de Halve Maen, Spring 2017 by The Holland Society of New York

de Halve Maen

Journal of The Holland Society of NewYork Spring 2017

de Halve Maen

The Holland Society of New York 708 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY 10017

Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America

President Andrew Terhune Vice President Col. Adrian T. Bogart III Treasurer Eric E. Delamarter

Secretary R. Dean Vanderwarker III Domine Rev. Paul D. Lent

Advisory Council of Past Presidents Roland H. Bogardus W. Wells Van Pelt Jr. Kenneth L. Demarest Jr. Walton Van Winkle III Robert Schenck William Van Winkle Peter Van Dyke Charles Zabriskie Jr. Trustees Christopher M. Cortright David W. Ditmars Philips Correll Durling Andrew A. Hendricks James J. Middaugh John G. Nevius David D. Nostrand

Edwin Outwater III Gregory M. Outwater Alexander C. Simonson Samuel K. Van Allen Frederick M. Van Sickle Stuart W. Van Winkle Kenneth Grant Winans

Trustees Emeriti Adrian T. Bogart Jr. David M. Riker Ralph L. DeGroff Jr. Kent L. Stratt John O. Delamater David William Voorhees Robert G. Goelet John R. Voorhis III Robert Gardiner Goelet Ferdinand L. Wyckoff Jr. John T. Lansing Stephen S . Wyckoff Rev. Everett L. Zabriskie III

VOL. XC

Production Manager Odette Fodor-Gernaert

Editor David William Voorhees Editorial Committee Peter Van Dyke, Chair

David M. Riker

Spring 2017

Copy Editor Sarah Bogart John Lansing Henry N. Staats IV

NUMBER 1

IN THIS ISSUE: 2

Editor’s Corner

Living with Rivers by Leo Schreuders

Peasants’ Paradise: A Comparison between the Local Economies of Kings County, New York, and Flanders in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries by Reinoud Vermoesen and Rogier van Kooten

Burgher Guard Captain Sarah Bogart Vice-Presidents Connecticut–Westchester Samuel K. Van Allen Dutchess and Ulster County George E. Banta Florida James S. Lansing International Lt. Col. Robert W. Banta Jr. Jersey Shore Stuart W. Van Winkle Long Island Eric E. DeLamarter Mid-West Gary Louis Sprong New Amsterdam Eric E. DeLamarter New England Charles Zabriskie Jr. Niagara David S. Quackenbush Old Bergen–Central New Jersey Gregory M. Outwater Old South Henry N. Staats IV Pacific Northwest Edwin Outwater III Pacific Southwest (North) Kenneth G. Winans Pacific Southwest (South) Paul H. Davis Patroons Robert E. Van Vranken Potomac Christopher M. Cortright Rocky Mountain Col. Adrian T. Bogart III South River Walton Van Winkle III Texas James J. Middaugh Virginia and the Carolinas James R. Van Blarcom United States Air Force Col. Laurence C. Vliet, USAF (Ret) United States Army Col. Adrian T. Bogart III United States Coast Guard Capt. Louis K. Bragaw Jr. (Ret) United States Marines Lt. Col. Robert W. Banta Jr., USMC (Ret) United States Navy LCDR James N. Vandenberg, CEC, USN

Spring 2017

Book Review: Joyce D. Goodfriend, Who Shall Rule at Home? Confronting the Elite in British New York City by Firth Haring Fabend

Here and There in New Netherland Studies

Society Activities

In Memoriam

The Holland Society of New York was organized in 1885 to collect and preserve information respecting the history and settlement of New Netherland by the Dutch, to perpetuate the memory, foster and promote the principles and virtues of the Dutch ancestors of its members, to maintain a library relating to the Dutch in America, and to prepare papers, essays, books, etc., in regard to the history and genealogy of the Dutch in America. The Society is principally organized of descendants in the direct male line of residents of the Dutch colonies in the present-day United States prior to or during the year 1675. Inquiries respecting the several criteria for membership are invited. De Halve Maen (ISSN 0017-6834) is published quarterly by The Holland Society. Subscriptions are $28.50 per year; international, $35.00. Back issues are available at $7.50 plus postage/handling or through PayPaltm. POSTMASTER: send all address changes to The Holland Society of New York, 708 Third Ave., 6th Floor, New York, NY 10017. Telephone: (212) 758-1675. Fax: (212) 758-2232. E-mail: info@hollandsociety.org Website: www.hollandsociety.org Copyright © 2017 The Holland Society of New York. All rights reserved.

Cover: Fragment of Jacob van Ruisdael, Landscape With A Windmill (1646). Cleveland Museum of Art.

Editor’s Corner

MONG POPULAR PERCEPTIONS of New Netherland is that “the Dutch settlers did not take much of an interest in agriculture” but instead “focused on the more lucrative fur trade.” Whatever agriculture the Dutch colony had was dominated by large medieval estates known as patroonships. Samuel Nissenson, in his 1937 Patroon’s Domain, postulated that such West India Company investors as Kiliaen van Rensselaer “pretended” to have an interest in agricultural settlement in order to obtain large land grants for in reality to control the fur market. In 1993, however, David Steven Cohen published The Dutch American Farm. This work focused on the everyday life of ordinary Dutch settlers, revealing a world of small independent farmsteads in the process. Since then there has been an increasing literature on the independent farmer’s role in the development of New Netherland. This issue of de Halve Maen continues the exploration of New Netherland’s agricultural development and how it shaped mid-Atlantic economies. Dutch tourist Leo Schreuders was intrigued by links to the early modern Netherlands he found in New York and New Jersey while visiting the United States. The distribution of Dutch Reformed churches, Dutch toponyms, and architectural heritage, particularly along the region’s waterways, revealed for him a distinct Dutch cultural landscape. He thus became determined to uncover the connection in the Netherlands. Using the family and place names he found in New York and New Jersey and placing them in the Dutch landscape, he discovered a trail that led to farming communities “situated on the ribbon-like lands bisected by canals and dikes.” What Schreuders found, as he relates in these pages, is that more than half to possibly two thirds of New Netherlands’ settlers came from rural villages situated in the Netherlands Plain, “a polder landscape ingrained in the minds of millions of people around the world,” he writes, of “sparsely populated stretches of grassland, grazing cattle, dairy farms producing milk and cheeses,” and “with windmills everywhere.” Out of the total number of 160 villages in the Netherlands Plain, Schreuders finds that New Netherland immigrants came from at least sixty-one of the villages. Moreover, when ignoring current Dutch provincial borders, the immigrants formed a homogeneous group. In order to truly understand this movement of people, Schreuders explores what motivated such people to pick up roots, move across the Atlantic to a new land, and to bring their farming methods with them. His conclusion in these pages may surprise some. Reinoud Vermoesen and Rogier van Kooten nicely segue from Schreuder immigrant farmer into the development of New Netherland agricultural society. While the directors of the West India Company may have had a clear mindset on large-scale commercial exploitations, according to Vermoesen and Van Kooten they soon discovered that the driving force behind the ascent of a new local economy was diverse freeholder farming. To gain insight into the development of New Netherland’s rural economy the authors selected six villages on the western Long Island: Breuckelen, Boswijk,

Midwout, Amersfoort, New Utrecht, and Gravesend. In addition to tax and other public records they found a rich resource in two detailed account books for the period 1674–1688 of Elbert Elbertsen Stoothoff, a typical New Netherland freeholder. As a result of their research, the authors find that the Company’s commercial model was “ultimately defeated by the peasant family model based on the household as a production and consumption unit.” To understand why this occurred, Vermoesen and Van Kooten compare New Netherland’s emerging agricultural communities with peasant societies, in particular those in the Low Countries, where most of the colonists came from. In these communities, such as rural inland Flanders, it became apparent “how flexible, personalized, and reciprocal credit and labor markets were.” Here, the authors tell us, we find the origin of the “freeholder” farmer who became the central component of, and defined, pre-industrial North American agriculture. It is the development of the independent family farm that truly sets New Netherland apart and contributed to its growth during the final twenty-five years of Dutch government. Indeed, after 1664 it became up to the new English rulers to “convince subsistence peasants to produce for the export markets of the English Empire.” Both essays in this issue thus suggest that to understand the differences between the English gentry-dominated commercial agriculture and New Netherland’s, one needs to consider that the origin of many New Netherland immigrants in the Dutch Republic and Flanders, regions with dominant freeholder structures. As Schreuders notes, “The Netherlands Plain emigrant opened an invitation for further exploration in terms of networks and relationships between the early settlers in the Netherlands and later in the Middle Colonies, and their contribution to the agricultural history of the United States.” Times change and institutions in order to survive must change with them. The Holland Society of New York has not remained immune to the forces that are reshaping our world in the twenty-first century. Indeed, within a year the Society Trustees streamlined the constitution for a digital generation, opened up full membership to women, ending the patriarchal traditions of the past, and, most recently, with the intention of becoming a more digital organization, closed its library, sending its holdings to be integrated into those of the New York State Library in Albany. This issue of de Halve Maen also transitions into the future by becoming an online publication with print-on-demand for those who wish to obtain a hard copy. Please contact the office if you wish to receive a hard copy.

David William Voorhees Editor

de Halve Maen

Living with Rivers by Leo Schreuders

The Netherlands Plain.

