyer provided

the removal date for the bam and William deProsse gave a detailed description of the bam and its layout.

122 Oral interview, Seymore McGee with David Uschold and Michael Henderson (Curator, MVB NHS), 27

February 1992. Oral interview, Ray Meyer with David Uschold, June 8, 1993. Oral interview and written

correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June 1993 and 6 September 1993. Seymore McGee and

Ray Meyer provided the approximate date of the fire that destroyed the bam and William deProsse gave a detailed description of the bam, its layout, location, and details of its destmction.

123 Oral interview, Seymore McGee with David Uschold and Michael Henderson (Curator, MVB NHS), 27

Febmary 1992. Oral interview and written correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June and 6

September 1993. Seymore McGee documented the removal dates and some details of the complex behind the main

house. William deProsse provided a detailed description of the buildings.

12"* Oral interview and written correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June and 6 September

1993.

204
Endnotes

125 Oral interview, Seymore McGee with David Uschold and Michael Henderson (Curator, MVB NHS), 27

February 1992. Oral interview. Bob Metz with David Uschold, 15 February 1993.

126 Oral interview. Bob Metz with David Uschold, 15 February 1993. Work for the septic system can be seen in a 1940 photograph (Photo # CLR-430, on file MVB NHS). The excavation for the system can be seen on the left side of ^e photo, confirmed by Bob Metz.

127 Written correspondence, William deProsse to David Uschold, 6 September 1993.

128 Oral interview and written correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June and 6 September

1993. Oral interview. Bob Metz with David Uschold, 15 February 1993. USGS aerial photograph, 1959, on file MVB NHS.

129 Oral interview and written correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June and 6 September

1993. Some of these garden elements also may be seen in two c.1913 photographs (fig. 2.19 and 3.2).

130 Oral interview and written correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June and 6 September

1993. Oral interview. Bob Metz with David Uschold, 15 February 1993. Oral interview, Ray Meyer with David

Uschold, June 8, 1993.

131 As done in previous chapters, a combination of the documented information regarding the landscape features

for this time was studied to determine the spatial organization and views and vistas of the time.

132 Oral interview. Bob Metz with David Uschold, 15 February 1993. Oral interview, Seymore McGee with

David Uschold and Michael Henderson (Curator, MVB NHS), 27 February 1992. Oral interview and written

correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June and 6 September 1993. USGS aerial photograph,

1959, on file MVB NHS. Seymore McGee and WiUiam deProsse described the two fish ponds that existed previous

to their tenures and they also described the two additional ponds created during their tenures. The small pond near

the upper fish pond being almost a wet area rather than a pond. They described the second pond that was created during the deProsse Period in general location only. Neither were clear if it was the same as any of the existing

ponds or was a different feature altogether.

133 Oral interview and written correspondence, William deProsse with David Uschold, 10 June 1993.

134 Several photographs illustrate the furnishings and objects that existed on the property during the deProsse

Period (Photos # CLR-409, CLR-417, CLR-431, CLR-451, CLR-452, CLR-454, CLR-455, on file MVB NHS).

Chapter V: National Park Service Period

135 Map of Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, Division of Land; National Park Service, North Atlantic

Regional Office.

205
Endnotes

13^ The Park has considered not allowing vehicular traffic on Post Road in front of the site. This would be part of

the proposed visitor center and visitor parking area which would be accessed from NYS Route 9h. The Village of

Kinderhook has agreed and will donate the parcel of Post Road to the Park if the need arises.

137 Oral interview, Richard OuUette (Chief of Maintenance, MVB NHS) with David Uschold, 8 June 1993. Oral

interview, Bruce W. Stewart (Superintendent, MVB NHS) with David Uschold, 8 June 1993. The foundation of the gate house was filled with empty oil cans in 1973. It was cleaned out and backfilled with soil to stabilize it from

caving in on itself. The above grade portion, approximately one foot of stone, was left visible and uncovered.

13^ Oral interview, Bruce W. Stewart (Superintendent, MVB NHS) with David Uschold, 8 June 1993.

139 Field Survey: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, 10-12 August 1992; S. Shannon, D. Uschold. The

information is presented on Historic Core: Existing Conditions: 1993, at the end of chapter five.

I'^O Oral interview, Richard Oullette (Chief of Maintenance, MVB NHS) with David Uschold, 8 June 1993.

^^^ Field Survey: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, 10-12 August 1992; S. Shannon, D. Uschold. The

information is presented on: Historic Core: Existing Conditions: 1993, at the end of chapter five.

l"*^ Field Survey: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, 10-12 August 1992; S. Shannon, D. Uschold. During

this field survey, several black locust stumps were located along the entry drive and along the north border of the property. Many more stumps are located on a previous survey completed in 1979 to locate existing trees and

stumps. All of the stumps from the 1979 survey have been removed from the property. Eustance and Horowitz,

Survey for Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, 1979; with update by Raymond Lubianetsky, containing tree and stump information, 1980.

1^3 Field reconnaissance and oral interview, MVB NHS, Richard Oullette (Chief of Maintenance, MVB NHS)

with David Uschold, 8 June 1993. 1^ These features were discovered during field reconnaissance. Field reconnaissance, MVB NHS, Richard

Oullette (Chief of Maintenance, MVB NHS) with David Uschold, 8 June 1993. Field Survey: Martin Van Buren

National Historic Site, 10-12 August 1992; S. Shannon, D. Uschold.

Chapter VI: Statement of Significance and Site Analysis

^^^ U.S. Departinent of Interior. National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register

Registration Form. The bulletin was completed by the Interagency Resources Division of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, 1991, 3.

146 Ibid.

1^^ The period of significance is 1839-1862, but Chapter II: Van Buren Period, includes the following two years when the property remained in the Van Buren family. No changes took place during this additional two years and it

206
Endnotes

is much more a part of the Van Buren tenure than of the following absentee ownerships of the Wagoner Period.

Therefore it is included in Chapter II: Van Buren Period, rather than the following chapter. The period of

significance for the property remains 1839-1862, and does not include these two additional years.

1^^ The period of significance used in this report was developed by the author and agreed on by the NPS staff at the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site and the North Atlantic Regional Office.

149 U.S. Department of Interior. National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis For

Preservation Planning. The bulletin was completed by the Interagency Resources Division of the National Park

Service, U.S. Department of Interior, 1977. Revised by Patricia L. Parker, 1985, 45.

1^^ Ibid. Features post-dating the period of significance (non-contributing) may have significance in their own

right, but cannot be considered contributing to the significance of Lindenwald.

1^1 U.S. Department of Interior. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for

Evaluation. The bulletin was completed by the Interagency Resources Division of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior.

1^2 Ibid. The seven aspects of integrity are as follows: Location: the place where the historic property was constructed or where the historic event took place.

Design: the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.

Setting: the physical environment of a historic property.

Materials: the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a

particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

Workmanship: the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period of history or prehistory.

Feeling: a property's expression of aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association: the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

1^^ U.S. Department of Interior. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for

Evaluation. The bulletin was completed by the Interagency Resources Division of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, 48.

207

APPENDIX A

COMPLETED NFS REPORTS

Published Reports

U.S. Department of the hiterior. National Park Service. Southwest Cultural Resources Center. Cultural

Resources Remote Sensing and Its Limitations: A Test at Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. Albuquerque, 1983.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. North Atlantic Regional Office. Development

Concept PlantEnvironmental Assessment of 1986: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. Boston,

1986.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. North Atlantic Regional Office. Development

Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment of 1986: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site:

Amendment. Boston, 1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. North Atlantic Regional Office. Environmental

Statement: Lindenwald. Boston, 1973.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Division of Cultural Resources, North Atlantic

Regional Office. Historic Ground Report: Lindenwald: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site,

Volume I. Completed under a cooperative agreement with Brown University (CX 1600-0-0037).

Boston, 1981.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Division of Cultural Resources, North Atlantic

Regional Office. Historic Ground Report: Lindenwald: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site,

Volume II. Completed under a cooperative agreement with Brown University (CX 1600-0-0037).

Boston, 1982.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Nafional Park Service. Branch of Cultural Resources, Denver Service

Center. Historic Resource Study: Lindenwald. Denver, 1982.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Branch of Cultural Resources, Denver Service

Center. Historic Structure Report: Archeological Data Section: Lindenwald: Martin Van Buren

National Historic Site. Denver, 1983.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. North Atlantic Regional Office. Interim

Interpretive Prospectus: Martin Van Buren National Historic Site. Boston, 1985.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. North Atlantic Regional Office. Lindenwald:

Master Plan. Boston, 1970.
Appendix A

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. North Atlantic Regional Office. Martin Van

Buren National Historic Site: Adjacent Lands Resource Analysis. Completed under a cooperative

agreement with the Columbia Land Conservancy (CA 1600-8-8006). Boston, 1990.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. North Atlantic Regional Office. Statement For

Management: Martin Van Buren NHS. Boston, 1990.

Unpublished Materials

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Lindenwald: the President Martin Van Buren

Homestead. This report was written by Melvin J. Weig, Assistant Historian of the NPS, 1936.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Martin Van Buren National Historic Site: Scenic

Easements, Terms and Conditions. These easements cover five parcels adjacent to the MVB NHS.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Cultural Resources, North Atlantic Regional

Office. National Register ofHistoric Places. Nomination Form. Boston, 1980.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Resources Management and Research, North

Atlantic Regional Office. Section 106 Review, Lindenwald, Universal Access Alterations. This form

documents the review process for the installation of a universal access ramp at the entrance to the main

house. Boston, 1993.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. The Grounds at Lindenwald. Visitor pamphlet

regarding the grounds at the MVB NHS. Kinderhook, n.d.

