DesBarres's agent Mary Cannon had granted the tenants 990 year leases at a very favourable rate. The tenants very much wanted to maintain their leases and had banded together to share costs in defending them. DesBarres sued Henry Ripley in 1816 to break his lease but Henry prevailed in court. The court case affirmed the tenants' leases and their ability to sell their leases to others. This rendered the property virtually worthless to the landlord who was unable to eject the tenant or raise the rent. It's as if you had rented your first apartment and obtained a lease for $100 for 999 years. As the rents went up to $1000, $2000, you could sell your lease to someone else but the landlord could not raise your rent, eject you, or prohibit you from selling your lease.
It seems that Henry Ripley, who had been targeted by DesBarres with a lawsuit, emerged as the ringleader when the tenants made common cause. However, DesBarres agent James S. Morse claims to have exerted his personal influence with Henry and persuaded him to make an offer to purchase his homestead. This must be taken with a grain of salt as Morse made this claim in the context of a lawsuit defending a huge bill he had sent to the DesBarres estate for his services. However, it does raise an interesting question. Were the tenants wise to purchase their properties or should they have tried to hold onto their leases? I've updated the DesBarres vs Tenants page of my website.