N THE SUMMER of 2013, my wife and I, tourists from the Netherlands, were taken to places in New York and New Jersey like Esopus, Kinderhook, Middleburgh, and Mahwah, where we saw farms linked to the early modern Dutch. The key? The founding dates of local Dutch Reformed Churches. We followed the trail of the descendants of farmers from the Netherlands Plain, the western end of the low lying Northern European Plain, which led us to an exciting entrance into a world of historic heritage with a distinct Dutch flavor not often mentioned in tourist brochures. Could I replicate this experience in the Netherlands by setting out an itinerary using the family and place names mentioned in New Netherland documents? Working with this concept, a key opened another door into an iconic world of rectangular plots cultivated a thousand years ago in Europe—a world with a trail that led to the oldest Dutch farming communities, the first stone farmsteads situated on the ribbon-like lands bisected by canals and dikes. Around these Dutch villages American family names such as Koeymans and Van de Water in Schoonrewoerd, Cool in Vianen, or Ten Eyck in Huinen literally fell into place. Some place names also fell into place, like Bern or Kortgericht, not Swiss Leo Schreuders is a recently retired economist, although he continues to lecture at the postgraduate school of accountancy at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He has worked in financial institutions as well as in various governmental ministeries, including the Ministry of Finance. He most recently facilitated in the quality of the audit profession in the Far East through the Ministry of Development Cooperation. His previous publications are in the field of accounting.

nor Belgian but Dutch names situated in the polders. We toured the plain, a centuries old network landscaped by men of the historic bishopric of Utrecht, of which Gelder Valley polder villages such as Huinen, Hell, Voorthuizen, and Wekerom were a part. To a large extent the Dutch settlers in New Netherland were farmers. They made the early modern American mid-Atlantic region a success, duplicating the Dutch agricultural powerhouse overseas. This article highlights the Netherlands Plain as the principle place of origin for immigrants to New Netherland by mapping out the émigré villages. Another focus is to unveil motives for emigration, some of a circumstantial nature, a few based on more personal observations. Mapping Out the Émigré Villages in the Netherlands Plain: The distribution of Dutch Reformed churches, Dutch toponyms, architectural heritage, and early census data show a distinct Dutch cultural landscape in parts of New York State and New Jersey, especially along the waterways. Here we find the records of the first generation of European farmers on Manhattan and Long Island, in Albany, Kingston, Hurley, Schenectady, Bergen, and Aqueckenok, places that still echo an origin in the Netherlands. Later generations left traces of Dutch origins in village or family histories. When analyzing these sources, it appears that more than half to possibly two thirds of the settlers came from the rural villages of the Netherland Plain, situated in the bog region around the city of Utrecht and the town of Meppel (in respectively thirty and fifteen-mile radiuses). Five regions that stand out in terms of numbers of emigrants: the Islands, the Rhine-Lek, the Eem-Gelder Valley,1 the Vecht, and Meppel.

To map out the émigré villages from where the settlers came, three documents were used for guidance. First, the “Sketch of Lands Division of the United Netherlands” was used as input for the administrative districts of the land following the United Provincesʼ declaration of independence from Spain.2 Second, the first Dutch census3 provided insights into the size of émigré villages and the relative size of the emigrant groups.4 The third document was a map made by J. Jansonius van Waesbergen in 1654 that shows the villages of origin of the settlers in their seventeenth-century landscape.5 The Netherlands Plain stretches out from the coastal sand ridges in the west to the higher sand grounds of the Veluwe in the east, bisected by the Utrecht Hill Ridge. To the south, the plain includes the river delta Including three villages of Barneveld Borough—Voorthuizen, Garderen, and Kootwyk, and three villages of Ede Borough—Lunteren, Bennekom, and Wekerom. 1

Jan Christiaan Sepp, “De Vereenigde Nederlanden of Zeven Vrye Provinciën Gesloten in den Jaare 1579 te Utrecht in 1773,” Nieuwe Geographische Nederlandsche Reise- en Zak-atlas (Amsterdam, 1773), http://www.wazamar.org/ Nederlanden/VIIprovin1773/ut-1773.htm. 2

Volks-Tellinge in de Nederlandsche Republiek. Uitgegeven op last der commissie tot het ontwerpen van een plan van contitutie voor het volk van Nederland. 1796. In den Haag ter ‘sLands Drukkery. Census 1795. Bylagen XXVI–LVI. The census reflects the mid-eighteenth-century size of agricultural villages that barely grew throughout the 1540–1795 period. 3

NIDI, Bevolkingatlas van Nederland: Demografische ontwikkelingen 1850 tot heden (Rijswijk, 2003), 8: “a max. of 1.9 Mn inhabitants was reached around 1650; the 1795 census shows 2.1 Mn, 11 percent higher than available estimates from the 1650s. This seems to correspond with the available estimates per town in the regions at hand, as based on tax returns [Paul Brusse, Overleven door ondernemen: de agrarische geschiedenis van de Over-Betuwe 1650–1850 (Wageningen, 1999)]. 4

“Gelders Archief Dvcatvs Geldriae Dvcatvs Geldriae: novissima descriptio, 1654 apud [J.] Janssonio-Waesbergio; Moses Pit et Stephanus Swart Ingebonden” in: A. van Slichtenhorst, XIV boeken van de Geldersse geschiedenissen (Arnhem, 1653–1654). 5

Spring 2017

Emigrant Villages from J. Jansonius, Ducatus Geldriae (1654). up to the high grounds of the province of North Brabant. The plain continues north as far as Meppel via a narrow coastal strip on the coast of the former inland sea, the Zuyder Zee. This plain is quintessentially Dutch: a polder landscape ingrained in the minds of millions of people around the world, consisting of long, narrow, and sparsely populated stretches of grassland, grazing cattle, and dairy farms producing milk and cheeses such as the iconic Gouda or Leerdam. Windmills everywhere keep the reclaimed land dry after it sank and was then drained in the years following the “great land development.” The city of Utrecht and the plain around it—the ancient Bishopric of Utrecht—was the urban heart of the northern Netherlands, called the Randstad (‟the city of the Edge”), a center of economic power in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.6 In the mid-seventeenth century approximately 450,000 people lived here, compared with 460,000 in London. The ancient bishopric comprised the present-day province of Utrecht, large parts of Gelderland,7 and portions of North and South Holland,8 and, earlier, parts of the provinces of Overijssel and Drenthe. When leaving the current borders of the provinces out of the equation, a homogeneous group of farmers emerge— the farmers from the ancient bishopric of Utrecht and the Netherlands Plain. Within these borders were sixty-one

villages from which New Netherland emigrants originated. Taking the average size of the villages into account it seems likely that most of the emigrants came from farming communities. As the table shows, the average size of the villages the emigrants came from varied between 436 to 500 inhabitants. The number of emigrants was relatively small. In the three tables that follow the villages of origin are listed for two bordering regions. The first region is the central river delta of the large rivers between the rivers

Meuse, Waal, and Lek, as well as the Linge. The other area is the lowland west and east of the Utrecht Hill Ridge, the land of the Rhine and Lek, as well as the Eem River, bordering on the north the former inland sea. Next to the tables segments of the map made by J. Jansonius van Waesbergen in 1654 are included. The Islands is the first region: the rivers Meuse, Waal, Linge, and Lek are presented from left to right on the map. The red dots on the segment of the Jansonius map represent the places Ibid., 100.

L. J. Rogier, Geschiedenis van het katholicisme in NoordNederland in de 16e en de 17e eeuw, 3 vols. (Amsterdam, 1945–1947), 220; including the former archdiaconate of Emmerik, politically not a part of the Netherlands. 7

Ibid., 220: diploma Ex injuncto of 11 March 1561, with the exception of the Harlem region. 8

Emigrant Villages on the Islands. J. Jansonius, Ducatus Geldriae (1654).

de Halve Maen

Emigrant Villages in Eem-Gooij and Gelder Valley, Ducatus Geldriae (1654).

Emigrant Villages of the Northern Plains, Nederlanden VII province (1773). of origin of the farmer immigrants to New Netherland. From the top down we see the towns and villages from the map in the table by district numbered [1–8]. The second region shown is the area north of the Lek River and south of the inland sea—the core area of the bishopric of Utrecht. From the top down, we see the towns and villages from the map in the table by district numbered [1–5]. Further out in the Northern Plains, is the landscape of Drenthe, now the province of Drenthe the former jurisdictions consisted of six dingspels and four lordships.9 People migrated to New Netherland from the second and the third dingspel. From

Beilingerdingspel (second), they came from the towns of Beilen and Halen. From Dieverderdingspel (third), people came from the towns of Meppel and Dwingeloo. From the lordship of Ruinen—a tract of land leased to the lords of Ruinen by the bishop of Utrecht—people came from the towns of Ruinen, Hees, and Ruinerwold. Circumstantial Triggers and Personal Motivations: At first sight none of the recognized motives for emigration seem applicable, as there was no religious or intellectual restraint, no political unrest, and no social discontent. 10 ‟Quite the contrary.”11 Even the Dutch East India

Company (VOC), the larger and more successful brother of the WIC, had difficulty in recruiting enough Dutch for its South African colony, thus, as for New Netherland, Huguenots and Germans were recruited. In the end the VOC attracted 317,000 crew on 1700 ships, a number of a much greater magnitude than the number of immigrants to New Netherland, where in the 1630s fewer than 1,000 people lived in the under-populated colony. Population in New Netherland only rose to an estimated 9,000 by 1664 as a consequence of the influx of families (70 percent of immigrants). Seventeenth-century farmers in the Netherlands had a commercial and specialized approach. Working in a less feudal environment than found elsewhere in contemporary Europe, they divided their time between commercial activities. Out of the total number of 160 villages in the Netherlands Plain, New Netherland emigrants came from sixty-one small villages; villages with easy access to markets by waterways to sell crops in the towns, even those in the eastern provinces. Through the import of cheap grain, farmers specialized in intensive agriculture and grew such industrial crops as hemp or hops. Commercialization and specialization made Dutch agriculture highly profitable. The majority of farming households were not only cultivators, they divided their time between several commercial activities, such as dairying, peat digging, boat and wagon transport, reed gathering, freshwater fishing, fowling, seafaring, spinning, dike and ditch labor, and a wide variety of household industries. This practice continued in the New World. The Atlantic Province’s Appeal: How, then, did the promotion of New Netherland to these agricultural communities materialize? In its first stage, the Dutch West India Company (WIC) set rules and led in recruiting. The Company’s mission was to make ‟New Netherland the Granary of the Western Atlantic.” The first farms around New Amsterdam fed the town and produced flour for export. The first dominant immigrant group were single young men The term dingspel is derived from the Geman word ding, a governing assembly, and a session that was held three times a year until 1580 by the highest representative of the Bishop of Utrecht. Ting in the modern Scandinavian context still means a parliament. 9