Miscellaneous Materials

Pole, Lorraine M. n.d. Report on the information found in the Papers ofMartin Van Buren. Martin Van

Buren Papers (1839-1864), Ogontz Campus, Pennsylvania State University.
appendix b

Landscape Feature Table

Landscape Features Van Ness

Period

Van Buren Period

Wagoner

Period

deProsse

Period

NPS

Period

ENVIRONMENT

Natural * * X X

*

Socio/Cultural * * X * * SETTING * * * * * NATURAL SYSTEMS

Physiography * * Topography * * X X * Geology

Hydrology * * X X * Ecology

Climate

BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES * * * * *

Mechanical Systems X * X * *

Site Enginering Systems X * X X * VEGETATION * * * * * SPATIAL ORGANIZATION * * * * * Views & Vistas * * X * * CIRCULATION * * * * * WATER FEATURES X * X * * FURNISHINGS & OBJECTS * * * * *

KEY:

* = Information Found

X = No Infoimation Found

O = No Infonmation Sought

Appendix C

Repositories Consulted and Results

Manuscript Collections

Cornell University. Ithaca, New York.

Christina Cantine Papers. This collection is held at the Olin Library at Cornell University and consists

of one box of manuscript materials. It was thoroughly searched and some relevant information was

found.

Library of Congress. Washington, D.C.

Francis P. Blair Papers. This collection contains over 26,000 pieces, both maps and manuscripts. It was searched by use of the index, reviewing pieces that may have been relevant. Some significant

information was found.

Blair Family Papers. This collection contains approximately 70 boxes of manuscript materials. By use of the index, it was searched and relevant materials were reviewed, finding some significant

information.

Levi Woodbury Family Papers. This collection was reviewed to confirm previously documented

information within it. No new information was found.

New York Historical Society. New York, New York.

Van Ness (Phillips) Papers. The Van Ness Papers (searched for previous NPS reports) were reviewed

and the known information was confirmed. The recent addition to this collection (15,000 pieces) was

also searched and new information significant to Lindenwald was found within it. New York State Library. Albany, New York.

Benjamin Franklin Butler Papers. This collection contains ten boxes of manuscripts and had no index

at the time of this research. All of the boxes were reviewed and no information was found.

Princeton University Libraries. Princeton, New Jersey.

Blair and Lee Family Papers. This collection contains 446 boxes of manuscript pieces. The index was

reviewed and relevant boxes were searched, finding several pieces of significant information.

Butler Family Papers. By use of the index, the 45 boxes of this collection were reviewed. The relevant

boxes were searched and several significant pieces of information were located.

Livingston Papers. By use of the index, the contents of the 165 boxes of this collection were reviewed

and relevant boxes were searched. No significant information was found.
Appendix C

Throop and Martin Family Papers. By use of the index, the contents of the eleven boxes of this collection were reviewed and relevant boxes were searched. No significant information was found.

Syracuse University. Syracuse, New York.

Martin Van Buren Papers. This collection contains thirty-five reels of micro-film. The collection was

reviewed previously (Poll, n.d.) and a report was written to simimarize information significant to Lindenwald. The report was reviewed and the several reels of the collection were searched again to confirm or elaborate on important information. The collection contains an extreme amount of

significant information regarding Lindenwald.
APPENDIX D

INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED

Jeanne B. Akers

Niverville, New York

Jeanne Akers is Clementine deProsse's daughter and grew up at Lindenwald with her brother William.

She collaborated with William, in providing information for this report.

Jean M. Curry

Huntersville, North Carolina

Jean Curry owns the diary of Angelica Singleton Van Buren, who lived at Lindenwald for several years

during Van Buren's ownership. The diary was believed to have contained information regarding

Lindenwald. Mrs. Curry states that it does not. It contains information regarding Angelica's European

travels.

William deProsse Jr.. Concord, California

Telephone interviews and written correspondence, 5 May 1993, 6 September 1993, 17 October 1993.

William deProsse lived at Lindenwald from 1930 until 1957. He was bom there and was part owner when the property was sold in 1957. His recollections, including drawings and photographs, were

invaluable in documenting the property during those years.

Phyllis Ewing

Chief Curator

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

Kinderhook, New York 12106

Judy Harris

Curatorial Technician

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

Kinderhook, New York 12106

Michael Henderson

Chief Curator

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

Kinderhook, New York 12106

Dr. Donald Leopold

Associate Professor of Environmental and Forest Biology

SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry

Syracuse, New York 13210

Seymour McGee.

Kinderhook, New York
Appendix D

Oral interview, 24 February 1990. Seymour McGee lived on Post Road, north of Lindenwald, from

approximately 1910 until 1990. He performed occasional maintenance work at Lindenwald while the

deProsse family owned it. He provided much information regarding many of the landscape features of

the property.

Helen McLallen

Columbia County Historical Society

5 Albany Ave.

Kinderhook, New York 12106

Bob Metz.

Plattsburg, New York

Oral interview, 15 February 1993. Bob Metz was a foster child of the deProsse family and lived at Lindenwald from 1934 until 1942. His recollections of the property were quite clear and provided

substantial information.

Richard Oullette

Chief of Maintenance

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

Kinderhook, New York 12106

Charlie Pepper

Horticulturist

Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site

99 Warren Street Brookline, Massachusetts 02146

Ruth Piwonka

Kinderhook, New York

Ruth Piwonka has researched the history of Kinderhook and Lindenwald. She provided direction for

possible information sources.

Bruce W. Stewart

Superintendent

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site

Kinderhook, New York 12106
appendix e

National Register of Historic Places

nomination form
FcrmN • lb 30r Ccv 10 M(

L'Mll.DSI \TL.^ Dl.l'AKIMIM Ul 1 Ilk IMl KlUK

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM

FOR FEUKRAL PROI'LRTIKS

FOR NPS USE ONLY

RECEIVED

DATE ENTERED

SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS

TYPE ALL ENTRIES -- COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS

NAiME

HISTORIC "Lindenwald'

AND'OR cov^ro^

Martin Var. Buren National Historic Site

iLOCATlON

STREET & NUMBER

.NOT FOP PUBLICATION

CITY, TOWN

Kinderhook VICINITY OF

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

STATE New York

CODE COUNTY CODE

CLASSIFICATION

CATEGORY

_OISTRICT

_BUILDING(S)

_STRUCTURE

2LSITE —OBJECT

OWNERSHIP

iSPUBLIC

_PRIVATE

—BOTH

PUBLIC ACQUISITION

_IN PROCESS —BEING CONSIDERED

STATUS

—OCCUPIED

—UNOCCUPIED

X^WORK IN PROGRESS

ACCESSIBLE

—YES RESTRICTED —YES UNRESTRICTED —NO

PRESENT USE

AGRICULTURE X-MUSEUM

—COMMERCIAL

—EDUCATIONAL

ENTERTAINMENT —GOVERNMENT

—INDUSTRIAL

—MILITARY

2S.PAHK —PRIVATE RESIDENCE —RELIGIOUS —SCIENTIFIC -TRANSPORTATION

—OTHER

AGENCY

REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS 11/ »pplic»ble) North Atlantic Region

STREET & NUMBEH

15 State Street

CITY TOWN

Boston

STATE Mass.

[FJLOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION

COURTHOUSE

REGISTRY OF DEEDs.ETc Columbia County Clerk Office

SThCCT & NUMBER

Union Street

CITY TOWN STATE Hudson Npw YnrV

[^ REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS

TllLt Historic American Building Survey

1^176 X FEDERAL —STATE _COl'NT> ..LOCAL

Si.li:-. n Ri ror^: >

(,"> u:a:;
[3DECCRIFTI0N

CONDITION

—EXCELLENT

_GOOD

—DETERIORATED

_RUINS

_UNEXPOSED

CHECK ONE

—UNALTERED

2LALTERE0

CHECK ONE

2L0RIGINALSITE

—MOVED DATE.

DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site is located two miles outside of Kinderhook,

New York, in Columbia County and several miles west of the Hudson River. The

surrounding area is sparsely settled and has a rural agricultural character. The

town was the birthplace of Martin Van Buren, eighth president of the United States.

48 acres of land surround the 12.8 acre National Historic Site on three boundaries.

Conservation easuir.jnts dictating agricultural uses compatible with the historic

setting are proposed for the area across the Albany Post Road. The estate mansion,

Lindenwald, the secondary buildings that remain, and the grounds are currently

being stabilized.

The following historic buildings and sites remain on the grounds:

Lindenwald (No. HS 1)

Lindenwald was built by Peter Van Ness in 1797, a person of considerable prominence

locally whose military career developed into a political one as New York State

Senator, a position he held for many years. At sixty years of age. Van Ness decided

to build a house. He hired local builders and used native materials in the construction of his two-and-one-half story Flemish bond red brick Federal style residence

which rests on a raised, random laid fieldstone masonry foundation. The interior

space was arranged around a central hall and rear staircase with two rooms placed

symmetrically on either side. The second floor had four rooms corresponding to the same plan while an attic lodged servants. The kitchen in this house-type was

located in the basement as were areas for laundry, wood storage, cold storage and

other household support activities.

The house was gabled with chimneys at either end and still has a handsome Palladian

window with switchline tracery lighting the second floor stairhall. The main

doorway was, characteristically, the focal point of the main elevation with an

elaborate fanlight surmounting it. The house was stone masonry, wall bearing, faced

in brick with a stringcourse defining the stories. There were rubbed brick window

lintels and a bracketed cornice as well.

There were five bays across the front and four on the side facades, giving each room

two shuttered, 6-over-6 double hung sash windov:s on both of its exterior walls. The

rooms were beautifully finished by intricate woodwork, some of which was hand-carved

by Judge Van Ness. Details include dentil moulding, reeding fans, triglyph friezes,

pronounced entablatures on the doorways, and early hardware on the 8-panel doors.

There are delicate plaster cornices and rosettes applied to the ceilings.

