Back to Additional Materials

Alan M. Strout, for the
Davenport Historical Society

Davenport's Population in the Early Years

One of the most dynamic growth periods in New York State History took place during the 30-40 years after 1790.  Population exploded, most of it in the upstate areas as the central and western parts of the New York were opened up for settlement after the close of the Revolutionary War (Taylor, 1995).  Between 1790 and 1820, New York’s total population increased by four times, from 340,000 to 1,373,000.  New York, from having been only the new nation’s fifth largest state, overtook Virginia as the most populous.

Along with rapid population growth and accompanying political pressures came continuing shifts and realignment in the state’s political boundaries and divisions.   Counties were divided and subdivided.  What eventually became Delaware County started out as parts of Albany and Ulster counties.  Later Tryon County was formed from part of Albany and subsequently renamed Montgomery.  When Delaware was created in 1797, it acquired pieces of Ulster and a part of Montgomery County that had later become a section of Otsego.  (“Munsell,” History of Delaware County, N.Y., 1797-1880.  1880, pp. 58-59.)

Within Delaware and other counties, townships were evolving and changing at a similar pace.  In 1778 Harpersfield, then in Montgomery County and later in Otsego County, extended all the way to and then down the Susquehanna River to the Pennsylvania line.  Kortright was formed from Harpersfield in 1793, still extending to the Susquehanna but bounded on the south by Franklin and after 1800 by the new town of Meredith.  It was not until 1817 that increasing population and political pressures led to the “erection” of Davenport from the western portion of Kortright and a southernmost section of Maryland adjoining the Charlotte (Johnson) patent.  At its formation, Davenport also extended to the Susquehanna and down that river to the town of Franklin, the northern section of which after 1822 was to become part of Otsego County.  (See below.)

Two problems arise when discussing Davenport’s population in the early years.  First, although people were living along the Charlotte River and Middle Brook both before and after the American Revolution, Davenport, as just noted, did not exist as an independent entity until 1817.  Thus the Federal census of 1820 was the first listing of Davenport’s inhabitants.  The future township’s population from 1790 (year of the first Federal census for the United States as a whole) through 1800, a period of likely explosive growth leading to the town’s official creation, can only be approximated.  A method for estimating the 1800 and 1810 populations will be proposed below.

The second problem is that Davenport’s boundaries themselves changed over time.  The first change occurred sometime between 1822 and perhaps late as 1836 or 1837.  In 1822, five years after Davenport had been created, a part of Franklin township in Delaware County became the new (and relatively short-lived) town of Huntsville in Otsego County.  Sometime thereafter the northwest corner of Davenport, formerly in the same Wallace Patent whose Franklin portion had been lost to Huntsville, also became (although this was not known locally at the time) a part of Otsego County and later, in turn, southside Oneonta.  The second loss of territory occurred in 1878 when a large piece of land lying along Houghtaling Hollow in the southwest corner of the town became part of the town of Meredith.

The land lost to Otsego County is of importance when analyzing population changes during Davenport’s formative years.  This is because the change involved a sizeable group of households that should be excluded from early population estimates and from the 1820 census figures if these totals are to be comparable with later numbers.  Also, the 1822-1837? boundary change has been omitted from recent accounts of territorial adjustments to the Town of Davenport (Davidson, 1976; Houck, 1995).  It not only seems to have been forgotten by today’s historians, but even in the 1820s and 1830s the boundary was a source of uncertainty and confusion.

The elderly Nicholas Sigsbee, an early Davenport inhabitant reminiscing in 1889, had this to say about the situation:

That territory across the [Susquehanna] river [from what became Oneonta in 1830] from the Jonathan Brewer farm to the mouth of the Charlotte was supposed to belong to Davenport and Delaware-co; but fifty odd years ago [that is, perhaps about 1836-7 or earlier] it was discovered that it belonged to the town of Oneonta and Otsego-co., and has since then been attached to Oneonta.  (N. Sigsbee, Oneonta Herald, September 12, 1889, page 3.)

How was a change that could have occurred as early as1822 not discovered and officially recognized for perhaps fifteen years?  It was certainly not for lack of local interest.  Andrew Parish, various Brewers, and other neighbors along the old road from McDonald’s Bridge into what is now Davenport proper felt much closer to the new population center across the Susquehanna than they did to the several hamlets in Davenport.  In  1822, 1825, 1826, and 1831 they notified Davenport of their intention to petition the next state legislature to be included in Otsego County.  Meanwhile, property changed hands in this corner of “Davenport,” and deeds continued to be registered in Delaware rather that Otsego County.

