Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Spring 2015 Newsletter - a little late posting this...


Want to become part of this amazing group and support the programs at Schoharie Crossing?
Here's how to join!

Please let us know what you think of the blog by posting comments below:

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Time Warp Continued - Gibbons V. Ogden

A continuation of our last post:

The idea of Federal regulation of the Erie Canal was partially underlying the answer to Liz Covart’s Time Warp question during a recent Ben Franklin’s World podcast with Janice Fontanella, Schoharie Crossing State Historic Site Manager.  This thought has crept up a few times when speaking with people, in particular those that are just as interested in the railroads as they may be in canals.  A recent talk by Craig Williams at the Schenectady County Historical Society operated Mabee Farm in Rotterdam, NY hit on this partially as well - when a member of the audience asked a question about the tolls operated on the canal verses funds from the railroads in terms of passenger and freight cargo. 

While a simple answer may be that in the early Republic, the concepts of government regulation were still seen as tyrannical and the finer nuances of authority and power were developing, we must remember that we have the advantage – if we want to think of it that way – of viewing those matters in hindsight and having the perspective of the era in which we live today. 
Those inquiries have recalled the case of Gibbons V. Ogden (1824) and the constitutional questions of commerce regulation that it grappled with.  Those questions combined with the issue of a states right to apply its own regulatory authority present themselves in this early Supreme Court case.  Below is posted an essay on that court case as it pertains to the aspects of Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution as well as how it began the ever evolving development of federal regulation of commerce throughout the country. 

Please let us know what you think of the Friends of Schoharie Crossing Blog.  Post any comments or questions below and please share with others that might be interested!

Thank you!

Gibbons V. Ogden
22 US (9 Wheat) 1 (1824)