The Red and Green Parlours are richly finished with moulded and paneled ceilings,

deep window reveals and interior sliuttcrs. They have several of the six European,

carved marble fireplace mantels and architraves, replete witli fluted Ionic

colonottes. There arc also cnorr.ous p;ildcd mirrors in each formal room, bought

in N\'w York Cii^. The Rcu Parlour h.as been jiven a styli::cd ogee arch in the

I' p John renovacier.

.
SIGNIFICANCE

PERIOD

_ PRtMiSTORiC

_ M ..J 1 £ ^

9

_ \bO0 lb99 _ 17C/0 '799 X'6.- ie=«9

AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE - CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW

_arch£Ology prehistoric

..archeology historic

agriculture

JOiRCMlUCTURE

_.4fiT _COV.VERCE

_ COVMOMCATlONS

_COMMUNITY PLANNING

_. CONSERVATION —ECONOMICS

-EOUCATION —ENGINEERING —EXPLORATION SETTLEMENT

_INDUSTRY

INVENTION

—LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

-LAW

—LITERATURE

—MILITARY —MUSIC — PHILOSOPHY

^POLITICS GOVERNMENT

-RELIGION -SCIENCE -SCULPTURE

-SOCIAL HUMANITARIAN

THEATER -TRANSPORTATION

.OTHER iSPtTicv.

SPECIFIC DATES

1797, 1849

BUILDER/ARCHITECT Richard Upjohn

STATEV.tNT OP SlGr,;PlCANCE

Martin Van Buren National Historic Site is significant because it was the estate of

the eighth president of the United States, has architectural merits and retains

distinctive features of a nineteenth century farm in the Hudson River Valley.

Van Buren purchased Lindenwald during his Presidential term and lived there until

his death in 1S62. During the twenty- three years residence at Lindenwald, Van Buren

operated a successful 82 acre farm on the 225 acre estate and experimented with

cultivating new varieties of vegetables. Although the National Historic Site now

contains 12.8 acres, the enabling legislation mandates a total of 40 acres.

Lindenwald is a distinctive structure architecturally because it is a post-colonial

house with nid-nineteenth century modifications designed by a significant American

architect, Richard Upjohn. In addition, Lindenwald retains remains of its original

plu-bing and heating system, installed during Van Eurens residency; features include

water closet, lead piping and zinc lined bathtub, and coal burning furnace, one of

the first central heating systems in the Hudson Valley. The house also has the

vallparcrs that decorated the walls during Van Buren 's occupancy.

The archoological remains on the site, including the farm office, barn, gatehouse

and other forr.or farm structures and features, hold information about Van Buren 's fnrrtn'-: rpcrstions. These deposits also are likely to contain data important to

rcoon-:tru.:t It'.;:^ nnd explaining the way of life followed by Van Buren, his visitors,

his f.i-(ly .-.nj his cnployoos.

\.-.;i I'-.trrn ire.-i.-v.rod Lindonvald and worked constantly to maintain and improve it.

Ir. I'.i:: I'^.-.T w.^r.N. t-!;is is wiiorc he chose to spend "... the last and happiest

yc.^r^^ of p:v Itfo, a farmer in mv native town."
fcm No '0 30C.' |R*v 10 74)UMILDSTAII.S DLPARl Ml NTOI THL IMl.RIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM

FOR NPS USE ONLY

RECEIVED

DATE ENTERED

CONTINUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER 7 PAGE two

The manor was set at the center of a sweeping semi-circular driveway and was

conpleTcented by the full range of secondary buildings.

William Van Ness inherited the estate at his father's death in 1804 and was the

proprietor until 182A. During this time, Washington Irving was a frequent guest

and tutored Van Ness' children.

The house was purchased at an auction in 1824 by William Paulding, Jr. who lived

there until 1839 when Martin Van Buren acquired title to the house and attendant

137 acres of land. He continued acquiring property until, after six years, he

held a total of nearly 225 acres.

Van Buren embarked on a program of renovations to Lindenwald that began with the

removal of the stair in the central hall to a more unobtrusive position in the

den, framed by a Gothic alcove. This freed the central hall to function as a ballroom for its social owner. The French wallpaper, "Paysage a Chasses",

applied at that time, still remains intact although in a deteriorated condition.

Conservation studies for this historic 1841 wallpaper are underway.

Due to circumstances in his political career and a desire to have one of his sons eventually take over the estate, it was decided that Van Buren' s son. Smith

Thompson and his wife would move in after adding on to the house to accommodate

them. ^Thus, in 1849, Smith Thompson hired a very prominent ecclesiastical

architect, Richard Upjohn, to design and add a rear wing and a library ell on the

southwest facade.

Upjohn' s work imposed an Italianate as>Tnraetry and lavish decoration onto the ordered,

restrained elegance of the Federal composition. The alterations made to the

structure included tvo dormers and a central gable added to the front roof slope

and a dormer on the rear slope, the closings of both gable end windows, bracketing

under every available cornice, a heavily ornamented Victorian front porch, window

hoods in some cases, and a crowning dramatic Italianate tower.

The Upjohn addition is a one-story wing of common bond red brick with sandstone

trim on the basement. There is a round-arched major doorway built into the

northeast elevation that is fully framed by a wide glazed band. The roof of the

addition, in contrast to the wood shingle of the 1797 house, is a red-painted

tin that has boon crimped over vertically set strips to resemble board-and-battcn,

also knou-n as standing-seam, metal roofing.
Foff^ No 10 300a

iBev in 7-)UMTLDSTATLSDl.PARIMl NT 01 THLIMl.RIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM

FOR NPSUSE ONLY

RECEIVED

DATE ENTERED

CONTINUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER 7 PAGE three

The gabled tower top is about four stories in height and contains a stair up to an open air observation porch and belfry. There are coupled round-arched openings on either side of the tower and narrow round-headed windows paired on the solid,

adjoining walls. These narrow openings reappear below to admit light to the

stairwell. The round-headed windows are repeated elsewhere in the gable pedir.ents

and dormers, and other picturesque details are liberally used, including board

and batten-sided dormers, bracketed window hoods and sills, and an incongruous

oriel. The bricks of the exterior walls were painted cream-colored with a red trim

to match this earlier treatment of the 1797 house.

The rear wing was built by a local carpenter named Barent Van Slyck and its interior

elements included a full basement, a breakfast/billiard room, a library, a hallway

to the tower and major wing entrance, a bathroom, a nursery, a bedroom and a skylit

hallway.

The late 19th-early 20th c. owners of Lindenwald wrought few structural changes

and, at most, stripped some of the Italianate ornamentation from the eaves, aside

from removing the Victorian porch. This was replaced by a grand two-story portico

across the southeast elevation. Its four, square wood columns support a flat roof

and wood balustrade. Bathrooms and a kitchen were installed in the house in the

modernization.

Today, Lindenwald is still an imposing mansion, surrounded by extensive lawns

and mature trees. Many fine architectural details survive from the historic

period including the Palladian center window with the 8-over-6 panes and threepane sidelights bordered with narrow panes both in this window and beside the

main entrance. Four fluted ionic pilasters separate the window units and rest on moulded corbels. The entrance is deeply recessed with a paneled reveal and has

pilasters supporting a shelf entablature. The sidelights are recessed too and

steps in a foreshortened Palladian shape lead to the wide eight-panel Dutch

double door. The remainder of the windows are 6-over-6 with wood sills and flat

arch brick lintels and have white-painted louvered shutters. The addition has

segmental windows.

Interior features that remain from the historic period include the original kitchen

and service quarters, a bake oven, and an early kitchen stove with ovens installed

by Van Burcn bearing the logo Moses Pond and Co., N. IS Merchants Row, Boston.

An old zinc bathtub nnd pipes remain. Original silver-plated doorknobs and

hardware arc predominantly intact on the first floor and the floorboards thor.solves arc in saLi^^tactory condition. The interior trims for cornices, windows, doors,

fircplaci-s vitid Llicir mantels are o£ the period as well. There is also an lS-t8

furnaco that \\\\\ F.urcn, at tlio vanguard of heating t oohnology , ha^ ip.sLal.Kd and
foim No 10 30C ) (Rev 10 74)UMlhUbl MbSDLP \R1MI.M (J\ 1 ML IMl.RIOK

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM

FOR NPSUSE ONLY

RECEIVED

DATE ENTERED

CONTI NUATiON SHEET ITEM NUMBER PAGE four

which appears to be in impeccable condition. Of interest, too, are two first floor

indoor necessaries with moulded covers and wooden seats. The mansion has an inventory of over 200 pieces of furniture and household items, nearly half of which

were Van Buren's vrhile the remainder are in the Empire style, fashionable during

the historic period.

South Gatehouse (No. HS 2)

Originally one of a pair of gatehouses that were situated at either end of the

large semi-circular drive that leads from the Albany Post Road, the South Gatehouse

remains extant while the North Gatehouse is but foundation walls and some rubble.

They were reputedly added to the estate in 1841-A3 and are basically one room with

a full basement underneath and a single fireplace, although no chimney is in evidence

on the remaining structure. The South Gatehouse is currently used as a residence

by a previous o^>mer and tenant with a special use permit.

The South Gatehouse is a rectangular plan, one-story structure which measures

22' X lA'. It is carpenter Gothic in style. It is a wood frame structure

sheathed in buff-painted board-and-batten and has corner boards, sills, window,

door, and other trim painted a contrasting brown. Resting on a raised random-laid

fieldstone masonry .foundation, the one room cottage has a wood shingled, gabled

roof. Characteristic of this style, too, there are bargeboards trimming the

raking cornices and eared, wooden window and door lintels. The windows of the

three bay front facade by two bay side are 9-over-9 double hung sash with a 6-

light gable end window to light the roof volume. Nearby the Gatehouse is one of

the old stone 10 mile markers along the Albany Post Road.

North Gatehouse Foundation (No. HS 3)

The North Gatehouse site is a 14' x 22' rectangular foundation of dry and random

laid fieldstone located at the north side of the semi-circular drive near the

Albany Post Road. It is currently fenced to prevent intrusion.