The confusion probably began with the creation of the town of Huntsville by an act of April 2, 1822.  Huntsville, a predecessor of Otego and Oneonta in Otsego County, was formed of parts of Unadilla and Franklin in Delaware County.  That part of Franklin assigned to the new town of Huntsville lay “between the Wallace patent line and the Susquehanna River” along with several more parcels of land lying “south and adjoining said patent line.”  (Chapter 210 of NY laws of 1822.  See Davidson, 1976, for the full text.)  The trouble was that the Wallace patent not only extended along the southern shore of the Susquehanna to the eastern boundary of Franklin but beyond that boundary into the newly formed town of Davenport.  It is this easternmost parcel of the old Wallace patent whose fate was left unclear (that is, it was nowhere mentioned) in the Huntsville legislation. 

The intent, according to later clarifying legislation (if such exists; it has so far not been uncovered), may indeed have been to include the Davenport portion in the new town of Huntsville (or more likely in the adjoining town of Milford and the hamlet of Milfordville) and subsequently, after 1830, in Oneonta.  The 1822 language, however, made no mention of Davenport and said nothing about any such intent.  Certainly none of those living in the vicinity were aware for many years that they had been moved into Otsego County.

According to a newspaper column by Harvey Baker in the late 1800s, deeds of as late as 1835 “were recorded in Delaware County and dated and acknowledged in the town of Davenport, although in fact they had for over five years [13 years?] actually been in the town of Oneonta… Andrew Parish was for many years a justice of the peace in Delaware county, as was supposed, when in fact he resided in Oneonta.  A special act was passed by the legislature to correct and make legal all such transactions.”  (Scrapbook 1870-1895 of Anna Manning, pp. 171-172, Huntington Library, Oneonta.)

It is possible that the state legislature, aware of the local pressure for a transfer from Davenport to Oneonta, merely “clarified” the earlier Huntsville act to achieve this transfer retroactively.  No further record of this “special act” has been uncovered at the time of the writing of this paper, but the search continues.

Turning to the larger issue of Davenport’s likely population before the town actually began to exist in 1817, it is probable that most pre-Revolutionary War inhabitants left during New York’s border warfare.  Captain William Gray’s rough map of the Col. William Butler expedition of 1778 shows Joseph Barthlemew, John Parks, and Scrooses? (Servoss?) grist mill in the vicinity of what is now Butts Corners and Fergusonville.[1]  There were probably a few other early settlers, possibly of German Palatine origin from the Mohawk valley, living nearer to the Susquehanna River.  A number of Scottish immigrants had settled in Kortright, in part at least under the sponsorship of Sir William Johnson, and some of these certainly lived on Middle Brook in what became Davenport.  (Most of the latter chose the Loyalist side during the Revolution and eventually moved to Canada.)

Few settlers were found in the area of Davenport after the war.  H. Fletcher Davidson, former Delaware County Historian, sought to identify by present town location, all of those Delaware County inhabitants reported in the 1790 census.  Though most likely an understatement, Davidson assigned only three households containing 12 persons (the families of Jabez Green, Silvanus Green, and Jesse Wilcocks), to what is now the town of Davenport.  (Davidson, no date.)

It is time-consuming, but possible, to construct an estimate of the total 1810 population of the area that became Davenport.  For the 1800 total of Maryland and Kortright residents living in what became Davenport, the task is more formidable.  This is because of the large population turnover between 1800 and the time of Davenport’s first census (1820) and because that portion of Davenport formed from Maryland was a part of the very large township of Cherry Valley at the time of the 1800 census. 

For 1810 the situation is more amenable.  (For 1800, the estimates below have been based partly on extrapolation.)  Using the 1820 Davenport census in conjunction with the 1810 and 1820 censuses for Maryland and Kortright and the 1800 census for Kortright, one can identify many pre-1820 residents whose names later appeared in the 1820 census for the newly formed town of Davenport.  If no family head with a similar last name is found in the Maryland or Kortright census for 1820, there is a high probability that the household had become Davenport residents.

Another feature of early census taking can be used to aid the search.  The census-takers tended to list the households in the order in which they were visited, and that order was often synchronous with the households’ locations along the roads or pathways of the day.  Thus there is a fair chance that names listed in order were neighbors or at least near-neighbors in a particular locality.  Among an 1810 group or cluster of those Kortright and Maryland census names identified as having very likely become Davenport residents by 1820, there is a good chance that adjoining names also were located in what became Davenport.  This would be true even though the families may have moved elsewhere by 1820 and hence would not be included in the Davenport census for that year.  (H. Fletcher Davidson probably used this system for apportioning by area the households from the 1790 Federal census.)