            For centuries navigation on waterways has been vital to the welfare of societies.  Through such exploration, trade and access peoples have generated a network on which reliance and dependability is essential.  During the early era of the new republic of the United States, transporting goods, as well as people secured the success of the nation by developing a reliable economy and dissemination of knowledge as well as culture.  In the years that have ensued, progressive actions following expansionism across the continent have both been fueled by such use of waterways, technology and economics.  The advent of new technology has brought with it the need for examining how the intercourse between people may be to the benefit or welfare of the populous.  A case brought before the United Supreme Court in 1824 provides an example of how a new republic grappled with this in the perspective of commerce regulation.  Gibbons Vs. Ogden established a foundational precedent that has been utilized by the Federal government to expand its authority to regulate such intercourse in order to foster economic growth or administer legislative decree. 
            The case itself hinged on several factors, most notable of which is found in Article I, Section VIII of the U.S. Constitution.  These “enumerated powers” given to Congress provided for it “To Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” (Harper 27-29).  But in order to understand where that clause applies, one must gain background on navigation of the era, the new reaches of technology as well as the business and political elements involved. 
Robert R. Livingston Jr.
            In the decades that followed the American Revolution, migration of people, ideas and culture shifted into high gear.  Travel of those people and knowledge, much like goods and produce, relied on navigable waterways.  The area around New York City provided an astonishing hub for such travel either north up the Hudson River, south along New Jersey and beyond, as well as into the open sea to global markets.  By 1798, wealthy landowner and political figure Robert R. Livingston Jr. maintained a monopoly over the waters of New York and in 1807 he along with the man credited with steamboat invention, Robert Fulton created a partnership (Cox 641).   Steamboat travel increased and the journey from Manhattan to Albany, that once took days by sails that depended on prevailing winds and water current, could be accomplished in thirty-six hours.  This would be improved upon so that one could arrive in less than twenty-four (Adams 747).
Robert Fulton
            The business venture was successful on the Hudson River and was able to secure monopoly rights to navigation on that waterway from the New York State legislature.  As steamboat travel was recognized as profitable, competitors – particularly business man Aaron Ogden – crept in.  Ogden was a “lawyer, statesman, and former governor of New Jersey” and was attempting to gain footing in steamboat traffic.  Faced with repeated New York Court injunctions against him and his competing business – gained by the well connected Livingston and Fulton – Ogden eventually bought into their venture as he purchased business operators from their company (Cox 641).  
Aaron Ogden was then himself at odds with a competitor.  Georgia business man
Thomas Gibbons began operating a rival boat service between New York City and New Jersey.  Gibbons operated and owned two steamboat vessels that traveled to and from Elizabethtown and New York under a Federal coastal license (Cox 641) (Vile 3).  When Ogden filed suit in New York Court against Gibbons for infringement of the monopoly in 1818, Gibbons held to his “Federal granted coasting license that superseded state law” (Cox 641).
            This created a Constitutional debate.  As previously mentioned, Article I, Section VII of the Constitution provides authority of power to Congress to regulate commerce.  This “wide ranging Commerce Clause, allow[s] Congress to regulate trade…among the states,” however, defining “commerce” and “among the states” generated differing opinions.  The intent of the clause was to ensure that States would not develop tariffs or other barriers to trade in fostering separate economies and allow for the “free flow of goods” between States as well as to global markets.  In this clause, Federal regulations supersede State legislation and Congress has since utilized their enumerated right to its authority over the economy through laws impacting “business across state borders” (Harper 27-29). 
North River Steam Boat Ad - 1807
            In the New York Court case between Gibbons and Ogden in 1820 the court ruled against Gibbons.  In his opinion statement, the Chief Justice of the New York Court James Kent declared that the Federal license only provided that Gibbons vessels were American and therefore no infringement was made against New York control of commerce.  Gibbons then appealed to the New York State Court for the Correction of Errors in 1820 and to the United States Supreme Court in 1821 (Cox 641). 
The Supreme Court took up the case in 1824.  Senator Daniel Webster from Massachusetts and Attorney General William Wirt represented Thomas Gibbons.  They argued on the grounds that the United States Constitutions’ commerce clause gave authority to Congress to regulate commerce and trade between the states – therefore the license as an instrument of that government overruled New York State’s legislation and licensing of the monopoly.  Gibbons license was obtained as part of the Federal Coasting Act of 1793 and regulation of such navigation was required as necessary by Congress to ensure no disputes occurred between local and/or state governments over authority of regulation or taxation. 
Aaron Ogden was represented by former New York State Attorney’s Thomas Oakley and Thomas Emmet, whom “insisted that both Congress and the States shared concurrent power over interstate commerce” and that the State of New York retained exclusive right of authority over the waterways within its borders.  In asserting that right, the State had the power to regulate monopolies that did not interfere with Federal statutes (Cox 641). 
            The United States Supreme Court handed down their unanimous (6-0) ruling on March 2nd, 1824 with the opinion that a State cannot assert exclusive rights over navigable waters and that “any matter that affects interstate commerce is within the power of Congress” (Vile 3); More so, Chief Justice John Marshall “stated that the New York State steamboat monopoly grant was
Chief Justice John Marshall
unconstitutional” and that Congress had sole authority to regulate.  Justice William Johnson concurred in his statement that the United States Constitutions’ commerce clause was sufficient to “invalidate the Fulton-Livingston monopoly” (
Cox 641) and thereby “nullified New York’s grant” (Lewis 740). 

