Ranch Land History—Part 1. Nearly five years ago, we started the
project of detailing the history of the land that made up the ranch that became
our community. We did not make much
progress then, but now we have returned to the task to make another pass at it.
Tracing the history
of land can be accomplished by starting with the first deed (Land Patent) and
working forward in time or by starting with the last deed (current owners) and
working back in time. We decided to start with the Land Patents because that
would give us the names of the surveys which would be helpful in the search
back in time from current owners to previous owners. New surveys almost always
reference the Land Patent survey name.
The Spanish Government granted a huge amount of land to Impresarios to encourage settlement of the area which was to become Texas. However, none of the individual grants existed in Hays County. Furthermore, if there was individual ownership in the area of Texas, most of those claims were erased following the revolutionarywar with Mexico. So, we started with the Republic of Texas,
the government formed by Texans following the revolutionary war with Mexico ca.
1836.
Texas, not unique
in this regard, adopted the principle of a capitalistic democracy in that
useable land was best in the hands of people and not held by the
government. Soon after the Republic was
formed land became available as a donation, as a homestead, or as a purchase. Donations
of land in the amounts of 1280 or 640 acres were made to veterans for their
effort in the war with Mexico. Interestingly enough, land grants were not
offered to Confederate veterans of the Civil War. However, those Texans that fought on the
Union side in the Civil War were offered land grants in Texas, but none took up
the offer.
In addition to
grants to individuals, much land went into the school funding system and to railroad
companies as an inducement to build rail lines into the state. This granting process occurred over many
years as the state government passed various laws granting land. All of that is a separate topic. As a sidelight, Texas is the only state
admitted to the Union that was allowed to keep its public lands rather than
relinquish the public lands to the Federal Government. Thus, all granted land was issued from the
Republic or the State of Texas.
When land ownership
is officially transferred from the government to a public or private entity,
the new owner is issued a Land Patent. A land patent can be viewed as a “first
deed”. Land could be acquired by three
methods: A donation to an individual for military service, by preemption
(homesteading) or by purchase. When a person is given land for service to the
country, it starts with a Certificate which can then be used to claim a tract
of land. The Certificate was like cash.
It could be sold, donated, transferred to heirs, just like cash if the
land is not wanted by the recipient.
Claiming the land
resulted in the issue of a Patent on that land. The basic record of a land
patent is the survey to establish the location of the land. Thus, every land patent has an attendant
survey in the name of the grantee. One
can understand that in the early days of a newly formed government, this was
the easiest way to reward public service, because cash was in short supply.
Printing paper money was tried in the new Republic, but the paper money soon
lost much of its issue value.
Typically, veterans
of the Texas Revolutionary War received Certificates for up to 1280 acres (a
section of land is 640 acres). The
amount of land varied between 640 and 1280 dependent on the class of the
reward. The class of the grant depended
on when the person arrived in Texas.
Early settlers and service in the military received the greater number
of acres. Figure 1 shows a copy of the
Certificate given to Gideon Bowditch for 1280 acres of land some of which makes
up BWR.
Figure 1 Gideon Bowditch Certificate
The land that makes
up our community came from six land patents.
Five of them were grants to veterans from the War with Mexico and one was
for homesteading.
They six tracts are
as follows:
§
Jesse Huffman-- 640 acres in 1841
§ Reuben Pierce-- 160 acres in 1871
§ Willis Moore-- 114.5 acres in 1875
§ Gideon Bowditch--1280 acres in 1841
§ M. Andrews-- 1280 acres in 1875
§ G. W. A. Colton--491.37 acres in 1875
Following
are some notes about each of these holders of land patents:
§ Huffman
and Bowditch were the first to claim their rewards. The record indicates that heirs of Huffman
held the land for some time (unknown at the present) and Bowditch sold his
grant soon after receiving it.
§ Pierce
was the only person who homesteaded his property. It is not certain that he actually lived on
his land, but he did convince the government that he satisfied the requirement
of improving the land within the required three years. The Pierce family sold the land they acquired
in 1871 to Hayford in 1877 who then sold it to Cross soon after.
§ Moore’s
heirs claimed his 640 acres, but only 114.5 acres was part of the six grants
that make up our community. The location
of the balance to make up 640 acres is documented but we have not pursued that
acquisition. It could have been in
another county. Willis Moore’s heirs claimed the property because he had
perished in the fight at the Alamo.[1]
§ Colton
was awarded 1280 acres and only 491 acres are located here. It is interesting that the documentation of
his award was in square varas, totaling 2,774,011, which works out that a vara
is equal to 33 inches. Varas can vary in length and this causes some confusion
in the record.