The assumed probability in 1810 of a family having been a prospective Davenport resident would be reduced if at least the last name appeared in the 1820 census for Kortright or Maryland.  If the family was not located within one of the previously identified groups or clusters of potential Davenport residents, probabilities might be decreased further even when similar family names were found in the 1820 census for Davenport.

To give an example, in the 1810 Kortright census, several clusters of numbered household seem most likely to include future Davenport residents.  These were, based upon microfilm records compiled by the Delaware County Clerk’s office, numbers 87-131, 153-162, 203-222, 316-328, and 413-461.  In addition there were scattered other individual households not in clusters who are believed to have lived in what became Davenport.

Within each identified cluster it is generally assumed for the current approximation that eight or nine out of each twenty households had probably been located in Davenport even when their names did not appear in the 1820 Davenport census.  As mentioned, the turnover of population in these towns between two census years was high.  Names immediately adjoining each identified cluster were assigned a probability of .25 or .5 of having been in “Davenport.”  That is, it was assumed that there was only one chance in two or four that they in fact belonged with the presumptive Davenport cluster.  Low probabilities were also generally assigned to households which might have been Davenport area residents based upon census evidence but which were not found within one of the identified clusters. 

So that other researchers may form their own judgements on the names and assumed probabilities, a more detailed “Note on Estimating…” and a complete listing of all 1810 perspective “Davenport” residents from both Kortright and Maryland are attached as an annex to this paper.  Also shown in the annex are 1800 Kortright, but not Maryland, households likely to have lived on land that became Davenport.  (The final 1800 estimate of total Maryland residents in this category was extrapolated from the 1800-1810 growth of their Kortright neighbors.) 

The annex Note also includes a statement of the rules used to assign the various probabilities.  Note, however, that in some cases the judgement of Davenport Historian Emeritus Mary S. Briggs, based upon her extensive knowledge of early Davenport families and genealogies, influenced the final probabilities.  These cases are marked in the listing with an asterisk.

The procedure employed does not permit a “best guess” of all of the actual names of the individual households living in what became Davenport.  It instead provides a listing of possible residents, a subset of names with a very high likelihood, and a statistical best guess of the aggregate numbers of families and the numbers of individuals in the area of the future Davenport. 

The results suggest an 1810 “Davenport” population of about 171 families containing 1005 persons.  Of these, about 17 households and 94 persons would have come from the town of Maryland while the far larger number, about 910 persons in 154 households, would have been found in the 1810 Kortright census.  In 1800, the future town of Davenport’s population might have been, at about 531 and 81 households, a little over half the 1810 totals.  These 1800 estimates are less certain since they involve the assumption that the Maryland section grew between 1800 and 1810 at the same rate as the Kortright section.

Note, too, that the 1800 and 1810 numbers just described include those families in the area of what sometime between 1822 and 1837? would become Otsego County and Oneonta.  Both the official 1820 and 1830 Davenport censuses, as discussed above, included these families since the transfer from Davenport to Huntsville-Millfordville-Oneonta was not known by the local residents, officials and census takers until at least the mid 1830s. 

In a similar “expected value” (in the statistical sense) manner it would seem fairly straightforward to estimate Davenport’s population lying in that section transferred to Oneonta.  Several authors in later years listed the “early” Oneonta residents living south of the Susquehanna along the road to Davenport.  The trouble is that these lists, constructed from memory 60-70 years after the fact, are fragmentary, not fully consistent with one another, and include some nearby residents from today’s Davenport.  The listings certainly exclude many other households whose stay was too short or otherwise unnoteworthy to be remembered many years later.

Another source of early names is the F.W. Beers Map of Oneonta, Otsego Co., N.Y., 1868 (Huntington Library).  This shows the names of those whose 1868 homes lay in the Wallace Patent lots number 1-12  These lots made up the portion of the patent transferred earlier from Davenport to Oneonta.  In a number of cases it has been possible to trace ownership back in time to give an indication of the former Davenport families in this tract of land as of, at least, the 1840s.

Additionally, one could examine the 1820 Davenport census lists for the names mentioned by later historians.  Again making use of the tendency for the census taker to list in order the adjoining families found along a road, one could argue that clusters of census names included not only the known “Oneonta” residents but perhaps others not remembered by these later reporters.  The difficulty, of course, is that the 1820 and 1830 census takers, along with those for 1810, may have gone home for lunch, resuming their count afterwards or the next day at a quite different location.