            In the ruling, Marshall galvanizes further the understanding of the enumerated powers given to Congress in Article I, Section VIII.  Going further, he expounded on the fact that “commerce is more than traffic.”  Additionally that regulatory powers do not terminate at State borders and jurisdiction is provided to the Federal government even within the States boundaries as Federal law – even when in conflict with State laws – is “supreme” (Vile 3).  Regarding this case however, the fact that a Federal license overrode a State license was upheld, but it also left open the option moving forward for future State regulations within the scope of their own powers (Cox 641). 
            Marshall, in his ruling opinion, not only set out the courts judgment but also examined the understanding of commerce and the interpretation of the Constitution.  In that ruling, he stated that the case was brought before the court as it was thought that the State Court ruling was “erroneous” and “repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States.”  In response to this, it is cited that Congress not only has the power to regulate commerce but also “to that which authorizes Congress to promote the progress of science and useful arts” (Marshall) – further evidence that the idea of regulating navigation was more encompassing than just the materials or profit aboard vessels. 
            Arguments in the case insisted that the states “were sovereign” from each other but in Marshall’s opinion the court – and Congress – clearly utilize that in “league into a government” that they entered into and participate in the United States government.  They are in fact then, not separate entities.  Their union in the Federal system means they must adhere to the “enumeration of powers expressly granted by the people to their government” and if that is denied, the government may be deemed invalid and “crippled.”  It is at this point that the opinion expresses in terms of “understanding” views on strict constructionism and the interpretation of the Constitution; Something that continues as political debate even to this day in America.
            The opinion also declares that commerce is greater than mere traffic as it is additionally intercourse between people of ideas, services, goods, ideas and perhaps more – be that with “nations and parts of nations” and with that concerns the authority over regulation of navigation.  Marshall states that this has always been understood to be included within the idea of commerce. That providing that power to be given to the “supreme” government authority in Congress, it asserts that “American vessels…[will be] navigated by American seamen” and that “no sort of trade can be carried on between this country and any other to which this power does not extend” (Marshall).  This would be seen as an even greater extension of Congressional power in the subsequent decades.  As defined in broad terms by Marshall, commerce regulation has opened the door to increased Congressional authority in regards to laws overseeing interstate systems (Vile 3).
            At the heart of this particular court case is that term, “among” in the Commerce Clause.  Marshall lays out in his opinion that this is defined as “intermingled” and that any such commerce that exists within or between states may be viewed as such, regardless or indifferent to boundaries as each State is in agreement under the Federal system.  The concern of dissenters being that any enterprise with a State – even “completely interior traffic” in some way constitutes intercourse by that wide definition and therefore commerce that could be regulated by Congressional authority. 
            Marshall, in claiming “the genius” of the Constitution explains that “internal concerns” that solely concern or effect the state as “completely internal…may be considered as reserved for the state itself.”  However when commerce includes goods or products of any kind with distribution or import from foreign nations, it by definition must be under the jurisdiction of the United States Congress.  Since navigable waterways “penetrate our country” and pass into the interior sections of states, the right of Congress must be exercised. 
            That right may apply equally to all commerce, but in terms of navigation – as in this case – that “any matter, connected with commerce” may also be regulated under the same provisions.  The States for that matter may also exercise their powers internally as within their own jurisdictions if no Federal laws exist that forbids such power, to do so by Constitutional authority: When in conflict with congressionally legislated or Constitutional powers, the states “must yield to the law of Congress” (Marshall).
            The ruling did not clarify the issue overall and the debate over “State versus Federal control of commerce” would continue to be a matter brought before the Supreme Court.  The opinion given in the ruling for Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) was upheld in the case of Brown v. Maryland (1827) (Cox 641) which involved the requirement of foreign goods importers to obtain a Maryland State license.  In a six-to-one ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the State could not mandate that licensing as a regulation on commerce as the Federal authority and control of trade with foreign nations superseded State regulation of business as per Article I, Section VIII of the United States Constitution (Vile 3-4).  The court placed restrictions on Congressional authority two years later in its ruling on Wilson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co. (1829) in which it upheld Delaware State law regarding the allowance of a company to place a dam across navigable waters (Marshall, Willson, et. al). 
            In the three decades following Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), and under Chief Justice Roger B. Taney the court shifted to support of State power regarding “immigration, slavery, alcohol, and unemployment compensation.” Nonetheless, a sectional divide germinated further.  Many Northern newspapers supported  the regulations as Southern concerns with the Federal Congress increasing control of economic devices and the effect on southern agriculture as well as the ever present issue overall of States’ rights.  In the years after, the ruling has been cited as precedent in the expansion overall of the Federal government “control of interstate commerce” in other cases of varying means of transport – such as: Wabash Railway v. Illinois (1886) and in Swift v. United States (1905) (Cox 641).    The Wabash case continued an increase in the limitation of State rights and furthered Congressional control of interstate commerce by effectively leading to the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission as a regulatory body.  Railroads were determinate on State laws and taxation – in its’ ruling the Supreme Court stated,
“…It cannot be too strongly insisted upon that the right of continuous transportation from one end of the country to the other is essential in modern times to that freedom of commerce from the restraints which the State might choose to impose upon it, that the commerce clause was intended to secure” (Wabash)
The Swift v. United States case was again based on the Congressional power to regulate commerce; however in this instance the violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act provided additional leverage in the ruling that went against a collaboration of “corporations, firms, and individuals” that were conducting manipulation of livestock markets.  The conspiracy violated the law due to “its effect upon commerce among the States” as “shipments and sales involved were between citizens of diverse States” (Vile 36).  The court decision validated further that Federal regulation would prevail and these cases as well as others extended the scope of what oversight Congress had of commerce and industry.  Many other decisions ranged from labor and wage suits to gun control and segregation (Cox 642) illustrating just how broad and encompassing the concept or understanding of “commerce” can be applied. 
Tuesday May 10th [1842]
            The decision in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) was vitally important for New York State.  With the monopoly broken, an increase in business ventures and entrepreneurs came at a pivotal moment in history as steamboat companies and merchants as well as farmers and manufacturers could gain from “unrestricted trade” (Cox 641) – just in time for the completion of the Erie Canal.  A result in the increased competition was a steady decrease in transportation costs just as New York City entered a golden era becoming the global shipping and financial hub.  After the U.S. Supreme Court nullified New York’s licensing law, the decade of the 1840’s saw over one hundred steamboat companies operating in the State.  That, along with other waterway and boat improvements meant the trip from Manhattan to Albany could be made in approximately ten hours and cost relatively little (Adams 747). American distrust of corporate charters and specially granted licensing by the State now seemed prevailing, as in such cases as Gibbons v. Ogden and later rulings the sentiment provided was that citizens “had a legitimate interest in promoting transportation and prosperity” which Federal regulation could provide in a widespread and reaching manner by its power under the Constitution (Foner 322).   

