Pages

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

All The King's Venison

William Rockefeller
In 1903, a millionaire lawyer and Adirondack estate owner named Orrando Dexter took his carriage into town for the day’s mail and was shot dead. The assailant’s bullets cut first into Dexter’s horse and then his left shoulder. On his own private and in broad daylight property Orrando Dexter was murdered by a man that was never identified. Despite the best efforts of a grieving father, the only conclusion made was that the man was local. Yet this murder was not a random or personal occurrence. According to the papers of the time it was “only one demonstration of the hatred what exists in the woods” and based more on class and changing landscape than the struggle between two men which it became in those final moments.
Dexter’s land around Santa Clara NY, like all land, had not always been private. Land in the Adirondacks, while speculated and sold like any other, had been notoriously ill-defined with little to no enforcement of property boundaries and claims. Many early settlers simply lived where they could survive- instilling within the locals a very different attitude towards ownership and resources compared to those in rapidly industrializing America and Europe. Especially to the captains of said industry which had set their eyes upon northern NY for their own “Hameau de la Reine” – vast aristocratic estates of illusionary harmony with nature in which to “rough it”.
William Rockefeller was one such man as partner and brother to John D. When the useable timber around the town of Brandon was harvested, the lumber company that owned the land (including the township) sold it to Rockefeller for his private park. While Rockefeller’s intention was to tear down the entire town, as Amy Godine mentions in The Peopling of the Park, “fourteen families dug in their heels” and remained in Brandon. “No Trespassing” and “No Poaching” signs bridged by wire fences severed the town from its surrounding land which had been used by citizens like Oliver Lamora for food and self-sustainability. In the April of 1902, signs did little to stop the Civil War veteran and when he was caught fishing by one of Rockefeller’s patrolmen Lamora supposedly replied that he would “go when he was ready.” Two hours and nineteen fish later, Lamora went on his way and began four years of lawsuits with the industrial titan.
I have to assume that, while divides between local and seasonal use persist, they are unlikely to be resolved by the burning of private parklands or the murder of lawyers (anymore). However, credit is due to the men and women that did stand up against these estates as they ensured, through legal and not illegal means, that the law would not ignore them outright and would instead help to protect the use of land for the many over the few.
Picture:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/William_Rockefeller.jpg

2 comments:

  1. This is a great follow up to the conversation in class regarding tension between locals and seasonal inhabitants in the Adirondacks. It brings up a few really interesting ideas. By barring off private land, are the Rockefeller brothers in fact stopping fishers, hunters, and trappers from exploiting the wildlife? In the long run will this in fact help the park? This may be so, but in a park where there are year-long inhabitants, buying and privatizing certain sections of previously public land jeopardize the livelihood of individuals living in the park. For me, this is what makes the Adirondacks so unique. While environmentalists and vacationers may be inclined to protect certain sections of land from being hunted, trapped, and fished, the locals who rely on the parks resources everyday might argue against such restrictions. As long as there are people living in the park, I believe arguments will persist between dwellers of the park and owners of private estates.

    ReplyDelete
  2. At this time, despite being named the “Maker of Wilderness” by Colliers, the private property purchased by Rockefeller for camps was concerned more with reducing the number of people that could use the land than protecting the land itself. I think that much more damage was done to the park by the industries of trapping, logging and mining than by the low population communities that depended on a wilderness surrounding for their food and supplies. I agree with your point on the persistence of these sort of arguments and the dichotomy between local and visitor that many of the most beautiful landscapes have to cope with. Where I come from there is a very large summer community that is concerned with protecting the natural beauty while locals are concerned more with our quality of life. Things like cell towers and Costco’s became hot button social issues-until the winter when everyone went back home.

    ReplyDelete