Originally published in Annual Report of the American Historical Association 1931, Volume I (Washington, D.C., 1932), 103–441. 10

Jaap Jacobs, New Netherland: A Dutch Colony in Seventeenth-Century America (London and Ithaca, N.Y., 2005), 33. 11

Spring 2017

contracted by the WIC to set up farms or work as farm hands. Until 1649, trade was tightly regulated, without room to maneuver for smaller farmers. As a consequence, New Netherland during its first thirty or forty years was an unattractive prospect for agricultural setters. Indeed, in the first years of the few farmers who did come, many returned to the fatherland. A 1634 contract of Kees Theunis van Breukelen, from Westbroek, is an example.12 I, . . . Cornelis Theunissen van Breuckelen, thirty years old, acknowledge by this my signature, that I have entered the service of Killian van Rensselaer, patroon of the Colony called Rensselaerswyck . . . for the period of three years commencing with my arrival there in the aforesaid colony to help . . . in carpentering, bricklaying, farming or such other work as I shall be ordered to do or be capable of doing, without distinction of work, and that I will not engage, without the consent . . . in any fur trade or obtain furs by gift or barter, upon forfeiture of all my goods or pain of peremptory correction touching my person or goods, and this for the sum of 180 guilders a year, . . . the aforesaid patroon shall procure passage for me in the ship which is being fitted out and pay my board at 6 stivers a day and besides making me a present of 25 guilders for my passage going and coming, which I acknowledge that I have received, without deduction from my wages, and if within the aforesaid period of three years, I quit his service without his express consent, he shall not be bound

The Village of Well on the river Meuse, Bommelerwaard.

to pay me a single penny of all that I have earned and I nevertheless be held to satisfy him for the remaining time. I also bind myself under all such regulations and instructions as my aforesaid patroon has already made or shall cause to be made hereafter or which shall be made in his name, to regulate myself accordingly, under penalties and punishment thereto attached, it being understood that over and above the 180 guilders, I shall have also free board, and in case the patroon or his agents should not be satisfied with my service, they shall be free to discharge me before the expiration of the aforesaid three years at any time they please. All this in good faith and in witness of the truth, I have signed this together with Jacob Dircsz Vogel, formerly baker, who offers himself as surety for the aforesaid Cornelis Theunissz, in Amsterdam, this fifth of April, sixteen hundred and thirty-four. [1634] Also received from the hands of the aforesaid the sum of five guilders in order that I may equip myself the better with axes, adzes, trowels and other tools, which will not be deducted, from my wages. Done as above. 2 Reichsthaler at 50 stivers ƒ5. Signed Cornelis Thonissen.13 The Company did not promote permanent settlement by families, so a social network did not develop within the colony. The focus on the fur trade and the Companyʼs tight control on agricultural produce in the first fifteen years did not favor private farming. Indeed, Company farming on Manhattan only ended in 1651, when Farm No. 1 was sold to Petrus Stuyvesant. Few WIC plans for promoting settlement materialized. Contracted farmers left to pursue for the profitable fur trade. In 1636,

Polder Mill, circa 1627, Hellouw Tielerwaard, Lek and Linge District, Gelderland.

Kiliaen van Rensselaer made an ultimate attempt and sent thirty-eight junior and senior farmers and craftsmen to his patroonship. These people were more successful than earlier settlers and they made agriculture a career. Most of them began as farm hands or assistant farmers and then became farmers in their own right in their second term of contract. Half of the settlers in this 1631 cohort were recruited from regions in the Netherlands Plain. The States of Holland were unsatisfied with New Netherlandʼs slow development and issued an ultimatum to the WIC to increase the population or they would take over. In 1640, the WIC launched two plans that gave colonists the right to trade freely and gave prospective colonists the incentive that if a household head emigrated with five additional people, they were entitled to 200 acres of land. Both of these incentives attracted immigrants and encouraged agriculture. Free land did so for the obvious reasons, but the liberalization of commerce allowed farmers to spread their interests. This corresponded to the way agriculture was conducted in the Netherlands; a farmer had his businesses on the side. Settlements that were established and developed after 1640, such as those in the Esopus and in northeastern New Jersey, were able to develop and grow. Farms in the colony became widespread after 1654, when the Republic lost Brazil. The surge in immigration after 1657 also may reflect an all-out campaign by the WIC and the Dutch government to provide New Netherland with the number of people it had long needed.14 His full name was Cornelis Anthonisz van Slyck. [Broer Cornelis] from Westbroek/Maartensdijk, earliest magistrate of Rensselaerswijck with Brant Peelen, Gerrit de Reus, Pieter Cornelissen van Munickendam, and Dirck Janssen. Edmund Bailey O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland: Or, New York Under the Dutch, 2 vols. (New York, 1855), 1: 322. 12

Contract between Killiaen van Rensselaer and Cornelis Teunisz van Breuckelen, Van Rensselaer Bowier manuscripts: being the letters of Kiliaen Van Rensselaer, 1630-1643, and other documents relating to the colony of Rensselaerswyck, A. J. F. van Laer, trans. and ed. (Albany, 1908), 27. 13

Oliver A. Rink, Holland on the Hudson: An Economic and Social History of Dutch New York (Ithaca, N.Y., 1986), 149. 14

Oscar McMurtrie Voorhees, Historical handbook of the

de Halve Maen

Promotional propaganda, perhaps written at the Company’s request, may have been effective in turning around the once-poor image of New Netherland. In 1650, Cornelius van Tienhoven, Secretary of the New Netherland colony, published a pamphlet intended “to encourage families to migrate thither.” There were descriptions of the land, crops, planting times, building plans, and so on.15 Five years later, Adriaen van der Donck’s Description of the New Netherlands (sic) was published. Van der Donck’s work gave glowing descriptions of New Netherland— it was a paradise. In Anthology of New Netherland or translations of the early Dutch poets of New York, Henry Murphy published in 1865 several poems written by poet Jacob Steendam in the 1650s. In his poem “Pride of New Netherland,” Steendam calls New Netherland “thou noblest spot on earth.” And in the poem “Spurring Verses,” he writes “Choose you, New Netherland.”16 One anonymous pamphlet entitled Short Account of New Netherland’s Potential Virtues created an idyllic Eden in the American forest, where democracy would rule supreme and all would accept every decision reached by “free living Christians.”17 So suited was this paradise to “Dutch industry and thrift” that only riches and happiness awaited those willing to emigrate. This combination of incentives and motivations had an impact, for the colony boomed in the late 1650s and early 1660s. It is reasonable to assume that prospective emigrants knew about New Netherland, and probably of the opportunities directly from people who had gone to New Netherland before them. In the 1660s, a certain normalcy in immigration developed. By that date the WIC realized that by giving “greater encouragement to agriculture” meant encouraging “the settlement of population.” Agriculture and open trade stabilized this society with roots deep enough in the Hudson River Valley and in the valleys of northeastern New Jersey to survive the Dutch administration. The farming society that grew from then on proves that the Dutch efforts to establish a farming settlement led to success, upon which the Middle Colonies and a 100 years later the United States were able to build upon. Motivation: Dutch Farmers must have heard the call of the WIC or the patroons by way of their recruiters, through middlemen

Dike breakthrough between the Rhine and Lek River, 1724. like domines or from family and acquaintances, by reading pamphlets, or meeting each other in the marketplace or in the polders maintaining the dikes. Would it be noticed if someone left? The population distribution for unmarried men in the age bracket of 17–25 years was approximately 0.6 percent of the total population at any given year in time.18 For a village of 500 that is potentially three young men a year. Over a period of ten years émigrés potentially numbered thirty young men. If in any one year one out of three men emigrated about a third of the villageʼs age group emigrated, the quantitative impact of the emigration of young men from villages in the 1700s would be notable. Villagers, especially young men, likely talked about motivation and opportunities of those who decided to leave. Closely knit network of the plain: People, especially those living in the close-knit network of the Netherlands Plain, must have learned about the prospects in the overseas province. They were well connected economically, politically, and theologically, and certainly in their organized struggle against water. People knew each other well and intermarried. Such an example is Catalyntje Martense van Alstyne, who connected four regions of origin, including the Meppel region, through family marital ties. Members of the villages cooperated in cultivating and draining the wetlands of the plain. The constant inflow of water from the high grounds of Europe made water management a form of survival, which led to an early form of democracy in the

defense against flooding and to structural communication between farmsteads along the waterways. Farmers needed to work together, especially in the regions where the vast majority of settlers came from. Reasons to Emigrate: People from the plain heeded the call to emigrate for various reasons. An overall trigger may have been the economic downturn after the 1650s. In the émigré regions, specific triggers also may have had the upper hand, as in the Vecht, where the land became too wet to cultivate, or in the river delta, where the battle behind the dikes brought too many uncertainties. Serfdom, with its limited possibilities for personal initiative, may have been a specific motive for emigrating from the Gelder Valley, where tight control by German convents was evident. The consequences of the Reformation and concentration of landownership stands out in Eemland, the Rhine-Lek, and the Meppel region. The revolt against Spain was a catalyst for the acceleration of the concentration of land leaseholds in the emigrant regions. The appearance of super Van Voorhees family in the Netherlands and America (New Brunswick, N.J., 1935), 14. Dr. H. P. Schaap, on p. 17 Henry C. Murphy, Anthology of New Netherland or translations of the early Dutch poets of New York, with the memoirs of their lives (New York, 1865), the poems and memoirs of Jacob Steendam and Henricus Selyns, and the poet Nicasius de Sillè. 16

Franciscus van den Enden, Kort Verhael van Nieuw-Nederlants Gelegenheit, Deughden, Natuurlijke Voorrechten, en bij andere bequaembeidt (Amsterdam, 1662), 61. 17

Bevolkingatlas van Nederland: Demografische ontwikkelingen 1850 tot heden, 133. The population distribution of 1850 seems to be comparable with that of these earlier periods, also see note 4. 18

Rogier, Geschiedenis katholicisme, 410.