During the twentieth-century and into the twenty-first, the debate has continued as to the Congressional role of regulation on business.  Each divisive side expounds on the welfare of the economic system as well as making use of Constitutional interpretations and Supreme Court rulings.  As Gibbons v. Ogden may remain a foundational case supporting the right of the Federal government to regulate commerce, the shift in political ideology as well as technological advances may factor into future outcomes.  The Supreme Court in 1824 understood this and perhaps that is why Chief Justice Marshall outlined their understanding of how the Constitution should be considered in such cases.  Regardless, it is obvious that the Court and Congress have increased the power vested into it by Article I, Section VIII in terms of regulating commerce. 



Adams, Arthur G.. The Encyclopedia of New York State. Ed. Peter Eisenstadt. 1st ed. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse UP, 2005,  pp.747. Print.

Cox, Thomas. The Encyclopedia of New York State. Ed. Peter Eisenstadt. 1st ed. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse UP, 2005,  pp.641-642. Print.

Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty!: An American History. New York: W.W. Norton, 2009. Print.

Harper, Timothy. The Complete Idiot's Guide to the U.S. Constitution. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha, 2007. Print.

Lewis, Tom. The Encyclopedia of New York State. Ed. Peter Eisenstadt. 1st ed. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse UP, 2005,  pp.740. Print.