Farm Office site (No. HS 4)

The Farm Office is an unexcavatcd site located behind Lindenwald and near the

southwest boundary line. Traces of fieldstone indicating a foundation arc visible

in the indentation in the ground area where the Farm Office was. It is currently

fenced a^^inst intrusion and under studv.
FofTi No n 300i

(Rev 10 74)UNIThDSTAlLSDLPARlMLNTOI THLIMl.RIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM

FOR NPS USE ONLY

RECEIVED

DATE ENTERED

CONTINUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER PAGE five

The grounds at Lindenwald National Historic Site include 12.8 acres of the 225-acre

farm that Martin Van Buren presided over in 1845. In addition to the sites of the

North Gatehouse and Farm Office, other archeological remains associated with

Van Buren' s farm activities are expected on the grounds and within the easement

areas. Archeological resources from earlier historic or prehistoric periods might

also occur.

Lindenwald is approached via a semi-circular, gravel surfaced drive, indented

slightly at the top in front of the mansion. A small graveled walkway nearly

circular in shape was laid out before the mansion and its grassed interior

contained a flower bed outlining a fish pond and urn. Lining the drive on either

side were imposing rows of linden trees. These features of the property will be

restored.

There are, in addition, a drive that circles behind the mansion and a farm road

leading to a carriage barn located to the rear of which not even a trace remains,

A modern antique shop and a cement block garage structure will be removed from

the site.
^MAJOR BIELIOC \PHICAL REFERENCES

Fiatt, John Historic Structures Report: Historical Data Martin Van Buren

National Historic Site, National Park Service, 1977

Master Plan National Park Service, 1970

Conversation with William N. Jackson, Site Historian

GEOGRAPHICAL DATA

ACREAGE Of NOMINATED PROPERTY 12.8

U'M REft'^ENCES

AiljSj I6I0.6U, 6, d I4.6l9tll7.n,nl bLJ I I . I . . I I . 1 . I . I ZONE EASTING NORTHING ZONE EASTING NORTHING

cLiJ Ll_i I I .1 I I I

I . I pLJ I I . I , , M I . I ,_^

VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION

LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES

STATE CODE COUNTY CODE

STATE CODE COUNTY CODE

FORM PREPARED BY

NAME / TITLE Bronvyn Krog, Preservation Historian

ORGANIZATION DATE National Park Servirp, Norfh AflflnM'r TJpginn l/n/7Q

STREETSi NUMBER TELEPHONE 15 St;^rp Srrppt 223-3778

CITY OR TOWN STATE Boston. MasR. - _. [Q CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

YES NO NONE

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION Of HCER SiGNATuRc

In compliance witn Executive Order 1 1 593. I hereby nominate this property to the National fit'giijter cenitymcj that tf^e State

Historic Preservation Officer has been allowed 90 days m which to present trie nomination to the State Review Board and to evaluate its significance The evaluated level of significance is National Stat* Local FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE

TITLE DATE

FOR NPS USE ONLY

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PROPERTY IS INCLUDED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER

DATE

DIRECTOR. OFFiCt OF AflCHEOLOGV AND HISTORIC PRESfcR^ATION

ATTTLiT DATE

Ki L^ifl o;: tk:. ;;AI lOroXL Kt. .lis T i- f(
UT-' Rfcierence

15- 606A60 A691700
appendix f

miscellaneous

Graphic Documentation

Figure Fl: 1959 Aerial Photograph (U.S. Department of Agriculture).
Appendix F

Figure F2: 1967 Aerial Photograph (U.S. Department of Agriculture).
Appendix F

^°o*

X^

;

\ ^\

\

f '•

* 1I

\l^ 1

i

• ^

•jD

i

Figure F3: 1976 USGS Map, Kinderhook and Stottville Quadrangles.
Appendix F

rt

ir G.

t-el

to-

•i H

c '«-( /£

--

f

f"^ S OU Til ^ f rs A/r e<

• -

^t; Jr /) VJ '^

f (f »-0. Z.Z

/3

us • 1/ 1/ j

- c :l . i- rs -

(

/•v- ^f J£ —

- ^^

—tf^ =f^

5*-

'AJT ^ fT^ e*ki?

/) ' \a\li-t ^

ai"

(7r

k/» a' ^/U ^

—

~- _m^ ——

.

—_i- /^^

^)t

i/' f-A r

f\ k- ^^ ' ' / > ?<-

^/^ /' fc /I ^

^ h 1 ? «ri <Kf ^-n" ^'^ vi

l/^ fj !£ s"

iJ V

(**- .^Ez [y

1 ^« 11^ r/^ ^

«'

1

'

: —

-

f/

11^ /

' (_ A

^IJ< cJ-

, r c

-/)i ^

I

1 - i ?<f '/'<J fit' 4^ Jt, V ^ a

<^J ^

7

(f p /^^

' c-^ \ iT t

' (y L. ^l fV^ u'/ / i5 L<

I *^ rl' ^^

ILi — —

_j I (

' 1 f

t 3^

«'^

<? V

.-'

f IM <^

1^/5 "^f -^

r^Tf>K ./j" 4"< j\ K

f

r"< 1 ~~ 'S

^

^^

—

- —

-->

-.

_j

lt: ;~K 7«^ .'^/ T

-^

f> t fi —

,_

Figure F4: North gate house floor plan (William deProsse Jr., 1993).
Appendix F

IhlJ'.i IL (.(S <-

7», .-

5~ rt

CI O 5^ <Lm 7 > / 7^/ '/C '» / 7A ^7=

' /'

1 -Vl t '.J

Z.i -..

1 IT"

i —— J

t

1 /T ,/?

1

\ -^ — -

/? z.«-

,!('

,f n f^l tci

1 —

I

; i

: k- vo '>H rf^

1 - —

P'/

> <<ti Li iT 4

:

- — -"1 - -

1 ' -1 ^

1 S"' f"' <H h-^

I 76 1 f,i ^1? (=V .

' —— u /}i wIt'll J.iU 1 i / ^

'- >. /

'

^ 'c re: c-t^ 1? >'~lO. /»<s i£ 1

... Fi -i-C n. ?

< rr ?/' 'J

<.

\ n ,1 (\ 'c/f 6' 1 Vi /\ji ^h r

'

-:(!

C^''' tK /!<' \

i^ fi' If L'r ]' \ /) f^.^

'1 -if ^ c . '>- <<>(

' i 4

« t y

f-

/- -C _,

.-? , L -1\ ri iH'- --

/ -?( Oi ^1 /J'

f' 4 f / ' -a- v^<

,'>f C\ ^h

7 . I JH S (r'/ 1 ?rt ,-s

, - z

if r ^ f > ^ /S i-

(Jf*^ .c

I -L. c c /s — ——

i A

1

, J-- 1^ J' & ^

C 1 H •iOi 0' J s

;/i u

[ 1 /?

,<''-• £. H ; -^ -

Ki /15 H. > J<1

/ U.V' ,^ ^. ^ <i'

1 -- —

--

^ 1 1/

'

/ ^\

\t ^rSl/ •vr

:

/

V- /'-- ^'0 -e

(^

; O

\-' }^

Cv

iT - •\ ( ^

/r~ 9, f( > (;;

! T— ,*^ ^( -cL W" ^, j^'

f''' :r/v (?.£ 6' ^ rE ^/V- i'£ ^

^^ rf. fS ^

1/

,1 r^

ri

' 6\ Lt. «i-- t^J' ^1'^ ^1

,>-

1

e

f\ts

_(_

1 ; 1 > •.T T' ^;6^ J

Figure F5: Farm cottage floor plan (William deProsse Jr., 1993).
Appendix F

' C'c h

' 'u,.

/- . - ' "< >

'•n.

'-^<,

/•^fSvoC

k'-Cvu'^iW.c'^

(^/? /i/v. "<;''-

\^

7

^^ Qm^mi^f

L u5^

^/^ /V

Figure F6: Carriage bam floor plan (William deProsse Jr., 1993).
Appendix F

iT Yi : r /:!' z*^ ''

1

_-

. fv' /i

Lix, A^ a/ n-11 ije rs f )tc ,.'/( ' / •f/i € A->

./'

; r u

'

^ii ci tt' Ttki o^ '-<l /" c J s L- r^i t ' ^tt '/<-

i A Ui -rt I

; 1 n cr C' 1 '

^^-

1 r i^ij V V ^/•J i. c <w r. ^y ?b V / / -^ ^ \^ '^

«1 ,.

1

1

-

i

^

^ ,y'^ <.

'^

11/* r<i ,1 -^5 fc l^T /

1) t^ 6

5

^7

1)1 kjO ^

l1

4'^ c*; si^ */* -

1 'i

yJ ^ i «

5' -/^ »fJ /M/ K/> /w z •{ -^

\j v> § f rfl r^ r S'( A-O -2C p' 1//^ \ ' V.