§
Andrews’
award was for early service but was not claimed until 1875 when it was then
claimed by his widow’s attorneys and sold immediately.
It
is important to spend some time in this newsletter on surveying because the
surveyor’s tools and methods have changed dramatically over the last 150 years.
During
land grant times, surveying was recorded by a method commonly called metes and
bounds. Metes refer to the measurement part of a survey, that is the length and
compass direction of a boundary line. Bounds
refer to the markers at key points such as corners or intersections with other
surveys. The starting point for a new survey was usually defined off an
adjacent survey. So, if that adjacent
survey contained errors, these errors would carry over into the new
survey. The corners were usually marked
with some form of quasi-permanent evidence, such as a stone mound created by
the surveying crew. Our expert contact in the surveying business (and also a
descendant of one of the earliest settlers of Purgatory Springs) tells us that
marker mounds can be just one big stone or a pile of smaller stones. The mound was often cited by identifying an
adjacent tree and blaze marking the tree and its direction and distance from
the marker mound. The lengths of the sides
were measured in varas that varied from 33 to 46 inches depending on time and
place. The lengths were measured off
with chains, and the direction of the boundary lines were measured with a
compass, usually mounted on top of a transit.
Even today, with modern surveying equipment, the bounds markers, if
found, hold sway over the metes. That’s because the opportunity for a recording
error with metes is far greater than the opportunity for error in the marking
of bounds.
Today,
surveyors use GPS locating equipment that is precise to the inch to identify
corners and lines of a tract of land.
How the legal system and the surveyors made the transition from the
inherent inaccuracies in the 1800s to the precision of today is not only
remarkable but amazing. It is evident
that there are many inconsistencies, but transfer of property from one person
to another has the ability over time to reconcile and remove these
inconsistencies from the record.
Figure
2 is a copy of a map from the records showing the boundary lines of the
original land patents.
Figure 2 Land Grant Boundaries
This
map is a bit difficult to see in this size, but you should be able to expand it
for better viewing. The black lines are the land grant lines and the red line
is the outline of our community hand drawn on top. The blue printing identifies the Land
patentee. The two tracts between Colton and Bowditch are the Moore and Pierce
tracts. (We have marked them with a P and an M on Figure 3) The boundary
between the Moore and Pierce tracts falls right under the notation of
Bridlewood Ranches Drive.
Note
how the Huffman tract does not meet the Bowditch tract and also note the green
shaded slice of land between Colton and Pierce. The black lines are drawn on
the current map by the General Land Office and reveal some of the inaccuracies
of the original surveys. The green
shaded area is what is commonly called a vacancy. That means that at the time of the survey
this land was owned by the state as it was not included in any one patented
tract. We are sure that none of these mismatches
of boundaries were intended by the early surveyors.
Figure
3 shows the same map as Figure 2, but now the Bridlewood Ranches roads are
marked in purple.
Figure 3 Land Patent map with BWR
roads added
While
still working in the distant past, there are some historic artifacts from
surveys and ranch activity that we should look for and inventory with an eye
toward preservation.
Here
is a list that comes to mind:
·
Survey corner mounds.
Years ago, we found the south corner mound of the Jesse Huffman survey
in the Purgatory Creek drainage. More
than likely, the northwest corner mound is in the stone wall on the eastern
edge of the Shallenberger property.
There should be many more marker mounds which we will list later.
·
Old ranch roads.
There was one road that entered the property just north of the present
gate leading off Hugo Road (the gate with the big star) and went to the
windmill on the Vinson property. There
were other roads, and they should be identifiable by inspection of the surface. During dry periods and when the grass is
heavily grazed, there appears to be a vestige of an old ranch road to the south
of the road on the Jankowski property.
·
Windmills and their tanks. There are two, or one and a half, that are
standing. We have asked Kutscher for
some information on these mills.
· Stone fences.
For sure these should be preserved and inventoried as they are probably
150 years old. It is still uncertain who
built these walls, but it is almost certain they were not built by slaves as
most people believe. Any of the history
books of the area state that these stone walls were built in the late 1800s.
Later, we will provide some information on where these walls should still
exist. For example, the stone wall that
exists between lots 31 and 30 is the same wall that runs northwest and
terminates at the Shallenberger line. It
was the western boundary of the Jesse Huffman Survey.
·
Earthen Stock Tanks. Except for a few, most of our
stock tanks were built by earlier ranchers.
Lake Bridlewood is the most prominent old one, but there are others.
· Other Evidence. Old structures, concrete watering troughs
(there is one on Lot 30 that was observed years ago) wells, and stone
structures.