Marshall, John. "Gibbons v. Ogden John Marshall 1824." Gibbons v. Ogden. Ed. Steve Hanna. CARRIE, A Full-Text Electronic Library; European University Institute, Italy, 1995. Web. 07 Feb. 2015.                AMDOCS: DOCUMENTS FOR THE STUDY OF AMERICAN HISTORY

Vile, John R. Essential Supreme Court Decisions: Summaries of Leading Cases in U.S. Constitutional Law. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014. Print.

"Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company v. Illinois 118 U.S. 557 (1886)." Justia Law. Web. 08 Feb. 2015. <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/557/case.html>.

“WILLSON AND OTHERS v. The Black Bird Creek Marsh Company, 27 US 245 - Supreme Court 1829.”  Google Scholar. 2015. Web. 07 Feb. 2015.  http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9453582131092714732

Saturday, May 9, 2015

Franklin's World Time Warp Thoughts

Recently +Liz Covart  of the podcast Ben Franklin’s World interviewed Schoharie Crossing State Historic Site manager Janice Fontanella.  During the Time Warp segment, the question was posed of what may have been different if the federal government had financed or actively participated in the construction and operation of the Erie Canal.  Hinged on the Bonus Bill, monies that could have assisted United States Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin’s internal improvement plans failed – leaving the financial responsibility in the hands of New York to build the canal from Albany to Lake Erie. 

What made the canal all that much different than the National Road or “Old Pike” project of just a few years prior?  The National Road Bill passed in 1806, was re-contracted in 1811 and completed in 1818, connecting the new state of Ohio to Wheeling, Virginia via Pennsylvania and Maryland at a cost of $1.5 million dollars (nearly $28 million today).  There were originally no tolls placed on it, and over the course of about a decade the maintenance of the road and its expansion west cost the federal government an additional $7 million dollars.  However, by this time sections of the road had been handed over to the state governments to collect tolls for continued upkeep. 

Often internal improvements of this era were privately funded through stockholding companies, but with a rapidly expanding nation and rising costs of infrastructure development, state governments gradually took on the burden – most of the time with little to no obvious financial return on investment.  Even stockholders rarely saw greater than a 2% return.

Federal government assistance began slowly and at first it was most often in the form of land grants for state bonds.  Public funds raised by over 4 million acres of federally doled out land assisted in projects developing the early republic and greatly help fund the entire Wabash & Erie Canal in Indiana. 
The idea of the federal government at that time organizing a grand interior improvement project may have splintered the tenuous bonds of union.  The Erie Canal’s success strengthened those political and especially economic ties… But yet, let’s think how in retrospect – even those bonds tested at such success an economic and social divide grew regionally as the approach of the 1850’s moved along.

One view on the way federal government money may have impacted the Erie Canal and its success was touched on by Janice during her response.  Condensing a great deal of political ideology into the answer, simply put that Gallatin’s plan would assuredly have been implemented in an inner state manner with federal regulation and authority.  Tolls that funded New York State’s rise to economic zenith, and created New York City as the pre-eminent global economic capital would have channeled instead into federal coffers. 

While simply put, the idea of states’ rights and federal authority has always remained contentious in the United States.  It may be easy to say that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and even George Washington would never sign a bill to fund a canal only within New York – with vested interests in Potomac region development – the bigger issue may have just as easily been the U.S. Constitution and when and how it can be worked around, er..hm...interpreted. 

The regulation of commerce is a fine example of that ever American philosophy of Constitutional Interpretation.  In the 1820’s the Supreme Court of the United States was hashing out more concrete definitions of commerce and the government’s role within the economic system of the country.  In essence, a matter pre-dating the Revolution and one that remains today; but at that time, the growth of population, territory, economy and technology was blistering. 

A great case to look at in terms of understanding the impact the federal government could have if they financially funded and asserted authority may be the slightly related Gibbons v. Ogden (1824).  The decision and subsequent rulings based on its precedent have expanded federal regulatory authority over commerce in general.  For all intents and purposes, the federal government – while not funding the construction of the Erie Canal has all the Constitutional right to regulate it.

More on that in the next post…CLICK HERE

Please leave comments or questions below and let us know what you think of the blog.


Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Travel the path of local events...

Wow, there is a tremendous choice of great things going on this month locally!
If you have read our blog before, you know that we like to occasionally point out local historical events, or recreational activities for families.  However, there is just so much going on the next few weeks we don’t know where to begin!
Seems only right to mention the events at Schoharie Crossing State Historic Site, then we’ll list off some great things happening around the area – complete with links to help you on your travels.  Don’t forget also that there are valuable resources to find out what is going on in the newspapers as well as online. 
The New York State Path Through History program has a searchable calendar online, as well as the really great Visit Montgomery County website!

Here are some upcoming events at Schoharie Crossing:

National Parks Trust- Kids to Parks Day
Saturday, May 16, 2015 10:00 AM - 01:00 PM
Schoharie Crossing will host Nature Walks for kids on the towpath trails of the historic site at 10am and 1pm. Walks will head out from the Visitor Center along the Woodchuck Walk and return on the Towpath Trail to the scenic overlook of the Schoharie Creek Aqueduct. Who knows what birds, animals, plants and flowers we will see!
Come enjoy the day at your local park, explore the beauty of these historic grounds, the nature that abounds while enjoying the spring air and sounds. Pack a lunch to enjoy at the either the Aqueduct Boat Launch or Yankee Hill Lock picnic areas. Get the kids out to a park for an enjoyable day!

Fort Hunter Uncovered

Tuesday, May 26, 2015 06:30 PM
Join in the fun as New York State Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Archeologist Michael Roets will be speaking about the artifacts discovered in the 2011-2012 excavations of Fort Hunter. Some of the discoveries are on display in the Visitor Center exhibit, and Roets will be bringing greater detail to the methodology of excavating as well as more information on what was found.
The talk starts at 6:30 and is followed by a meeting of the Friends of Schoharie Crossing. Refreshments will be served. Please join us.

Putman Porch Music
Tuesday, June 2, 2015 06:00 PM - 08:00 PM
Enjoy evenings of great music on the porch. Schoharie Crossing encourages local musicians to gather on the porch of the historic Putman Canal Store to play songs of days gone by. American roots, bluegrass and folk music in this terrific setting at Yankee Hill Lock, part of the Erie Canal from the 1850's to 1916 that harkens back to a simpler time. Much like a group of canawlers that happen to be stuck waiting at the lock, a few instruments and strong voices is all that's needed to pass the time. Bring your instrument, your voice, or just come to listen!
Meeting at the Yankee Hill Lock, 553 Queen Anne Road.

_ _ _ _ _

The Fort Hunter Engine & Hose Company is hosting a Mother’s Day Pancake Breakfast on May 10th from 7am-1pm.  Their Mother's Day pancake breakfast is all you can eat and every mother receives a complimentary flower.  There will be a 50/50 raffle, and also a flower basket raffle.

The Artist Revealed: Artist Portraits and Self-Portraits
March 01, 2015 10:00am - June 14, 2015 5:00pm
2 Erie Blvd., Canajoharie, NY 13317
Members: Free, Adults $8, Students & Seniors $6, under 11 free | available at museum desk
For more information please contact:
Mary Beth Vought | 518-673-2314

This exhibition brings together fifty works in a variety of media that examine self-portraits and portraits of other artists. Included in the show are works by Milton Avery, Chuck Close, Leonard Baskin, Edward Steichen, Norman Rockwell, and Anders Zorn. Sitters include James McNeill Whistler, Thomas Eakins, Charlie Chaplin, C.S. Lewis, and Pablo Casals.

The Recorder 2015 Spring Fling
May 16, 2015 10:00am - May 16, 2015 4:00pm
Main Street, Amsterdam
For more information please contact:
Samantha Bonnano | 518-841-4369
Believe or Not ~> Sunshine & Warm Weather is right around the corner!
The City of Amsterdam Recreation Department has begun the planning process of The Recorder 2015 Spring Fling Event
An Annual Event Celebrating A Season of New Beginnings!