Even with diligent search and matching, therefore, uncertainties remain.  The principal sources used in identifying families transferred to Oneonta, in addition to the 1820 and 1830 censuses, have been Harvey Baker’s 1892 newspaper column, “Oneonta in Early Times,” chapters 24-26; Nicholas Sigsbee’s 1889 “Early Recollections…” (both cited above); and  “Oneonta in 1811” from Hurd (1878, p.224).  Full references to these work are found later.  In 1820, Davenport households numbered in the census returns 1 through 36 seemed to lie, with frequent question marks, in the transferred section of Davenport.  In 1830, the corresponding cluster was numbered 200 through 236.  The equivalent census blocks for 1810, from the Kortright census for that year since Davenport had not yet been erected, were approximately numbers 111-132 and 413-426.  For Kortright in 1800, Davenport-associated cluster seems to have been numbers 1-18.  In each case but 1830 there may have also been a few outliers, presumably interviewed later, found among the other listings

Within each cluster, judgement calls were made on the validity of each name.  A number of the more certain candidates were assigned a 100% probability (1.0) of having lived in the area lost to Oneonta.  The others were regarded as questionable and assigned a probability of 0.5.  That is, for this latter group there appeared to be only a 50% chance that the family lived in the area in question.  (More below.)  The names and probabilities for all four years are shown in the Table 1 of the annex Note.

One further step was taken in the case of 1800 and 1810.  For these years, before Davenport was formed, we have assigned two probabilities.  The first, just described, is the likelihood of whether or not a family lived in the Wallace Patent section of the 1817 Davenport, the area transferred later to Otsego County.  The probabilities in this case were either 1.0 or 0.5.  The second likelihood was whether a particular household lived in that part of Kortright township that in 1817 became part of the new Davenport.

In estimating numbers of households and persons lost to Otsego County, the two likelihoods were multiplied, forming what is called a “joint probability.”  Thus as shown in the first line of the table following, the Uriah Adams family of Kortright was estimated with a somewhat arbitrary ninety-percent “certainty” as having lived in what became Davenport.  Judging by the households listed in the 1810 census listings (No. 122 in the cluster of 111-132), there was a good chance of the family having resided in the Wallace Patent.  Because we have no other information on this last score, the Adams household received a Wallace Patent probability of only 0.5.  The joint probability of living both in the future Davenport and in the Wallace Patent is therefor 0.9 x 0.5, or 0.45. 

Table 1 also shows the effects of these probability estimates on the contribution of each household to the final total household and population estimates.  The contribution to the “probable persons” total can be seen in columns (M)-(P) of the table; that for “probable households,” in columns (Q)-(Y).

This list of possible Davenport inhabitants who later became a part of Oneonta can only provide a first approximation to the numbers and names involved.  Many of the family names, as noted, do occur in the various accounts of early “Oneonta” settlers.  But other names, generally assigned a probability of 0.5, are found only within the identified census clusters.   And some uncertainty accompanies even those families specifically mentioned by later historians.  David Houghtaling, a Mickle, and Samuel Whitmarsh were all listed as early Oneonta residents in the Hurd account, for example.  Other evidence suggests that at least several Houghtaling families were located at some distance from the area in question, and that the Mickles and Whitmarshes were found further down the road to Davenport.   The Beers map of 1868 shows a “Houghtailing” household in Wallace Patent lot 3 (almost certainly at one time belonging to Peter Houghtaling), but mentions no names that have been traced back to Mickle or Whitmarsh.

On the other hand, although some more recent Swart families would seem to have lived in areas remaining in Davenport (the upper “Swart Hollow” road still lies in Davenport), Harvey Baker specifically places the George and William Swart farms in the “tier of lots [which were] formerly in Delaware County.”  Similarly, a number of Emmons families are known to have lived in or near what was once southern Maryland, but Nicholas Sigsbee, son of one of Davenport’s pre-1817 settlers, places the Solomon, Asa and Carleton Emmons farms east of that of Hontice H. Couse and before the Timothy Murphy farm.  The latter was in all likelihood adjoining the current (post-1830) border between Davenport and Oneonta.

Further work is needed to trace over time the ownership of the several farms involved and thus to make further use of other clues, usually the names of later residents, provided by the Beers map and by early authors.  The list and probabilities shown are far from definitive or perhaps even complete.  They do, however, suggest orders-of-magnitude for the numbers of families and persons included in the 1820 and 1830 Davenport censuses who lived in what subsequently became Oneonta.

The summary at the bottom of Table 1 gives the following estimates:

The larger number in each range assumes that all households or persons in all households listed in the above table in fact lived in the area transferred to Oneonta.  The smaller number incorporates the two