"~ Jl •i. n /I. i. /-' to /t — "o ^ J // J

1 L

r If' L >i lu Nb '

1 \1^ V^ \j

t \ ( t r t 'nl tM ?r A•^ 1 —

'

—

•-

/

!'/? 1 h h i t ^/

1 "n^

.— - - - .- —- — —

i <.' / ——

V

^

/

^ ^/^ 'I /I 75 >i d ^ ^ Ci^ s7

-

•**

1 1^ ^/ ?/i 4^ 5-; '/f LC

( }k /c K /2 . £ ^ ry 3/i/ £ ^en '/iV IS- —

c c 7 Iv Mf ^ •^ '/J [

/* u' ^ i^ v^ It *0i' •< $^/ 'f/' ^(f k ^??<S ^ ^/ C^<rf^ ^. >/C 9L - c

'' 1

<- '•,X 4 ^u

, ^ r*'i - \ tl'

. c'

.'-<^

i.'-'-

- ——

f

'

k/"^

s'*-' / 'y,/ tr-'i

'? —

—

/^^

IL ^ N

, , r.' nf ^

III >/

>l^ du I fC

f. ex r* t , r w"o K (l- ^_ - —_ - - —

—

% - V- '\ ^^ — ^-" — — ' ""'

Figure F7: Red hillside bam floor plan, upper level (William deProsse Jr., 1993).
Appendix F

/ 1! 1/ 'Jl ' ." -i~ _£' i- - - -

-

^

1

'.._. — r— A--' '^ y

- J r/?( C 1 7< £-•/ tj> _^ !<; I 1

'/y> /' .i vf vr^ A^/ V-' ;

1

( m

'I?!,' /J

. ..j

t (ir <,i

r- pi. -

- rj If / It Ulf "A'tyi 1 ^

y^'i -'K

\A

f

--

_•? r '/I / U€ '4 /I r', '/'? I I' I'

\

! lA. i>> ii X (1 (-»

/ } J r

i 7 -Jf ''

(: x/ Li A//^ /f J >'<r < ip- 'd?__

^(^ 15 _

i

-H

•sf

•ji tC) f C^h>S // //' ^ ^< >A/ ? / CI//" ^1 ?- fc

** — o /'-^ V 1- tv L /?. TCI p ^' :<" '^l

.^

/'' ^y i <// '^ C/l r —

\-

--

^ f/' t/ r :) J - Li ?/3 iS

i —

> / Ol^Z' <

-/?' ^€' /? 'IL/ 1/ f^n. '"f >

1 i

.

fM71 ^ ^t or - e K ^-^I

> ^yi 9 1 lo M= « -/+ ijti ,V ( A/ —

; i . —

-i ?"• t

} rr I\ A $•/ ^/ y- C/l 0.1- £0 -r rc«<j '>'> (£/! 1 '/ ri- —

V > ^ 1/ "r ti W -IQ //r - -o

.<_ n 0(- J

1

L —

i z u jsi . L ' 9' "7 / Cf Ki -- — ^ r? f', ! _

• />

v^ 5i

"t^ o '47

'•

_-

- —

i. ..

' "^^ '"

Figure F8: Red hiUside bam floor plan, lower level (William deProsse Jr., 1993).
Appendix F

Figure F9: Woodshed complex floor plan (William deProsse Jr., 1993).
Appendix F

LOWER HAY BARN

"BLACK BARN"

Gfill 10 LOWES FIHJ) fWCREDi \

Photo in Fig. 43 of Stokinger, Vol. I was taken approx. 100' this

direction.

HAY PRESS

Well may hove been put

in By IsaO'S moonshiners ^

MOW

IMLL TOOniJNG LOUUAU.

Note no Door OPEN CENTER FOR WAGONS

UMvai

HAY MOW

CmSMUFtHCEIO

LOIfiS FmS AN) (XIX Single level barn, except for low area for well

CtSEVi

FIELD ^,.n.', «^«-<- -"='< '";,^ Z.. .--'

eu,yC'

fflCHSJY

10

^

Figure FIO: Black hay bam floor plan (William deProsse Jr., 1993).
Appendix G

Existing Conditions Plant List
mm. ^

a.z

y11-

X X X X X X X

K2 > > > > > > >

C/2 > > > > k! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

J- OSE

2

g

E

2

E

to

:> C,

•.'

^ ^ ^

-- U- ij" = ^^ C

; *^

(N cs ^ >* •* Tf cs CA * Tt •^ * 2

- * ^ CO

en ^ •* Tf TT ^ * ^ ^ -^ ^

ow

ooaoo 00 3oo 00H

D.

moo2

o. o

ONJ

o

o

ooOSo go

oo

00oOSd

c

oc — ~

oo

?i r3 CO

OS

cs en

00

1-^ cscs

VO >n 00 oo oo 00

cs cs 1—

W-i m »n «n m »n ^ ^

m >n

1-H m >n >n >n vn vn m

o^3- o vn oso

in o o ovn o>n »n >n s

oVO

»n o>n o om

o>n o>n o>n ovn ovn ovn ovn ovn

^ 'E

•2s1

1

•2

.5-5o

•22

3

1

2

•5•5

.22

1

1

•2ci

s; •2

•S

Sob

•Ss; •2

•S

So>3

1

k: •2•S

So

•b>3

1

53 .1

>1s;3

.s:

3

s:

is;3

s: 2

>

c3

•S1

3

s;3

a.

•S1

3

3

•22

3

•2

.5

OS

3

0,

<< 3to

.s:

3

o

<o3

3

o

<o3

.s:

3

3

C

to3

«o3

C

3

O

k. to

to3

C

r 1

00

D3

3

8

to3

M

5

u

T3O

PiE

Si 1

la g

1

E

1

S

1

E

1

s

•a

PiE

4^

c

jE

E

c

IS

E

1

'£

IE

E

4>c

'£

IE

E

2

i

c

jE

£

o

c£

IS

i

u

s

PiE

2

1

u

"O

E

CQ

u

3

pa

U

o

c£

IE

E

c£

!S

E

4J

4>C

£

Si IS

Eo

C

£

o

IE

E

c£

IS

Eo

c£

E

Si 1

o

c£

IEc

o

c£

IS

E

a

c£

ISco

£

4> IS

E

1

- cs m * »n

^ ^ t^ ^

v>^ vo^^r> ^. <sy S;^^%^||S|^^^^ ^. ?,r ? ^.?v?o^ RJx^
X X X X X X X X X X X X

> > > > > >

to >

C/3

CL, C<0 0. > > > >

"> > > > > > > ^ k^ > > > > s > > > > >

ro ro m ro

Os 0\ ON OS 0\ Os 0\ 0\

'"' '—' ^" •—' E E E E V u u «>

l-l k> k. k.

CM (N

•* ^ •* <s- ^ tT

J^ cs cs ^ m CO CO cs cs rs ro >n ro ^ <3- J^ cs cs cs cs vt cs ^ ^ •^ '^ ^

VO VO VO VO s

VO VO VO VO VO VO VO vO VO \o VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO

oo 00 oo 00 oo OO OO 00 00 oo oo 00

1-^ 1-H f-^ ^H f^ t-H »-H 1-M f-H t-H ^^ t-H

(1> (1) <1) c> «> c> <1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1> u. k. iL i_ u. t- k. o. o. & a o. a a. o. o. D. o. a

oo m VO m o 8 g Tt ro Ov CM r<-i VO O oo UN On «-^ ro

OS oo 00 c^ oo ^^ oo OS 00

f^ »—

>

f-H 4-1 '^^ 1—

'

«-^ o u u u u a 1

u o u

r~ (N XO VO ro Tt 0\ oo ro VO Tt

cs <N cs cs ro rj cs •^ cs cs ro

o o o o o o o vn o o >n >o >n o O o o ro >n >n >n lO m vn W-) o vn O lO VO vn »n vn

(N cs cs CM CN cs i-^ cs cs cs cs cs cs T-M cs *—

(

cs CS

O o o m o o o >n o o o o o o o o o 00 o o o m o o o o W-) o o <0 o o o vn vo "I- '^ ^ TT CO vO Tf ro >i^ >o lo m ^ u-1 CO m m rr r~- r~- r~- r~- r-- *"^ m LO *"* >n m m

« s

« a <a « <-5 s; <^ Q, ?

<^ s

"o <-0 s; <o •-1 o <o <<i c c a <3 r <o to <o 3

lo lo "1 ^ <o k^ to kn 3 3 3 3 3 o 3 3 3 3 3 ri rj •^ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

-C> ?

-Ci a 3 Ci -C) -O ^ <i -O -O -C5 •Cl -O ^) «.) <3 a ^ ?-G -O -Ci -«i -C) -O -O -Cl -O -C) -C •C o o i?

>. (^ o O o o o C> c> o ^ 1^ ^ ^ O o o o o O o O o o O O

k. 1^ •Ci K. ks k 1^ k. >>. v« 1^ !>. i< i« "n V. >>> k. )>. l< i< ^ k. k» i. i<. k^ 3 O

.a .a 8 3

<<1 2

o

S 3 3

5

3 3 3 3 3

5 a 3

"3

in3

to3 3 3

<-0 3 3 3

<03

<<i 3

to3kl3

<<3

sr c c c> C s: sr C a s: c s: s: C a a —^ -^ ^

»^ k: s: C Sf C c c C s: s: C k: 0, 3

a. 1

'?: 0, a. Q, a. S

a. a. a. a. a. S s

\^ ^

c3

a.

a. a. a. a. a^ a. a. a. a. a. a. a.

V u § u o o « o o u u o o <D o o a <u o <u o o « o

c c h c c c c u, c c c c c u u c c c C c c c c c c c c c c

(X ^

Cl, i

<l^ 0, Cl, a. a. •a Cl, s Cl, CLh Cl, Cl •o T3 •a ^

Cu ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ftn ft. ft. CL, «^ <o o o 4> o u o «J o o a

u U t= c 4.^ «> « « a> «> «J «J «) o « «J o

XZ x: o C3 ^ sz J= IE J ^ x: !S JZ JS J J J J E

JZU

V

j= j: JZ x; JZ j:= ^ JZ JZ j: x: j: ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

cO

•c ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

c l-l s s

o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

E 'i E

3

E E E E E E E E E o "o cS ^ E E E E E E E E

c E E

c

<u o P^ 4> <u <u w o <u <u <u u O o o •^ •^ C) (1) fl) <i) (i> <i) (1) (i> <1> « c> o

ro < < <

ffi 1 1

C ^

V. i 1 i

J J

V.

vn r- oo cs ^^ * ro OS

•^ o VO r~-

1 1 1 1-" f)1 ^ '^ ^ ^ "

^^^^^^^^^^^^i^^^>

SS$!!^^$.^^^'^''^'>j; •^^^•^Jy^ < ^>"' *••-'• \ ^
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ^ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

•^ ^ t •>* •^ '* "* •* tT * ^ Tj- <* * ^ <«• <* * ^ * ^ Tf <3- * •^ ^ "it rr rt * •<5- Tf ^

ONCS

ocs

w-i >o >o o >o ocs ocs >n m in ocs cs CS >n o »n

cs o o VO m 1-H o o vn >o m O >n o cs m

O o ^o ocs o o §

o o s s

vn

CO oen o s o o o o o o cs o oCO o >0

CS o o oCM o

3

1

3 3 3

<>o

is

•2

-C) 1 1in

a

•S1

s:

a.