Some may ask why
bother with these old features and relics of the land that we live on. The answer to that will develop with time.
Changing
gears now to the present ownership and working back in time: Here is what we know at this time:
Some
current owners bought their tract from the developer (River Chase Ventures)
others bought through resale.
Thus,
here is the lineage as we know it now:
Present
owners---total 1676 acres
*********
River Chase
Ventures–total 1676 acres, acquired in 2002.
*********
Herman and Minnie
Heep Texas A&M Foundation---two tracts totaling 1676 (more or less) acquired
in 1992.
*********
Herman and Minnie
Heep (one tract) and Conroe Drilling Company (other tract) ---totalling 1676
acres---acquired in 1947.
**********
Maurice Ruby and
wife----two tracts totaling 1676 acres. Acquired in 1943.
**********
G. Boozer acquired 1934
**********
T. Dix acquired
1932
**********
Jesse Posey
acquired 1916
*********
Frank Posey
acquired ?
*********
Additional
record searches need to be made to determine the detail of land transactions in
the time period from the issuance of the Patents to 1916 when Jesse Posey
acquired the land.
Throughout this time period, the only homesteader was Reuben Pierce and it is possible that he lived on the land, but not proven—and if he did, not for long. More than likely, all of the land was used for grazing. With that assumption we are always on the lookout for more records to determine if any of the 1676 acres supported a residence. However, that is doubtful.
Throughout these years the land was known successively
as the Rocking H Ranch (aka Heep Ranch), the Ruby Ranch, and the Posey
Ranch.
There were several interesting bits of
information that came from reading the many pages of the deed records. One is that Herman Heep was the President of
Conroe Drilling Company thus explaining this company’s involvement in the
ownership of the ranch.
Maurice Ruby had many dealings in
Woodcreek, perhaps suggesting that he had a role in the development of that
tract.
There are still some nagging details about
the succession of owners prior to Ruby but that (hopefully) will come later in
Part 2.
Meanwhile, providing there is sufficient
interest, we could make an inventory of the historic features of the Bridlewood
Ranches land. The documentation of historic features may well add value to the
land in addition to adding interest to each tract.
----Sightings---
The
Slender-Leaf Hymenoxys flowers growing
close to the ground have been very showy this spring. Figure 4 shows one especially good tract of
yellow spilling down a gentle hillside beyond the pond near the intersection of
Hugo and Purgatory Roads. Everyone
notices that the dominant color in wild flowers is yellow, and for the last few
weeks, most of the yellow has been hymenoxys.
But that is not always the case, because last year there were far fewer hymenoxys.
Figure 4 Hymenoxys blooms at
Hugo/Purgatory Rd.
For
example, some of the yellow color has been replaced by the gaillardia which has
a red center giving a dense field a definitely different color.
Then
we decided to look even closer at what plants are showing the yellow color now and
stopped to inspect the small yellow flowers near the BWR mailbox. Wouldn’t you know it, a new (to us) yellow
flower that was masquerading in among the hymenoxys. It was a Hudson Flax (Linum hudsonioides). It is shown in
Figure 5.
Figure 5 Hudson Flax
To
top off the sightings is this shrubby plant we found growing in a wild area
near our house. It appears to be a
Sumac---Rhus Aromatica. (Figure 6) It
has a smooth brown bark, and a three petal leaf.
Figure 6 Aromatic Sumac
One
last note on the importance of scientific naming of plants. You may recall the Red Buckeye plant we found
by Canyon Dam. Buckeyes have rather unique
leaves---five or so leaves all coming off one point of the stem. Because we have always heard about the
Mexican Buckeye, we decided to hunt for one of them. We found one at a Master Gardeners booth at
the Seguin monthly sale on the town square.
It sure didn’t have the typical buckeye leaf pattern, but we bought it
anyway since we knew that it will produce a show of flowers in the spring.
Figure 7 Mexican buckeye
Just a little bit
of bookwork shows that the Mexican Buckeye is not a buckeye, but a member of
the Soapberry family. The scientific
name of true buckeyes is Aesculus Pavia
whereas the Mexican Buckeye’s scientific name is Ungnadia speciosa. So, why
did the Mexican Buckeye get the common name of buckeye? Simply because the seed looks a lot like the
seed of the real buckeye.
[1]
Moore, 28, a Mississippi resident was listed as a Private, marksman at the
Alamo who, “May have rode in with Bowie”.
He also fought with Chenoweth’s N.O. Grey Company at the siege of Bexar. The report of Texas Alamo victims was
reported in the Telegraph and Texas
Register (3-14-1836) as supplied by couriers John Smith and Gerald Navan.