Spring 2017

tenants lessened opportunities for small farmers to own land. Religious orders also had a pervasive presence in the rural communities of the seventeenth century. On the eve of the Reformation, the churchʼs landownership was over 40 percent. Following the Reformation, these former church estates were transferred to cities or provinces. In the émigré regions, Norbertine abbeys in Beesd and Bern were two of the largest landowners. Benedictines owned abbeys in Utrecht and had a stronghold in the Ruinen region. In the Vecht region, Utrecht deaneries owned estates. Because cities were in a constant need of money, land rents were tendered, leading to arbitrary higher rents from one year to the next. The emigrants or their parents may have suffered material loss from the consequences of the revolt against Habsburg Spain. Warfare was still present in the first quarter of the seventeenth century. The rural population in the province of Utrecht remained overwhelmingly Roman Catholic on both sides of the river Lek and along the Vecht and Eem under the influence of local gentry.19 This did not leave much room for the small farmers and craftsmen who joined the Reformation. Recruiters, Rich Uncles, and Chain Immigration: Recruitment of farmers by local key figures or family already in the colony may have provided confidence. People seem to react to personal messages in letters or success stories told by New Netherland residents who came on return trips to the Fatherland. Quite a few farmhands did well and after their first contracts as a farmhand became farmers in their own right. The “rich uncle from America” story may already have attracted people in the seventeenth century, as is the case of Jan Jansz Damen.20 He bequeathed a sum to the poor of Bunnik. Some charities established in the New Netherland had a long life; one established by the Albany Domine Dellius is still functioning.21 Pieter Bijlevelt and his

Pieter Brueghel the Younger, “Payment of Tenths,” 1619. wife, two of the first emigrants, did a comparable thing in establishing a retirement home in 1664 in the Netherlands, which was not closed until as late as 1968. Sometimes an insight into the character of a recruiter is given. The case of Kiliaen van Rensselaer, for example, suggests how Gerrit de Reus from the Rhine-Lek region may have lured people to come to the colony. “All these quarrels originated with Gerrit de Reus deceased, who made the people believe what-ever he saw fit.”22 It seems that one of the strengths of Gerrit was being a smooth talker with a specialty in persuading people to come to the colony. Chain Emigrations and Networks: Networks of family, friends, and acquaintances were of great importance to persuade emigration, leading to chain migrations. In the first period, recruitment by a representative of the WIC or the Van Rensselaers may have prevailed. The Van Rensselaers and their representatives recruited many of the settlers for the patroonship of Rensselaerswijck from around Utrecht, Amersfoort, and Nykerk.23 Early representatives in-

M. Brouertus, Saint Paul’s Abbey, Utrecht, St. Paul’s Abbey, a monastery in Utrecht, was the second oldest Roman Catholic monastery in the Netherlands.

cluded Wolfert Gerritsz van Couwenhoven, who married into the Van Rensselaer family, Gerrit de Reus, and Wouter van Twiller, son of Maria van Rensselaer, sister of Kiliaen.24 Jan van Rensselaer, the second son of the first patroon, engaged a group of farmers in 1651.25 From the region around Crailo in the Gooijland, where Kiliaen had his country estate, people came from the nearby towns of Hilversum, Blaricum, and Laren. Although Rijckart van Rensselaer, Kiliaenʼs fifth son, was appointed treasurer of the city Vianen on the Lek River as late as 1681 by the Countess of Brederode, Rijckart may show ties to the region with towns of Schoonrewoerd and Beesd, where so many settlers came from. Another possibility is that Stuyvesant knew the region well, as his father died there at the Diefdijk in Overheykoop.26 Representatives of the New Netherlands Company—the precursor to the WIC—may already have planted the seed of the thought to migrate to distant The inventory of his personal property fills ten folio pages; he was co-owner of the privateer La Garce, HNN, 1:434–35. 20

Ad van Bemmel, Het Delliusfonds (1740–2012): Nalatenschap predikanten in Cothen, New York, Halsteren en Culemborg, Historische Reeks Kromme Rijngebied 13 (2012). 21

Van Rensselaer-Bowier Manuscripts, 489.

William J. Hoffman, ‟Random notes concerning settlers of Dutch descent,” The American Genealogist, Whole Number 114 Vol. 29, No. 2 (April 1953), 66. 23

Ibid., 13 Nov. 1641 Not. J. van de Ven [from O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland, 1: 122. 24

Hoffman, Op Cit., 68–69.

Ancestry.com links to this site, http://freepages.genealogy. rootsweb.ancestry.com/~rclarke/page1/stuyvesa.htm. 26

Hoffman, 179.

de Halve Maen

shores. An example of this is Lambert van Tweehuisen, whose family owned much land in one of the last developed bog lands in the polder Mastenbroek near Hasselt, fifteen miles from Meppel. In the period after 1640 well-known New Netherland family names like Lansing and Beekman appear from Hasselt, where Kiliaen was born and where his mother’s family also originated. Representatives of the WIC also may have personally been involved in recruiting colonists. Peperga in Friesland, the village where Petrus Stuyvesant was born, is close to Steenwijk and Meppel, locations where many others came to New Netherland. Is this geographical neighborhood a coincidence or did Stuyvesant induce people from his home turf to come to the New World, either actively or because people knew of this neighbor and his exploits? Some recruiters created chain migrations. Wouter van Twiller, son of Kiliaen’s sister, persuaded over fifty emigrants from his native region in the Gelder Valley to leave from the polders close to the former Zuyder Zee. This area lies in a radius of ten miles around the bogs of Huinen, close to the brookareas of Voorthuizen, Garderen, Kootwijk, Barneveld, Putten, and Nijkerk. The father of Gerrit de Reus, Mattheus Hermansz, possibly ignites a Rhine-Lek chain as early as 1625. De Reus was one of the five architects of New Amsterdam in the service of the WIC. Gerrit recruited a considerable number of settlers from Houten. Personal Circumstances: In the fewest cases, more personal circumstances emerge as a reason to leave for the colony. In the colony’s early days, warfare and reformation still resonated in the community. Placards of the authorities ordering an to end services and all forms of display of Roman Catholicism did not help.27 For example, in Eemnes in the Eem region, almost all inhabitants remained Roman Catholic, with only the farmhands joining the Reformed Dutch Church. This is illustrated in a letter of the mayoress to the provincial authorities. When urged to nominate a member of the Reformed church to become a magistrate, she wrote in response: “we should be apprehensive with the reason that disorders will follow if a day laborer is nominated to be the mayor, exercising authority over the wealthy farmers where he has to earn his bread in manual

labor.”28 In the Vecht region, Ankeveen remained Roman Catholic. The small Protestant congregation suffered harassment by the Catholic majority. During church services, the doors of an inn opposite the church stayed open with dancing and loud singing. Sometimes the church door was nailed shut or cows were allowed to graze on the church grounds. While most of the farming families of the region remained Roman Catholic, family members who became Protestant found themselves at disadvantage, often cut off from family benefits and forced to seek fortunes elsewhere. The families of early settlers—Wolfert van Couwenhoven’s brother in Hoogland, Gerrit de Reus, and Cornelis Aertsz van Schayck in Houten— resemble each other. These families lost a long-time lease. From the Rhine-Lek region, which stayed overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, a pattern emerges of disinherited siblings for religious reasons. The De Reus family lost heavily in the revolt before the turn of the seventeenth century. The Van Schayck family suffered financial reverses and lost the lease on their farmstead near Houten. Their cases resemble that of Wolfert van Couwenhoven, one of the first Protestants in Amersfoort. Wolfert called his farm “Achtervelt,” referring to a Roman Catholic village near Amersfoort, perhaps for nostalgic reasons. The immediate reason for emigration however seems to be that his business as bleacher was not successful because of a downturn in the textile industry. The Rhine-Lek region also shows a chain migration, though one that was a bit larger. In what he calls a ‟genealogical sociogram,” Dr. Marcel S.F. Kemp connects all of the settlers from this region through family ties.29 The chain was set in motion as

early as 1625 by Gerrit de Reus, one of the five original farmers of New Amsterdam in the service of the WIC. The De Reus family stems from ‘t Goy and owned a substantial estate in Rijsbrugge and Vechterbroek. The reason to emigrate may well has been that the family suffered from the eventful times during the revolt against Habsburg Spain and lost heavily before the turn of the seventeenth century.30 Gerrit de Reus came in the 1625 WIC convoy. In 1632, Kilian van Rensselaer contracted him to boost the farming business in the patroonship of Rensselaerswijck, for two reasons: De Reus was an experienced farmer having worked on one of the first WIC farms on Manhattan, and he was willing to sell his cattle to the patroon, which led to a political issue with the WIC. De Reus was to establish a farm on Blommaerts kill, on Laets Island [Laetsburg] near Albany. In the year he was contracted, De Reus visited Utrecht as a representative of the van Rensselaer family. He returned to New Amsterdam on the ship the Soutberg in 1633 with four young farm laborers from the core area of origin of the seventeenth century settlers: Bunnik, Culemborg, Maartensdijk, and Meerkerk. Two of the recruits were working for him; one was his cousin.31 Four years later, in 1637, he again visited the region and recruited Ibid., 166.