•S1

3

a.

•S1

3

a.

a;

3

a;

•S1

1

a.

•51

1

1

1

a.

•S1

a.

•51

s;

a.

•S1

s:

a.

•S1

3

a.

•S1

a.

•S1

c

3

a.

•S1

3

a.

•S1

2^

3

a.

•S1

2^3

a.

1

3

s

•S

2^3

c3

a.

•S1

2^3

c3

a.

•S

2^3

c

3

a.

•S1

3

S

a.

4>c

i

1

£

E

1

o

c

IS

E

"/J ^2

c

E

1

u

c£

E

1

c

Cc

•c

cc

co

•cE

<

c£

IS

E

1

c£

iS

E

Si 1

c£

IS

E

1

5

JZU

5

c£

!S

E

c£

E

1

x:U

5

U

x:U

5

u

5

u

5

U u

x:U U

5

JZU

5

x:U

E

H

c

'CE

<

u

S

2r JZu U

5

U

5
X X X X

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > CL, K2 k! ^ > > > > >

F F r<-) m

o (1) On On

c« 00 0\ On 3 3 E E

E E t: i3 * ""i- ^ m ^ •^ "^ ^ w-i m ^ vo ^ ro CN) CS cs m cs >n m •n m * •^ -- - - f-M ri- >n m vo

:g « ^ ^ oo oo oo 00

1-H 1-H f-H u o «> «>

k. Lm o. Q. a a. R 8

r«^ m m ro m fS oo o ^-H *

Qn 0\ o oo oo 00 o cs ^ ON CM On o\ oo oo oo On Os 0\ r- OO

(1> 1-H I)

1-^ f—

1

1-^ »—

<

»-H r—

(

f-^ u *-H 1-H o a o o o o o o o o o

rr o m vo OS vn o cs f<-) »-^ cs CM

c^ >o >o 00 o >o o o »n «n o O in >o o m o en o vO o >n c^ V-) o »o m o vn >o o o o cs cs CM 1-H CN CM cs cs (N cs cs CM 1-^

o O o o >n o o W-) o >n O wn o o o vn vn vO »n O >n >n »o o m o o o o o o o o m m ^ VO VO vO >n Tf vO O cs ^ m •^ VD vo ^ ^ ^^ '^ W-1 f^ ^ ^ ^ ^ en CN cs ro

•2 5

3 to •2 <»2 3 « CT CT CT •2 a a a <<i <3 a a a « O « «

C

O -s; •Si a « CI CT ^ CT •5i

•51

•S1

a

"a

r:

a1

•S5

•S1

c

•51

s:

1

3

3

•S1

3

5

3

5

•51

3

s:5

«3 1

S

•2

s:

a

•2

1"a3

1

.1

3

•2

•2

3

•2

5

3

•S

a

3

3

3

•5

cT

<3

a

3

S

3

3

3

3

3

1

s:

"3

1

•2

•5

Si) >3

•S

Si) •h>3

•S

So>3

•5

Si) >3

1"a3k. 1

CT 1

2

CT 1o

•2

CT -§3

1

2

5

tt. ti. a. a. a. 1^ 0,

::i a. h; 3 o

OS

3

a.

:i

5= 5-

i^ 3

c3 3 3 o

x:

to3

8 JZ 0=

E

cc

c

c i

3

C

003

3

c2

k> J

3

E

w

1)

4^

c

Si

1

1

co

•ac

T3

53 uS3 •su

•T3

c

•oc

c

<u •ac 3

U o U U

•H U 3

c o

PC J

^ ^ ^

C3 ^ ^ §

a> O

« 2

u.^ J

^ 5 CQ EoU 5 5

E

<

•cE

<

4> 2

o

co

E

EoU

E

1

E

1

E

<

E

1

E

1

o

3

C E

<

E

1

E

i

E

1

E

1

IE ^

J

|3

<N o r<-i 00

C<^ en m CS

S;S:S:5i;^^i;:!5.^1^^^^^t^^ll^P^|^#^tM^^^^^^^^^^^^^

||||:ij^ij|?5i;«;;;;;«»; m^ r-'--f» i^i

:-:«H::::rHM-><,,'»»/,r^ X-*** :-:'-«M:v:'Wiv: x*^: *ijr*:¥l*r*v:i:irr*:::::*r<*:::ir^ : —< vim:: T^
X X X X

invn

^^

:«: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1

> > > > > >

m f<l ro CO m r«-i en m en en en Kn f^ m en m t*^ cn en m cn cn vn cs fS <N CM f<-l ^ ^ m -d- Tt ^

vo SO SO

so VO VO

00 oo OO OO

1—* f-H T-H 1-H o u o c>

Ui l-l W- k- a a a a

8 8 8 8 8 8 8

ooo g g g g g g g 8 8 8 g 8 8 o m

OS c^ Os OS OS OS On OS OS OS OS OS Os OS OS OS Os OS OS Os OS OS OS ysCO u <i) (1> <1) (l> <1) fl) «> <1> il> «> a> «) «> i> 4> «> o « « 4J i> o c k; tl. V. u; u. k. u. w k. k. u. w u. a O. a O. O. Q. O. a O. a D. D. o. o. o. O. a o. Q. Q. a o.

cs

a.

o o o o O O o o o o O O o o o o o o O O o o o o vn o

m

1"^ ^H »-H »-H f-H t-^ i-M 1— O vn o o vn o O

<

1-H ^H *«-4 T-^ 1-H w^ 1-H «s 1-H CN CN 1-H (N 1-H

yn vn •o vn m vn >o >o m <n m >r) wn in m m m >n vn vn vn vn o o vn o o vn o o vn o o m c<^ f<^ r<^ ro ro en m f<i c<^ m m m en en cn m m m m m m m vo so r~- so so «n so so so so

a a a a a a a « a a « a "3 a <3 w « w c^ <:< n •S J^

'^ •^ ^ <r) s: c c c c e EJ sr c e Sf sr c e e R* c s* s* s* e* o u o *o U o a a a a <3 a Q Q a a a a a a a a a a a « a a a <3 -Js -is -Ss a; a a -c a a

•S 5 •5 •S •5 •S •S •S •S .s: .c .K .c •S .c .c •S •5 c •S •5 •S a •S c

n

Cn

•S •S s: •5 •S

?< ?« ? ?< o< ?< oc «i< o< «>< o< «><) 00 00 00 00 oo oo Oo Or oo oo s"^ c> t.) ^1 «J <.) o <rs (J c^ o

^

i» i» k. »> v^ k. V. l< 1., !>. <s Is Is Is >s k. Is Is v. k> Is T3 Is Q Q Q k. Is k. k. > > > >• > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "S a

%i ^ C is kT C ^ 'k! S s 3 3 s 5 3 3 3 3 3 a 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a 3 s. 3 n r^ fi rr 5

<<l no c^

V. ^ i> k. 1^ )>. v. )>. k. V Is Is Is Is Is k. Is Is k. V V ^ ^ <4> <w "^j <u <u «u <u <u ^ <;> «J %l «) «> <») ^) %J ^ ^ ^ ^ kS o

•S" •S- .& •S- •S- .&• •S- •S- •S- •S- S- •S- •S- •S- •S- •S- •S- •S" •S- •S- .9- •S- s: cf rj -rj -rj -rj k. ks "5 k. k. Gt C c c c s: s: s: c c c k; c s: s: s: c c s: sr c C -tn «, <%) %> %) i^) a. a. *) a. Cs 3 J^ JS 3 3 .3 a .3 a 3 3 2J a a a a a a a a a a rs -i •c:

'-^ -^ -^ •>, •^ "-^ •-^ •^ •^ >-^ •^ '-^ ^ "-^ -^ •-» ^ '-^ •^^ -^ •-^ ^ OS o o o O O

ts to Vi Vi c/> ^ c3 U ^ ^ b ^ c3 c3 Jg J3 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 13 S ^ fa ^

3

8

3

8

3

8

3 3

y 8 y o •s s "§ ^ "S "S "S 1? 1? 1? "S

-^ ^ "S ^ "^

T? V,

"^ 1" o u U U u u U U u u u U u U U U U U U U U u U 3 >% >^ >> >^ ^ ^ >> ^ ^

•o

PiE

•a

E

s

oiE

1

E

73

OSE1

E E

1

E

T3o

E E

u

E

•ao

OSE E1

E

05E E

T3U

05E F,

05R05R

o

o;F

•a

F

J

JOU 1

c

c

c

c

c

coX

c U U

co

c U

jcU

a a a ^ a Si a ^ Si ^ Si SJ ^ 2i H « « « m H « « o o o o «o o TO eg i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1

"3 1 1

OJ W E

E

d

£

E

1=EoU

EoU

n CQ h

E

d

CQ ffl

, o o oo

cs CN "^

i:v'ti\^S\;^, ^ \ ^ . s.J^^\ . . . - "vm^^^^^^«s

:B^i3^^S1^^2 S 2 S S31 S 2 S 2 S ^ S ^ ^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ i^ ^ ^ ^ ^^r;s
> > > > > > >

1 >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Eo

I '3E

TT <3- <* * m r<i r<-) m * Ti- ^ «t * * * ^ <4- m ^ vn vn vn * ^ ^ ^ vn •^ •* ^ vn >n -

OS00d

OoOn

a.