May 16, 2015 10:00am - May 17, 2015 4:00pm
174 Lape Rd, Esperance
For more information please contact:

Out of the ordinary trees, shrubs, and perennials are the hallmark of this annual event. New this year! Culinary herbs propagated at Landis! After selecting your plants and baked goods, stop into our book shop for a huge selection of reading material on many different topics, including, of course, gardening. And don't miss the opportunity for a free tour and mini-workshops on both days. Admission and parking are free. Volunteers are needed and welcome. For information, email: info@landisarboretum.org. To sign up to help, email: volunteering@landisarboretum.org
Members and non-members: free. Donations to the Arboretum gratefully accepted.

Impressions of Old Fort Johnson Open House
May 16, 2015 10:00am - May 16, 2015 4:00pm
Intersection of Routes 5 and 67, Fort Johnson 12070
For more information please contact:
Rachel Bliven | 843-0300

Opening Day at Old Fort Johnson - Art Show featuring local artists & their work including new views of this National Historic Landmark, Open House; 18th century Bake Oven will be operating with free samples.

May 16, 2015 6:00pm - May 16, 2015 11:00pm
39 Mohawk Street, Fort Plain 13339
$7.50 in advance/ $10 at the door | http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/1433702
For more information please contact:
Mohawk Valley Collective, Inc. | 5189935506
Join us for the first event of our 2015 Summer Music Series! The Mohawk Valley Collective is a non-profit dedicated to the restoration and adaptive reuse of two of our area's historic architectural gems: Unity Hall (the former Universalist Church in Fort Plain) and the former West Hill School in Canajoharie. In addition to our preservation efforts we also host arts and cultural events in Montgomery County, including our 2nd Annual Summer Music Series. We are proud to present our first show of the 2015 series Saturday, May 16th. Join us for an evening of great Country, Blues and Folk music featuring (in line-up order): Pat Ruddy (Troy, NY) Folk Rock City of the Sun (NY, NY) Indie folk The Rusty Doves (Utica, NY) Americana, Swing Ramblin Andy (Brooklyn, NY) Country Blues American Honey Band (Upstate NY) Country https://www.facebook.com/americanhoneysayah All proceeds go to future event programming and building preservation efforts! "Attend" on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/345701095630887/

May 22, 2015 5:30pm - May 22, 2015 7:30pm
THE GARDEN BUG, 844 Ft. Hunter Road, Amsterdam 12010
For more information please contact:
Rose Mary DiBlasi | 518-842-8778
Shop to help raise funds for assisting underprivileged persons in Montgomery County. SPONSORED BY MONTGOMERY COUNTY LADIES OF CHARITY. Free Coupon needed to ensure percentage of purchase is given to the Ladies of Charity. Call 842-8778 or 842-4603 for Coupons.

Van Alstyne Homestead Society and Museum
May 23, 2015 1:00pm - May 23, 2015 4:00pm
42 Moyer Street, Canajoharie 13317
For more information please contact:
Sue Beaver | (518) 673-2468

Join us for the spring/summer season (Saturdays from 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. from Memorial Day Weekend to Labor Day Weekend) and experience Mohawk Valley History first hand in our museum/homestead. Let's help keep Mohawk Valley history alive!!! Donations are very much appreciated and new members are always welcome. To schedule a tour other than Saturdays please contact: John Laffan (315) 269-2198 johnlaffan@wildblue.net Fritz Traudt (518) 673-5528 home (518) 332-0434 cell trfritz79@gmail.com Joanne Mickel(518) 673-3727 home (518) 339-9164 cell


The Fulton-Montgomery Regional Chamber of Commerce is a great conduit for businesses, programs, and sites to reach their community.  


Thank you for supporting Schoharie Crossing along with us.  For more information about the site, programs, events, recreational space or any other questions, please contact: SchoharieCrossing@parks.ny.gov or (518) 829-7516