M. S. F. Kemp, “Krommerijners in de nieuwe wereld. Een onderzoek naar de achtergrond en onderlinge verwantschap van vroege kolonisten in Nieuw Nederland afkomstig uit het Utrechtse Krommerijngebied,” Nederlandsche Leeuw CIX (October-November 1992), 10-11: 414. 29

A. J. F. van Laer, Settlers of Rensselaerswyck 1630–1658 7,10 e.o. re: Bunnik, Houten, Vechten, ‘t Goy 30

Jan, alias Frederick van Schayck, married to Geertruyt de Reus, was a brother of Aert Janszʼs father and a great uncle of Gerrit de Reus. See Kemp, note 30 31

Cornelis Aertsen Van Schaick, A Biography and his

Flood area Lek River marked in green, 1747.

Spring 2017

Early seventeenthcentury manor farm in the Hell polder.

Crijn Cornelisz and his brother Roelof from Houten in the Rensselaerwijck mission. Crijn began work as a farmhand on a farm in Greenbush [Greenen Bos] on the Rensselaerswijck estate. Following De Reus’s death, Crijn took over the farm as farmer with a partner. Three years later, in 1640, he returned to Utrecht as a recruiter himself, to sail with five lads from Houten on de Waterhondt. This trip seems to conclude the chain of emigration, although a cousin of the wealthy Jan Jansz Damen from Bunnik migrated to New Netherland in 1650. The Van Schayck family—related to the van Reus family—suffered financial reverses and lost their lease on their Overdam farmstead near Houten in about 1600, after eighteen years of occupancy. Cornelis Aertsen van Schayck, who came to Houten, via Westbroek, was Protestant. Most of his father’s siblings remained Roman Catholic. Kemp cites one clear-cut case of a brother disinheriting his siblings for religious reasons and suggests that religion may be the reason why Aert left the family circle at Houten and why Cornelis Aertsen never used the family name Van Schayck. Religion may have cost some farmers the renewals of their leases on lands taken over by the Reformed church, but other factors were at work. Cornelis settled across the Hudson from New Amsterdam in Pavonia.32 In 1649, he is named by Jan Jansz Damen of Bunnik to administer his estate. Cornelisʼs family had close ties with the family of Jan Aertsen van der Bilt. Hell, Huinen, and other places. Wouter van Twiller, who also came on the Soutberg in 1636 with Gerrit de Reus, ran his farms by hiring tenants from his native region in the Gelder valley and the polders close to the former Zuyder Zee, where the Rensselaer family had a homestead close to the hamlet of Hell between Nijkerk and Putten. The Van Twillers and the Van Curlers were related. People were contracted in a ten-

mile radius around the boglands of Huinen, from Barneveld, Putten, Nykerk, and the landscaped brook areas of Voorthuizen, Garderen, and Kootwijk. Albert Terhune and over fifty other less well-known emigrants came from this area as well. In a 1641 contract a reason for hiring from this region is mentioned—it is stated that the two contracted farm hands had “to sow, mow, plough,” in the Gelderland manner.33 Cosyn Gerritsen, a wheelwright from Hell, came to New Netherland. Why did he migrate to New Netherland?34 Historian Firth Haring Fabend’s theory is that Wouter van Twiller, his exact contemporary from Hell, encouraged him to.35 Wouter had his farm close to the location of Cosyn’s bouwerie according to the 1639 Manatus Map. Wouter, planning to grow tobacco on his large property, would have needed a wheelwright to make his farm implements and keep them in repair. In 1651, Jan van Rensselaer, second son of the first patroon, engaged a group of twelve farmers who were natives of this area.36 They sailed in the Gelderse Blom and came from Amersfoort, Bunschoten, Nijkerk, Horst, Wekerom, and Veldhuyzen en de Bilt near Utrecht. Networks of family and friends were of great importance in the seventeenth century, and most people expected to and did reap benefit from them.37

on the Rhine River. As the name suggests it is a place where wagons can be transported to the other side of the river. Today Wageningen is famous for its Agricultural University. Gerrit and Anna took two neighbors to the city council, on November 17, 1660, to testify to their good character. The testimony was taken down and attested to by a “private seal” of the city. What makes the certificate interesting is that it reveals the motivation of the couple to make the big step of emigrating to New Netherland, “to find greater convenience.” The Certificate of Character granted Gerrit and his wife reads: We, burgomasters, aldermen, and councilors of the city of Wageningen, declare by these present, that appeared before us Hendrick Ellisen and Jordiz Spiers, citizens of this city, at the request of Gerritt Gerritsen and Annetjie Hermansse, his wife. They have testified and certified as they do by these present, that they have good knowledge of the above named Gerrit Gerritsen and Annetje Hermansse, his wife, as to their life and conversation, and that they have always been considered and esteemed as pious and honest people, and that no complaint of any evil or disorderly conduct has ever reached their ears; on the contrary, they have always led quiet pious and honest lives, as it becomes pious and honest persons. Forbearers; svanschaick.tripod.com Amsterdam Notarial Archives, 1332, 45, and: Amsterdam Notarial Archives, May 13, 1646, 1060, 89, 89v. 33

Firth Haring Fabend, ‟Cosyn Gerritsen van Putten: New Amsterdam’s Wheelwright” de Halve Maen 80 (Summer 2007), 2:23–30. 34

Later Chains and Networks: Private individuals did not repeat the WICʼs mistake of concentrating on one activity to the exclusion of all others. The end of WICʼs policy of restriction and monopoly contributed to agriculture becoming the colony’s core activity. The new immigrants came to New Netherland because of the general economic liberalization rather than the particular freedom to engage in the fur trade. “The economic pattern in New Netherland, which these immigrants helped to establish, was basically agricultural, with the Indian trade in most areas a common but relatively minor side line.”38 In Wageningen in the Gelder Valley, Gerrit Gerritsen (b. in 1630) and his wife, Anna Hermansse, booked passage on the ship Faith to New Netherland in December 1660.39 Wageningen formerly was part of the Bishopric of Utrecht; it lies in the polder

Jaap Jacobs, New Netherland, 78, and David William Voorhees, ‟Van Twiller, Wouter,” American National Biography, 252–53. 35

Ibid., 68–69.

References to Van Twiller’s land in Phelps-Stokes, Iconography, are in vol. 6, pp. 104, 114, 129, 157, 161-162, 164, 187, 190-191. In addition to this farm, he acquired over his short stay in NA 4 islands (Roosevelt, Wards, Randalls, and Governors), as well as land on Long Island and on the upper east side of Manhattan. Phelps-Stokes describes Bouwerie No. 10 as of 250 acres. The deed says it was 200 acres. See Jaap Jacobs, “A Troubled Man: Director Wouter van Twiller and the Affairs of New Netherland in 1635,” New York History (Summer 2004), 213–32. 37

Allen Trelease, W. Indian Affairs in Colonial New York (Ithaca, NY, 1960), 62. 38

Stephen L. Nebeker, comp., Our Dutchandf ancestors in America van Wagnders and van Houtens 6, 7 and others, like: Van Wagenen & Van Wagoner of Bergen Country, New Jersey – CA 1660 (Compiled by Carl S. Van Wagenen, Saugerties NY 12477); William Nelson, Historical sketch of the county of Passaic, New Jersey. especially of the first settlements and settlers (Paterson, NJ, 1877). 39

de Halve Maen

They especially testify that they govern their family well and bring up their children in the fear of God and in all modesty and respectability. As the above-named persons, have resolved to remove and proceed to New Netherland, in order to find greater convenience, they give this attestation, grounded on their knowledge of them, having known them intimately, and having been in continual intercourse with them for many years, living in the same neighborhood. In testimony of the truth, we the burgomasters of the city have caused the private seal of the city to be hereto affixed.40 Upon landing at New Amsterdam, on December 23, 1660, Gerrit and Annetjie moved to the west side of the Hudson River and settled at Communipaw, in the town of Bergen, present-day New Jersey. On October 16, 1662, WIC Director General Petrus Stuyvesant appointed Gerrit one of three schepenen (aldermen) for Bergen. In the same year Gerrit was one of the petitioners for the call of a Reformed minister at Bergen, pledging to contribute six florins a year for his support. It seems that the couple came well prepared. They were welcomed by the Bergen community and were supporters of the first Dutch Reformed congregation. Gerrit and Annetjie were one of the first to settle in Bergen. In the period following the surrender to the English in 1664, a great many farmers followed them from the Hudson Valley and Long Island. In Beesd, opposite the Rhine-Lek region, “The spirit of emigration made many people in Beesd pack up and leave for New Netherland, in which they had a safe precedent in no less a person than the village pedagogue—much reverenced was he and looked up to in those days—good Master Gideon Schaets.” And so with, “every bit of news that wafted home from time to time in friendly letters served to quicken interest in the new country, they yielded to the flattering offers held out by the colonists, and agreed to leave for that distant land.”41 Gideon Schaets was schoolteacher in Beesd and a member of the Beesd Reformed Church until his appointment as minister of the Albany Reformed Church in 1652. De Bever left for New Amsterdam on May 9, 1661, with a larger group from Beesd.42 A letter by WIC Directors to Stuyvesant gives details of the group of colonists from Beesd:

With these ships go over a reasonable number of colonists and other passengers, and among these many good farmers who will be especially useful there, is found one Huijgh Barents de Kleijn of Beesd in Gelderland, baker, grocer and farmer who, by his enthusiasm, has brought from there about 36 souls with the expectation that more shall follow. We think it right not only to recommend Your Honors to accommodate and help all of them as much as possible, but would also like to see that Your Honors, when a suitable occasion arises, benefit the afore said Huijgh Barents de Kleijn in some way or another, preferably at no cost to the Company, in order that he and his companions will write a favorable report so that more of their fellow-countrymen in Gelderland will travel there.43 The group includes six families, that of Huijgh with seven children, of Pieter Marselis with four children and two servants, of Aert Pietersen Buys with one child, of Frans Jacobsen with two children, and widow Geertje Cornelis with six children, and widow Adriaentje Cornelis and a daughter. As well as Hendrick Bries and Goosen Jansen Van Noort (shoemakers), Neeltjen Jans and Geertruyt Theunissen (son Gijbert Cornelis, Albany 1667, woodworker and builder in Kinderhook; Geertje daughter married Juriaen Calyer of Kinderhook.44 From the same region, the brothers Jan and Michiel Bastiaensen, sons of Sebastian van Kortryk (Kortright family), left for the colony in April 1663. Jan lived in Beesd at the time and Giel lived a bit down the Linge in where the Kortgerecht polder lies. Kortgerecht is a neighborhood of Schoonrewoerd west of the Diefdike—a dangerous place to live, where Waal and Lek rivers

merged flooded five times in the 1500s. The brothers and their young families sailed on the ship Bontekoe. Upon their arrival, they first went to Stuyvesantʼs Bowery, though soon after they went to Harlem. Jan was the ‟Kortryck” who owned a Bouwery on Staten Island in 1674.45 His children, Hendrick and Belitie, moved to the Esopus. Michiel lived several years at Harlem and with his son-in-law, Hendrick Kiersen, hired farms to the north of Harlem. In 1673, he was elected a magistrate at Fordham, and was on the roll of the Night Watch at Harlem, as well as being identified with the Dutch church there. From the northern region of Meppel another chain migration began in 1652. This region has all the hallmarks of a bog land, like in the central Netherlands Plain, and is an area that to this day evokes images of how the Netherlands must have looked when the Romans saw it. Two of the most iconic towns in the Netherlands, just south of Meppel and Steenwijk, are Giethoorn, the Venice of the north, and Staphorst. There were other similarities with the central Netherlands Plain in the 1600s, such as the strong imprint of the Roman Catholic Church as a landowner and a rent collector. The Benedictines had a strong stronghold here, with the double convent of Saint Mary at Dickninge, a continuation of the convent of Ruinen. It is from Ruinen that the chain Done at Wageningen, 27 Nov. 1660 by the ordinance of the same, J. Aqueline. Frank A. Van Wagenen, History of the Van Wagoner-Van Wagenen Family, 40

John Howard Abbott, The Courtright (Kortright; Kortgerecht) Family Descendants of Bastian van Kortryk, A Native of Belgium who Emigrated to Holland about 1615 (New York 1922), 14–15. 41

List of Passengers, 1654 to1664 from New York Colonial Mss. Vol. 14, 83–123. 42

Letters by WIC Directors from Amsterdam to Peter Stuyvesant, 9 May 1661. (NYCM 14: 20, lines 55–61); “the van der Hoof project.” 43

ESB 2:16 and various references in ERA, CMA).

NYCM 23: 403

Hofstede overdam het gebouw

Spring 2017

immigration started. Between four regions of origin of the early settlers—the Meppel region, the Rhine and Lek region, the Gooij and Eemland region, and the Delta region—exists a remarkable and early link. The link is Catalyntje Martense van Alstyne born in Houten in 1616, daughter of Marten Van Alstyne born in Houten in 1585. Marten moves [back] to Meppel judging by the fact that two of his children are born in Meppel.46 In 1635 Catalyntje married Cornelis Maasen van Buren from Buurmalsen. Another link between north and is the marriage on May 16, 1673, of Hendrick Kiersen [b. 1650] from in Gees, Drenthe, to Metje Michiels Kortright [1655] daughter of Giel Bastiaensen from Schoonrewoerd.47 The villages where settlers for the New World came from lie in an almost a straight line from the southwest and the northeast that links Meppel, Ruinen [Hees en Ruinerwold], Dwingeloo, Bijlen, Zwiggelte, and Westerveld. Around 1652, Jan Stryker and Pieter Lott from Ruinen and Ruinerwold set this chain in motion. In 1658, Jan Roelofszen Seuberinge followed—both Jans are related to Steven Coerts van Voorhees who sailed in 1660 along with many others. As in 1662 and 1663, when two large groups migrated, many young families emigrated from the Meppel region, like Lubbert Lubbertse van Westervelt with his wife and four children. Regularly a domine may perform a role as a guidesman or as an inspiration to go to the colony, creating a regional network. In the case of the Meppel region, Dominie Theodorus Polhelmus, who preached in Gieten and in Meppel, before leaving for New Netherland in 1634 after doctrinal differences, may have performed such a role. Steven Coerts probably rented a farm in the Meppel area during at least part of Dominie Polhemius’ preaching tenure in that city.48 Thus, Steven could have listened

1650 Farm in Hei en Boeicop near Schoonrewoerd.

to him. He probably remembered him many years later when he heard that his former pastor was now in New Netherland serving the Midwout community on Long Island where brother-in-law Jan Strycker was an important figure—and so, another personal attraction to New Netherland existed. In 1598, the new protestant leaders secularized the property of the former orders, though compared to the other provinces it was quite late.49 The rent continued to be paid to Dikninge. The new administrators exacted high rents and were not overly prompt with building repairs. A local historian asks the question whether “this playing around with rent conditions and the knowledge that someone else who needed land could “unrent” land and house against a higher compensation was a motive to leave.” He concludes that it is not improbable; in any case, at an advanced age, he left for a new existence in a foreign land.50 Steven’s brother, Albert—the oldest of the three sons of Coert—assumed the land lease for Voor Hees around the time of secularization and occasionally experienced difficulties with paying the rent. “Time and again Albert requested the governing body of Drenthe for reduction of rent: he did so in 1635, 1645, 1647, 1653, 1654, and 1659. The request of 1659—a year before Steven’s emigration—sent by the steward of Dikninge on Albert’s behalf to Drost and Deputies of Drenthe, shows us the bad state of affairs at Voorhees. Speaking of the farm, the request states that “his house, barn and sheepfold need urgent repairs, before it falls totally into decay.”51 The situation in Drenthe was comparable to the situation in the other regions that were still recovering from the effects of the troubles. The economy suffered during the period of conflict. Many farms laid in waste for years (about 33 percent in 1600).52 The religious turmoil had a further important impact. Only from 1627 on did

the situation improve little by little, until after 1630 Drenthe became completely safe again. From around 1625 to 1650 the economy grew, although 1650 marked the beginning of a long depression that lasted until 1750. As a consequence, earnings declined, production costs increased, and the tax burden grew for the first time since the introduction of land taxes of 1643.53 A few large owners controlled arable land in seventeenth-century Drenthe, so there was little opportunity for small farmers to own land. The leaseholder was subject to the economic decisions of landlords. A farmer would not be able to own a farm and would probably be limited to renting small farms. Because of this, Coerts probably shared a motivation common to most immigrants to the New World, namely creating better opportunity for him and his family. Upon landing at New Amsterdam, on April 15, 1660, Steven Coerts settled in Amersfoort, the village founded by Wolfert Gerritsen van Couwenhoven. His arrival resembled that of Gerrit Gerritsen from Wageningen eight months later. He brought money and in November he purchased land with a house a brewery in Amersfoort. He and his wife became members of the Dutch Reformed Church in Vlacke Bos [Flatbush]. In 1664 he was appointed Magistrate. Conclusion: The Netherlands Plain emigrant opened an invitation for further exploration in terms of networks and relationships between the early settlers in the Netherlands and later in the Middle Colonies, and their contribution to the agricultural history of the United States. Landownership of Roman Catholic farmers and of the legal successors of Roman Catholic Institutions may have had a profound effect on the motivation to emigrate. Jannetje, born in 1614, and Jan born in 1623.

Samuel S. Purple, ed., Records of the RDC in New Amsterdam and New York; Marriages from 1639 to 1801(New York, 1890; rpt. 1997) 47

D. J. Wijmer, ‟Steven Coerts His Family and is Dutch Background,” Through a Dutch Door (Van Voorhees Association, 1992), 28. 48

Van Voorhees Historical Handbook, 14. H. P. Schaap suggested that secularization in Drenthe occurred after 1603, Through a Dutch Door, 148. 49

J. Poortman, ‟Steven, een Drents landverhuizer uit 1660,” Nieuwe Drentsche Volksalmanak 1943 50

J. Folkerts, ‟Drenthe and New Netherland Two Outer Provinces at the Time of Emigration,” Through a Dutch Door, 109. 51

Wijmer, ‟Steven Coerts His Family and His Dutch Background,” ibid., 49. 52

Ibid.

de Halve Maen

Peasants’ Paradise:

A Comparison of Kings County, New York, and Inland Flanders Economies in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries by Reinoud Vermoesen and Rogier van Kooten

Pieter Brueghel the Younger, “Summer— the Havesters” (1623).

AAP JACOBS CONCLUDED in his comprehensive study of New Netherland, “The agriculture of New Netherland is a subject in which plans and expectations in the Netherlands contrast sharply with the actual development of the colony.”1 From the beginnings of the colony, the West India Company (WIC) recognized the potential of agriculture, in particular the production of grain, dairy products, and tobacco. Initially organized to support a small community of fur traders, New Netherland soon also became a strategic reserve for the Dutch Republic and to exchange products with the other North American colonies, the Caribbean territories, and Brazil. However, commercial agriculture as it had fully developed in some regions in the Low Countries never developed in the WIC-ruled New Netherland.2 Reinoud Vermoesen received a Ph.D. in history with a study of eighteenth century Flemish rural commercial networks from the University of Antwerp (UA) in 2008. He was lecturer at Ghent University and at UA. He is now a postdoctoral teaching fellow of the Department of History of tUA and member of the Centre for Urban History. Rogier van Kooten, received an MSc in social sciences at Tilburg University in 1997. After a career in IT and consultancy he went to the University of Antwerp (UA) and finished his MA in history in 2016. He is now Ph.D. Candidate at the Department of History and member of the Centre for Urban History. This essay is based on his Master thesis.