CO

CO

0\ 00o

O o ^o o o o O o >o o1-H >n

cs ocs

u-i OCS o o1—

»

o o1-H o o ^

O o CO vn OCS ocs o o vn

2 8 IT) o o oCO o o oen o o oCO o oCO oCS ovn o o o•>* oCO oCO oso o s oCO oo o o o ocs ocs o1-^

S

1

c3

•S1

c3

a.

a1

3

3

a.

S

1

c3

.2a

a

3

1

2

.C-5

s: •2

>3

c

3

•2

.5

>3

.!<c

3

--4

•S

<Ja

«ja

3

1

•2

.5-5

•2c

>3

i< S"c

3

•S1

3

c

3

•Si

3

3

5

3

3

5

3

3v.

•51

5

c3

S

1

3

3

»^

2

a

a

3

1

•2

.c-5o

ft;

•S1

3

s:s

a.

•2a

3

1

•2

!S-5o

ft;

•2a§

3

c;, •2

.5-5o

•2

Cja13

<uCX •2

.5-5o

a;

5

3

3

V.

•2

1

3

<nex •2

•So

a;

•2

<ja1

o

•2

.55

o

cs:

•28

1

•2

.515o

ci;

•28

1

to

Ci. •2

.5

OS

•51

to3

a.

s

3

a

5

3 Si

.toi

.OJ

'So

i

1^

'So

i

.52

'Sc

1

•2a

3

>

•Sto

U

5

U

1

U

to3

5

"Su

-o

E

1

u

T3

E

1

3

PQ E

5i

U

"a,

05

U

s 5

003

CO

U

PQ

003

J

CQ

3

003

pa

Pti

to3

pa

to3

8

pa

to3

s

3

8

PQ

u

PQ

o

5

o.

or) —

•a

o

o

2U U

o

2

u

J

co

EEoU

IllllilB^^^^^^^ 11;::j~<;S;:)l~t: «*«f ^MP^ ^Mt T-»( ,» ^.^ f,^ v«( ,.. ir.^ jp^ -r*** ««, ^*^ )M« -r-M4 •«» *—^ p^
X X

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

^^ ^ CO -d- <«• •^ ^ M ^N r—

«

^ ^ ^ ^ 1-N ^ w^ ^H *-H ^ ^ -^ f-^ »-H ^ cs ^ ^ ''I- * ^

VO VC

VO VO

OO 00

f-H f—

(

«> Q>

k. a ^

g

o 8 8 8 8 8 8 g g 8 8 g g g g g g o Ooooo VO

CO

OS

oo oo 0\ 0\ 00 oo 00 00 00 00 00 00 oo 00 00

1-^ oo 00 00 oo 00 oo oo oo oo OO u d u ci o 6 o d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d

>n m o 00 vn IT) m m >o vn U-) «n w-> >n >n <n >n >n >n m >o W-) >n >o >o >o >o o m

o o o >o o o o o O o o o O o o o o o o o O O o o o o m m m m >o >o <N

r*) CI CI *-H ^ ^ "" f-H f—

<

T-H ""^ '^ '"^ '"^ '"^ '"^ 1-H c^ m m CO en m

<<i <n <^ to to «o <o <o to <o <>> a O a a Q W « ^ c^ « w •2

•2 k: -§ Si, & •2 •2 2 •2 •S

oo CO

.s:So

•5

S^ •2 •2

k! •S

So SSo •S

So •2

CI « «

a a O ^

'J )>. 1^ .v. _i» a a w « « w ).. !>> V. i« n n 1^ 1^ »^ en a s: s: s: « hi -S? -£? 1^ 1^ ^ -u > > > > •^ 00 ^ -2? ^ -S' > > > > ^ ^ > > > ^ rS Q <j o VJ -§

<o 3 3 ^ ^ •S ^

yj y K H >-! H 3 3 3 3 3 3 H K K H 3 3 K H K 3 a c.) k^ V, a O « H

3 S S 3 3

> >«

> > > >

3

<o3 3 3

> > 3 3 3 3 ^ ^ ^

00 00 (^ c* 1 1-s; -« «: «: oo oc o<; oo OO oo •«: -s: -« -s: Oo oo s: -c -s: Oo k. to >i >3 •3 lA.

1.

3 C •S •S ^

-^ ^

^

•S ^

^ ^

^ ^^

c^ ^

3

s; •2

!5

k.o

to I'j o

0, a. ^

g

to <-r3 *<: ^ to ^

1^ a. ^

s ^ to

1,

to

a.

(U (U o u o «> «> (l> i> <1> <i> o m e* W) 00 M M M M 60 an M) ^ w

c«

o

•c

rr ^ ^ ^ §

w ^ ?^ ?^ ^ '^ C

2

C

2

C

2

C

2 CO c

CO

l-l c2 § ^ ^^

p

. . J J

bOc

^ ^

o (J

1 J J

.•a J J

o o o o J J

o o o 5 o

E

B .S co

E

co

E

3 3 8

s

8

S

8

s

8

s

co

E

ci

co

E

§

E

co

E

co

E

8

S

8

% i

8

S

co

F

Co

F

8 8 8 co

F

3 co

•c

cacoc

'•s

d

E E

<

c •a 13 •a a E E E E E E 13 13 13 13 E E "^ 13 13 E

ft> o 00 y f^ U oE

JZ^ >

c>

c>c>oU

oUoUoU d

oU

c> >

'5b >

c>

a

oU '5b > >

c

5)

>

oU

E

<

E

<

E

<

pa

(N m CS (N

<5> '>-* ii 8 ii S ill ma

11

mi. i II S c4 <f4 rii <M t4
vO vo O 3

•53

(Joc

Si

a. 3

"Si) a 3

•5

§^ XcoEEoU

U E

bO

w

>o >o

G3"-1

00

X

es

OOu

fc U5 3

Si

s: o

OS

fcoUo

s:3

-s: oEO

s;<u5o

OO33 c3 do

*^ c 8t/5 ^ o

c«

V) •5 o O o

-I >^ o E

C3 c « , a C o

a; o

Cl-i O

C/3 3r cc3

>>

>. 00 CO >-, c

C3

C/2 X9

t/i Vi eg "n d v> >> s 3 1/3 « <

t/5 > C

e3 o C C/0

II CO C3 > r, ea l<i a. u II

II CO>> CO

k! Oh

II
.

: 3 c^ 00

a,

CL,

CO

ft.

CO CO

ft.

CO CO

ft.

CO

ft.

CO

ft.

CO

ft.

CO

ft. 1CO

ft. 1ft.

CO

ft.

ft, •a

CO

ft.

CO 1

ft- •a

1 ft.

O

o

ftn

CO

ft.

CO

ft. CO

ft, -CJ

CO

ft, •a

CO

In

ft.

ft, •a1CO

ft.

ftCO

ft.

ft,

CO

ft.

ft,

CO

ftCO

ft,

'^ >3- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ">r * * ^ "* •^ ^ ^ ^ ^ '^ ^ -^ ro rr •<* •^ •* •* <* ^ ^ '^ •^

Removal Date o

OS o

o

o o

OSd

o

OS omOnO

o

Os

f-H o

Ovd

o

Osd

omOsd

o

OSd

o

Osd

omOsdoCO

Osd

o

Osd

oCO

o\

d

oCO

OSd

o

CJsd

oro

Ovd

o

(^o

d

o

asd

o

Osd

oCO

OS o

d

oCO

Osd

oCO

Osd

S

-C)

a

-C)

•2

<3

1

2

.5

•2

<j

a1

•2

.5-5o

0:;

•2

«3a

<oa

1

•2•5

OS

•2

(J

3

•2

.515

•2a

a

3

•2

.5

•2a

3

•2

.515

•2

a§

3

1

•2

.515o

•2a

<ja

3

1

•2

.515

•2a

3

1

•2

.515o

OS

•2a

a

3

ex •215o

•2

<3 -§3

1

2

15o

OS

2

a

a

-§3

1

•2

•515o

•2a

<ja

3

cx 2

15o

•2a

a

3

s^

•2

•5

•5

1^

•2

<oa

^ja§

3

1

•2

.5-5o

2tja

3

1

•2-5o

•2s13

1

•2

.S5

OS

•2o5

13

1

•2

.5-5o

0::

•2

CJ5

13

1

•2

.515o

OS

•2

CJ

1

1

•2

.515

3

to

to3

.C

3

3

s:

003

O

o?

003

k:

2

s13

1

•2

•S15o

•2

Cj

<3<o

<33

1

2

15o

•2os13

1

•2

•515o

•22

-§3

1

•2

•S15

2

s13

1

•2•5-S

•2

-§3

1

•215

•2a

3

1

•2is

ft;

B

z

c

E

r 1

c c

E

2

it; w

003

8

5

4-1 Vi3

8

M

s

4-* 3

8

5

3

5

VI3 3

CQ

,-1 3

5

to3

5

to3

8

S

t?3

8

5

003

8

o5

3

003

8

5

to3

8

5

to3

8

to3

8

m

CO3

8

J

CO3

8

P9

Vi3

5

oo3

s

C

Ic

Eo

c

Ic

C

Ic

E

to3

8

pa

to3

8

ca

to3

8

CJa

CQ

to3

8

S

to3

8

5

to3

8

CQ

to3

8

CQ

1 2 0£ 2 2

o

t cs; 2

1

'St

1

SC

i 1

On

a:

1—

t

1 i a:

to

1 t

5C3

cs

1 o

t fO1 fO

J
Cu

Cm

•o

0,

Cu

JZ

Cu

CuT3

ISCO

OhT3

Cu

Cu

Cu

or) !£

Cu

Cu-a

00 C/5 c^ 00

OS

CO oo

OSE

00 00 i

Cu

00

mOS

OsE

ct;

00 00

00

oo

OSCO o

CO CO 00 00 CO

oo

00

0\00

OS

OSE

aj

CcJ

o

00 CO

<* ^ -^ -^ •^ "^ ^ ^ ^ '^ "^ •<* ^ •«}• Tj- Tf >o "* '^ •<* •"S" >o ^ ^ <3- ^ * ^ '^ •^ <3- •"d- ^ m "^ ^ OCO om

o

o om

o

om

6

omOSoo

Os o

6

o

ON oroOS OmOS oOSo

•S

§

1

•2

.5o

•22

a§

3

2

.5o

OS

2<ja

3

•2

•5o

ft;

•2o

3

S

•2

.5o

•2

3

•2

o

ft;

•2

a1

1

•2

.c15o

ft?