A commercial business model with large scale, market-oriented enterprises based on hired labor, which the WIC as a commercial landowner in the New World had in mind, was ultimately defeated by the peasant family model based on the household as a (re)production and consumption unit. Several explanations, such as the small size of the population, the unwillingness of farmers to become tenants, the painstakingly difficult cultivation of the land, and wars with the Native American population came to the fore. In addition, the WIC and many settlers were tempted to achieve higher profits in a much easier way through the fur trade.3 Moreover, the directors of the WIC had different opinions about the colonization policy: one faction wanted to restrict immigration, because settlers were seen as a threat to the WIC’s trade monopoly. The other faction, led by Kiliaen Van Rensselaer, propagated a rapid population growth in the region, since that would decrease the dependence on imported goods.4 The discord and lack of substantial investments did not really contribute to the success of commercial agriculture in New Netherland. In 1639, after less than fifteen years, the WIC, under pressure from the States General, threw in the towel and opened the colony up to free settlers and traders.5 From that moment on, the Company focused on the collection of taxes and the transportation of people and goods to and from Europe. Between 1639 and 1664, the population grew rapidly from a few hundred to about 9,000 settlers on the eve of the English takeover.6 As a result,the colony flourished between 1654–1664, relatively speaking at

least.7 However, settlers did not renew attempts at large-scale commercial farming. From then on, the freeholder household model would prevail. It was up to the new English rulers to convince subsistence peasants to produce for the export markets of the English Empire. It is our goal to assess this emerging peasant society by looking at factors such as land, labor and capital in comparison with other peasant societies, above all in the Low Countries where most of the colonists came from. Rural History: In 2013 Daniel R. Curtis described the major trends in the rural history of the Low Countries.8 His findings Jaap Jacobs, New Netherland. A Dutch colony in seventeenth-century America (Leiden, 2005), 214. 1

David Steven Cohen, The Dutch-American Farm (New York, 1992), 111. 2

Sung Bok Kim, Landlord and Tenant in Colonial New York: Manorial Society, 1664–1775 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1978), 6; Jacobs, New Netherland, 219. 3

Van Cleaf Bachman, Peltries or Plantations. The Economic Policies of the Dutch West India Company in New Netherlands, 1623–1639 (Baltimore, 1969), 44 and 71. 4

Cathy Matson, “‘Damned scoundrels’ and ‘libertisme of trade.’ Freedom and regulation in colonial New York's fur and grain trades,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 51/3 (1994), 389-418; Bachman, Peltries or Plantations, 151. Dennis J. Maika, “Commerce and Community: Manhattan Merchants in the Seventeenth Century” (Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1995), 241. 5

Jacobs, New Netherland, 476; Kim, Landlord and Tenant, 22. 6

Oliver A. Rink, Holland on the Hudson. An economic and social history of Dutch New York (Ithaca, N.Y., 1986), 161. 7

Daniel R. Curtis, “Trends in rural social and economic history of the pre-industrial Low Countries. Recent themes and ideas in journals and books of the past five years (2007–2013),” BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review, 128/3 (2013), 60-95. 8

Spring 2017

represent the spearheads of the majority of historians studying rural Western Europe. According to Curtis, a number of trends could be identified, such as the road to commercialization and capitalism, the relationship between city and countryside, and the functioning of households.9 One of the most important developments in the field of rural history, and therefore fueling the latest rural output, has been the emergence of the CORN-group, although firmly rooted in the Flemish Universities, with a broad (Western-) European membership. As a result of cross-border cooperation, comparative regional analysis became ubiquitous in recent publications.10 From 2000 onward, a number of studies have focused on the way local economies functioned and on the different strategies of the rural (and urban) households involved, which opened perspectives for comparative analysis with the local economies of New Netherland.11 It has long been known that the extreme fragmentation of holdings in Inland Flanders, a result of the population pressure during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, led to tiny exploitations where households combined agriculture (the cultivation of cereals and market crops), small-scale husbandry, and the production of linen. This form of agrosystem was facilitated by a small number of large farmers or wealthy peasants who were distinguished from the rest by their ownership of capital goods and financial means, which they employed to hold on a vast number of peasant households by providing transport services and acting as lenders and retailer.12 It is becoming apparent just how flexible, personalized, and reciprocal credit and labor markets were in rural Flanders.13 In these relations, smallholders often exchanged labor and linen output for access to capital goods, rural services, and even food provided by the larger (tenant) farmers. Therefore, looking at the way local economies functioned can enlighten our understanding of the road to capitalism and of the flows between town and countryside. Following Philip T. Hofman, who described the “web of economic transactions” or “local economy” in which (rural) households participated, the main focus of this contribution will be on the structure of the household economy and of the flows between households.14 Approach and Sources: This research used tax records and two account books for the period 1674–1688 to gain more

New Amsterdam and surrounding villages, 1664. Cartographer: René van der Vooren, from Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles Scott-Smith, eds., Four centuries of Dutch-American relations, 1609–2009 (Amsterdam, 2009). insight into the exchange circuit of the local economy and commercial relationships with the urban trade hub. A group of six villages on the western tip of Long Island was selected: Breuckelen, Boswijk, Midwout, Amersfoort, New Utrecht, and Gravesend. The population of the first five villages consisted mainly of settlers from the Low Countries. Gravesend was settled by English colonists. This was not an arbitrary selection, as there are reasons to assume that this area operated as one connected regional economy. These villages were the first European settlements on western Long Island. Founded in the mid1640s, they were connected economically, socially, and administratively.15 In 1683, the English colonial administration merged the five villages into one administrative unit: Kings County.16 Agricultural products cultivated in this region included cereals, tobacco, livestock, dairy products, and (fire) wood. Many residents were originally from the landlocked provinces of the Northern Netherlands, such as Drenthe, Overijssel, and Gelderland (the Veluwe), where this kind of mixed farming was prevalent.17 Another reason for selecting this area is that these villages were situated in the immediate surroundings of New York City. The city was only a few hours away on horseback. Frequent ferry services trans-

ported passengers and their goods between Other topics are water management and land reclamation, the commons and collective action, landscape and settlements, plague, famine, and warfare. 9

See http://www.corn.ugent.be/.

Thijs Lambrecht, Een grote hoeve in een klein dorp. Relaties van arbeid en pacht op het Vlaamse platteland in de 18de eeuw, Historische Economie en Ecologie (Ghent, 2002); Wouter Ronsijn, Commerce and the countryside. The rural population’s involvement in the commodity market in Flanders, 1750–1910 (Ghent, 2014). Reinoud Vermoesen, Markttoegang en ‘commerciële’ netwerken van rurale huishoudens. De regio Aalst, 1650–1800 (Ghent, 2011). 11

Reinoud Vermoesen and Annelies De Bie, “Boeren en hun relaties op het Vlaamse platteland (1750–1800),” Tijdschrift voor geschiedenis, 121/4 (2008), 430-45; Reinoud Vermoesen, “Paardenboeren in Vlaanderen. Middelaars en de commercialisering van de vroegmoderne landelijke economie. Regio Aalst 1650–1800,” Tijdschrift voor sociale en economische geschiedenis, 7/1 (2010), 3-37; Reinoud Vermoesen, Markttoegang; Thijs Lambrecht, “Reciprocal exchange, credit and cash: agricultural labour markets and local economies in the southern Low Countries during the eighteenth century,” Continuity and Change, 18/2 (2003), 237–61. 12

Curtis, “Trends in rural social and economic history,” 67.

Philip T. Hoffman, Growth in a traditional society. The French countryside 1450–1815 (Princeton, N.J., 1996), 69. 14

Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace, Gotham. A history of New York to 1898 (Oxford, 1999), 88. for a century later see Edwin G. Burrows, “The ordeal of Kings County,” in Joseph S. Tiedemann and Eugene R. Fingerhut, eds., The Other New York. The American Revolution Beyond New York City, 1763–1787 (Albany, 2005), 21. 15

Burrows and Wallace, Gotham, 91.