2<oao

a1

1

•2

.c15

ft;

•2

53a1

1

•2

.c15

c>

ft;

•2

<ja

3

1

•2.515

ft;

•2a

a1

1

•2

.5-5o

ft;

•2s1

•2

.5

ft;

•22

§

3

2

.5

ft;

3

-C)

•2o

2

3

•2

.K-5o

ft;

•22

§

3

•2

.S-5o

ft;

•2a

<ja

-§3

Cx •2

.S-5

.2o

2

1

•2-5o

ft;

3

.2

3

•2

.515o

ft;

o

3

§

3

C

a;

to3to3

3

3

.s:

3

"a

'to o

3

"C

3

3

.s:

3

o

3

to3

i

<o3

c

«o3

3

3

-Ci

3

to3

<o

<o3

C

ft!

to3

1

to3

.s;

<o3o

to3

ft!

to3

-O

Ci

k, to3

3

CQ

CO

5

to3

pa

tS3

8

5

to3

QQ

to3

8

M

to3

to3

M

CO

to3

CQ

t?3

J

to3

8

J

to3

J

CQ

c

Ic

E

1

c

Ic

E

1

to3to38to3

8

003

8

o

c

Si IS

E

1

C/3 3

8

O

eg s

c

4J Ic

E

i

c

IE

E

1

c

IS

E

c

IS

E

2i

c

Cu

aj IS

E

1

o

c

Cu

IS

E

1

c

IS

E

1

c

(X

IS

E

c

(X

IS

E

aj 1

aic

a^ 15

E

a^V

c

o

c

Cu

15

E

a>c

(X«

15

E

a^

c/

c; W

ajco

15

Eo

o

c

ixo

15

E

t)

53 w

c

s;o

15

Eo1

o

c

Cuo

IS

co

2

1 o

PC

1'

CSS I

OS2 2 2 PC 1 1 (3! 2

^

^

^ 3 2 05 1 c; 1

062<9s
«s m

vO 00 On oo r- \D r~ 00 0\ o r- ,—1 Tt >o VO r- 00 d t^

&^ a

u

w

<—

1

r<^ m VO r<^ m f— s

<

rsi o (N <N (N <N <N ts !/"'' Y^ vo

C/0 00 c/o C/3 C/5 c/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C>0 Vi 00 OO OO 00 00 00 r? sz 00 00

0, CL,

'^ ^ ^ <4- "'l- <T "* rr 'St Tf -^ Tj- "^ * tT <;r tT * * '=}• * ^ Tt ^ "* •^ •* •^ ^ * 'Si- ^ Tf * <* Tf

—

<n

—

•2

— — —

2 •2 a •2 •2

— — —

<<1 •2

— — —

sr o u «j tj u u ^ o

n o ti « w w w -i; Cl c2

s S 3 K 3 3 3 S 3 3 3

<o3 3 3 3 3 CI o

n CI

5J

CI 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 c CI n

Ci -o -cs -Si -O ,C) c •Ci -o -a -o O -o -o -o o (^ c^ ITI o o ^ o C> -O -o Ci -O cs o -cs & ^ & ^

i? ^ h g 1^ 1 s g g § § § § § § § ?

1

g § g s S s g •2 § 1^5

cs

to

C5

to <<1 S

<o 3 1

"n3 3

<oS<o3 3<o3<o3<o

<o3

Ci, ex 1

<-3 3

<o3

So3

<o3 5 3

to3

cs 1

31^ 3 3 3

c .c .c <u •F= c •2 .c k: c: .c .s: .s: .c .c c K <3 Q .a .Q .a c c s: s: s: s: s; o cs 3 1

a. a. a. a. a. 11, .ij. a. a. •5 a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. .C .C •S •5 •S a. a. a. a. a. a. a. W .c i: c C) C> <> -C) Ci -Ci <« -o :i <a o <s o c o to Ci

'"J as a: as as a; as a;

u <u o

S3 •s

o o (U <D <D (U a <u (U o o o o V a> c> Q> H) (1) 3

c u

'£ c c

c^ C

£

C

£ £

c£c£c£ £ £

c£ to to V\ C/1 00 c£

c£c£c£C

£

c£

c£

8

to E ^

.^

ic u

IS a

ic 3

8J

B

'£ a

ic a

S IS M'£ is B B

3

5

3

8

3

8

3

8

3

8

B B

".c ".c B B

'xi B

>-> c

3

8 c n S3 S3 S3 i^ iS: ^ Pi ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

1-} i-i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o

•c s

E 1

E t E E ^ E E E E E E E E E E ^ ^ ^

'^

1?^ E E E E E E E c ^ B

i! m a a B C> no

5i a a a Si B ii a B B OQ n 03 CQ » B Si Si Si Si Si Si o

E

EoU

5

fc: j= ^ 1 1

c3 i 1 1 1 1 i i i 1 ^ i i 1 1 1

< ^ ^

1—

<

t 2

t ^^ t !? Sv 1

0^ m

"f ^ ^ 1= Sr ^ 1^

1-^ OS

1 1 1 t

<«^

0\

t o*-* O o o 1—

<

;^ <::; « a U « a Qi oi £< PS o: OS x K flJ u oi o: o: PS OS « Cd ci 0< « « Or:; OS K cici

1 a:

1 OS1
C/0

Oen

C/5

OS

CO C/3

Cl,

00 a.

X

(X ^ ^ •<3- •^ •* Tf ^ "^ * ^ ^ '^ >o ^ <* Tf * * ^ ^ -^ * VO W-) u-i «n «o >o vo >o

a. 3 3 3 3 3

•2s11

•2.S

ft; 3oIk3

.s:

1-5 3

to3

-Ci3

.s: 33 3

-C)3

<3CQ535

:::5 3o3 1"a31 a

•S13C3>^ a. 1"a3

•2a11

•2

q; 3

Cl3 2i31

s; 1

3; 53

s: 1

5: 2

•2a11

•2

.S•5

Q:;

•2o«11

•2!S-S

c>

ft; 3

-C)Cl

So3 3oto3 3c3 co

"3 •2 33

s: ca

•2

S3 ^^ ^£

13 S3 S3 S3 cE1 c11 ocE1 cE1 cE1 coc cEBi 3

jC

x:U i3

1)

to38

CQ cEBi 21Xu 1Xo

<ow

(Si c

<ucco

'C

to3

PQ

to38

toc£E1Hia£EBi c£BEB1 cio

•n c£EB1 c

T3CE< 1

sos1 oI

001 s

>-<

»~(1 pi 1 1 1 PS i

o61

rHl PS. 1 PS

a 1 PS

rs

*-<1 PS 1 J P£ 1 OS

1-4 a

r>4 m1 PS t PS 1 OS

kn 1 PS

Bibliography

Aderman, R. M. 1962. The Letters of James Kirk Paulding. Madison: The University of Wisconsin

Press.

Alexander, H. 1935. American Talleyrand. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Cole, D. B. 1984. Martin Van Buren and the American Political System. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Collier, E. 1914. A History of Old Kinderhook. New York: Knickerbocker Press.

Coming, A. E. 1932. Washington at Temple Hill. Newburgh: The Lawrence Publishing Company.

Curtis, J. C. 1970. The Fox at Bay. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

Downing, A. J. 1850. The Architecture of Country Houses. D. Appleton and Company. Reprint: 1969.

The Architecture of Country Homes. New Yoik: Dover Publications.

Eberlein, H. D. 1924. The Manors and Homes of the Hudson Valley. Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott

Company.

Haley, J. M. 1988. Pleasure Grounds. Tarrytown: Sleepy HoUow Press.

Kauffrnan, H. J. The American Farmhouse. New York: Hawthorn Books. Reprint: 1979. The American

Farmhouse. New York: Crown Publishers.

Leighton, A. 1987. American gardens of the Nineteenth Century. Amherst: The University of

Massachusetts Press.

Rayback, J. G. 1982. Martin Van Buren. Eastern Acorn Press.

Tice, P. M. 1984. Gardening in America, 1830 - 1910. Rochester: The Strong Museum.

Vaux, C. 1864. Villas and Cottages. Harper and Brothers. Reprint: 1910. Villas and Cottages. New

York: Dover Publications.

Wilson, M. L. 1984. The Presidency ofMartin Van Buren. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Wilstach, P. 1933. Hudson River Landings. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-MerriU Company.

David L. Uschold

David currently is a Research Scientist for the Research Foundation of the State University of New York.

David has been serving in this role since 1991 for the Faculty of Landscape Architecture at the SUNY

College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, New York. Under a cooperative agreement

with the North Atlantic Region of the National Park Service, David researches and documents historic

landscapes. Also, through comparisons of the historic landscapes and the existing landscapes, he

provides treatment and management recommendations for the sites.

George W. Curry

George currentiy is a Professor on the Faculty of Landscape Architecture, College of Environmental

Science and Forestry, State University of New York. Over the past two decades George has been

involved with a variety of preservation activities. He was a member and chair of the Syracuse Landmark

Preservation Board for 13 years. He is a general partner in three multiple-use tax act rehabilitation

projects in downtown Syracuse. He serves on the Executive Board of the Historic Oakwood Cemetery

Preservation Association, a not-for-profit friends group. Since 1991 he has been project director of a number of CLR's under a cooperative agreement with the North Atiantic Regional Office of the NPS.

George also teaches a graduate and undergraduate seminar in historic preservation at the college.



3 1604 011 242 379

DATE DUE

JUL b 2UUU

DEMCO, INC. 38-2931