Jan Folkerts, “Reflecting Patria. New light on New Netherland demography and culture,” New York History 91 (2010), 2: 93–110, 103. Jan Bieleman, Boeren in Nederland. Geschiedenis van de landbouw 1500–2000 (Amsterdam, 2008), 113. About the sandy soils of the interior of the Dutch Republic. 17

de Halve Maen

Manhattan and Long Island. Jasper Danckaerts, for example, reported the following about these crossings: After forming in this passage several islands, this water (East River) is as broad before the city as the Y before Amsterdam, but the ebb and flood tides are stronger. There is a ferry for the purpose of crossing over it, which is farmed out by the year, and yields a good income, as it is a considerable thoroughfare, this island being one of the most populous places in this vicinity.18 On both sides of the river, farmers could sell their produce at frequently organized markets.19 Elbert Elbertsen Stoothoff, a typical New Netherland freeholder: In early 1638, Kiliaen Van Rensselaer asked the eighteen-year-old Elbert Elbertsen (also Elbertse, Elbertz and Elberz.) Stoothoff from Nijkerk, along with four others, to sail to New Netherland on the ship de Calmer Sleutel. For six years he worked as a wage laborer on the “Patroonschap” Rensselaerswijck, which was situated upstream of the Hudson at Beverwijck (Albany).20 Van Rensselaer had acquired this land from the Dutch West-India Company and was now exploiting it as a private colony. In 1645, Elbert Elbertsen started his successful career as landowner, farmer, trader, and local magistrate. In 1645, he married Aeltje Cornelis, widow of Gerrit Wolphertsz. van Couwenhoven, and, through her, inherited 123 morgen (over 100 hectares) on western Long Island.21 After the death of Wolphert Gerritsz. van Couwenhoven, Gerrit Wolphertsz.’s father and owner of the Hudde–Couwenhoven patent, in 1661, Stoothoff bought this patent for 5,000 guilders from the other heirs.22 (His holding was confirmed in 1667 by the first English governor, Richard Nichols.)23 On this patent, the settlement Amersfoort (Flatlands) was founded in 1654. In the following years, Stoothoff gradually increased his possessions, among others by acquiring what is now Bergen Beach (then Island) and Barren Island, to the south of Amersfoort.24 At his death in 1688, Stoothoff owned more than 240 hectares.25 He had started a family, had been magistrate of Amersfoort from 1654 till 1673, and had, for a time, been captain of the local militia. Jasper Danckaerts wrote the following about him:

for this father or father-in-law of Jan Theunissen [=Elbert Elbertsen], being the principal person in the place, was their captain and having many children of his own besides, there was a continual concourse at his house.”26 The Brooklyn Historical Society (BHS) contains the Stoothoff family archive, which covers the period from 1642 to 1796. In addition to a large collection of bills, correspondence and wills, two account books of Elbert Elbertsen, covering the period from 1676 to 1688, have been preserved. These account books serve as the main source for this research. They illustrate that Elbert Elbertsen maintained extensive relations with the local community on Long Island, as well as with the retailers and commercial merchant elite of New York City. New Netherland, a Freeholders’ Paradise? Allan Kulikoff mentions the prominent role of the so-called freeholdership to point out the unique nature of North American pre-industrial agriculture.27 Because of the widespread availability, and therefore very low price of land, many settlers were able to start a farm and own it outright. Furthermore, colonial governments tried to encourage immigration by providing favorable conditions. On the contrary, the feudal system as it historically existed in Europe, where rural households “merely enjoyed the right to farm the soil and graze livestock on the commons, constrained by his lord’s rights to take rents for the same country,” did not exist in the New World.28 The starting point for settlers was the idea of the sole right to the land and outright ownership. Therefore, peasants were also landlords, a situation that contrasts sharply with the early modern England, which often is used as a point of comparison. Indeed, Kulikoff bases his argument primarily on the history of English colonists. They fled the emerging rural commercial business economies in England, where population growth and enclosure led to economies of scale and capitalism but also resulted in expropriations of land and a growing class of landless laborers.29 This capitalist transformation was already well advanced in England as a result of a strong feudal class working closely with the government. On the one hand, this provided the necessary capital to finance the establishment of colonies. On the other hand, it led to a growing group of “losers,” who wanted nothing more than to take their lives into their own

hands again. The North American colonies offered possibilities to start a new life. At the end of the eighteenth century, 80 percent of peasants continued to own land, a much higher percentage than in Britain, according to Kulikoff.31 Although the differences in opportunity between the English gentry-dominated commercial agriculture and the New World are certainly clear, it is our point of view that the variables in the equitation are not entirely correct. One needs to consider that the origin of many immigrants was non-English, especially in the region of present-day New York City and near the Hudson River. In New Netherland, settlers from the inland parts of the Republic as well as Flemish and Walloon immigrants came from regions with a dominant freeholder structure. Therefore, we need to shed some light on the functioning of both local economies. How were they founded? How Bartlett Burleigh James and J. Franklin Jameson, eds., Journal of Jasper Danckaerts, 1679–1680 (New York, 1913), 51. 18

Thomas David Beal, “Selling Gotham. The retail trade in New York City from the public market to Alexander T. Stewart’s Marble Palace, 1625–1860” (Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York, 1998), 113. Jessica Kross, The Evolution of an American Town: Newtown, New York, 1642–1775 (Philadelphia, 1983), 39. 19

In 1629 the WIC established the “Liberties and Exemptions” to allow a new form of colonization, the “patroonschappen.” These were private colonies with local government and owned by a “patroon” who was accountable to the Director-General of the WIC only. A “patroon” was judge, appointed local magistrates, and could hold the land indefinitely. As a condition he had to found a settlement of at least fifty families within four years. The colonists were to pay the rent through goods, services, or money. The most famous “patroonschap” was Rensselaerswijck close to present-day Albany. 20

Frederick Van Wyck, Long Island Colonial Patents: Illustrated (Boston, 1935), 135. Charles T. Gehring, trans., Register of the Provincial Secretary (1642–1647) (Albany, 2011), 228. 21

Charles Hopkins Conover, The Conover Family (Frankford, 1912), 9. 22

Frederick Van Wyck, Long Island Colonial Patents, 135. The original 1636 patent manuscript was sold in 2007 for $156,000 at auction. 23

Arnold J. F. Van Laer, ed., Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts. Being the letters of Kiliaen Van Rensselaer, 1630–1643 and other documents relating to the colony of Rensselaerswyck (Albany, 1908), 24. 24

Conover, The Conover family, 9.

James and Jameson, Journal of Jasper Danckaerts, 61.

Allen Kulikoff, From British Peasants to Colonial American Farmers (Chapel Hill, N.C., 2000), 126. 27

Ibid., 125.

Allen Kulikoff, “Households and Markets. Toward a New Synthesis of American Agrarian History,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 50 (April 1993), 342–55, 124. 29

Kulikoff, From British Peasants, 40.

Ibid., 127.

Ibid., 126.

Spring 2017

did they evolve and why? The Ascent of a Local Economy: “Only men who owned land and directed family labor could claim independence from their superiors. Small farmers expected that virtuous rulers would protect their landed property from the rapaciousness of the greedy and powerful. In contrast, a tenant was required to negotiate with the landlord, an unequal relationship that often made the tenant dependent.”32 Although the WIC had a clear mindset on the development of large-scale commercial exploitations, it soon discovered the thriving force behind the ascent of a new local economy, namely composite freeholder farming.33 Composite farming is (partially) defined by a porous border within rural households between subsistence production and market production. That way, households were able to protect themselves against the vagaries of the market. In times of bumper harvests and abundance, larger quantities were produced for the market. In times of scarcity, the survival of the family would take priority and a smaller surplus or no surplus was sold on the market. Within households, the husband, his wife and sometimes a few servants, children, or slaves worked together in relationship with the local community.34A similar attitude can be observed in the Low Countries on the small-scale peasants who depicted riskavoiding attitudes in a highly commercialized economy. But in New Netherland, conditions were the opposite, with markets still developing under uncommon conditions (abundance of land, scarcity of labor, few market places). And again, risk-spreading composite farming became dominant. Apart from the composite farming strategy, freeholdership was the second major characteristic of the rural colonial economy. The “freeholder” was truly central to North American (colonial) pre-industrial agriculture. According to Kulikoff, this is the main reason why North American farmers were able to keep capitalist production at bay for such a long period. It is also why households continued to be the main production units well into the nineteenth century.35 New Netherland was no exception. Even very attractive conditions were generally not sufficient for tenants to commit long-term to a landowner in the New World. Tenants of Rensselaerswijck, the only large-scale farming initiative that somewhat successfully survived the Dutch period, regularly left their leased farms

prematurely to start their own.36 Others did so after the expiration of their contracts, such as Elbert Elbertsen Stoothoff. After four years of service on a WIC farm and two years at Rensselaerswijck, he started his own business and became the largest landowner in Amersfoort (Flatlands) on Long Island. We will use his account books to shed light on the functioning of the local economy later in this article. Although the survival of the household was the primary focus in the small-scale peasant agriculture, a colonist family could not survive without market interaction if only to be able to pay taxes or to buy imported consumer goods. Like Erik Thoen in his study on Inland Flanders, Kullikoff points at the relationships between households and markets.37 Markets were more than local exchanges of surpluses—from the early beginnings of the colonization of North America, also international trade networks played a major role. Features of the local economy: land, livestock and circuits of local exchange Landholding: From a comparative perspective, the way land, capital, and labor are mobilized in a single business unit and on an aggregated level exchanged in a local economy can inform us on the way local economies functioned. As mentioned before, the rural economy of New Netherland followed a path from large-scale exploitations to family-based peasant outlets. Although no research has focused on the actual ascent of peasant businesses in New Netherland—for instance by scrutinizing the council minutes and registers—we can use snapshots in time to establish the structure of the village economy. Tax documents of the early English colonial government (1675, 1676, and 1683), which have been transcribed and translated by Edmund B. O’Callaghan, contain records of ownership of land and livestock and their respective valuations.38 It gives a good impression of the development of the rural economy in the decades before 1675. The records reveal that 240 households of the villages on the western tip of Long Island (Breuckelen, Middelwout, Boswyck, Nieuw-Utrecht, Amersfoort, and Gravesend) owned almost 2,800 hectares, valued about 81,000 guilders. More than 2,700 head of livestock (horses, cows, pigs, and sheep) were held by 281 adult men with a total value of almost 210,000 guilders, showing the relatively high value of live-

stock compared to that of land. Together, this brings the total valuation to almost 290,000 guilders. The average value per village shows relatively little difference, varying between 1,042 and 1,486 guilders per household, but the high standard variation predicts large differences within the village populations. Therefore, we continued our analysis on village level, starting with landholding as illustrated in Table 1. A number of issues stand out: first, the relatively large number of households (almost 30 percent) that did not own land (except the area immediately surrounding their houses). As we will discuss in more detail, all but one of these families owned at least one head of cattle, usually a bull, and often one or even a few cows. Not only does this show the importance of livestock in general, but the importance of bulls could indicate that expanding herds by means of reproduction was a key objective. The second issue that stands out is that almost 65 percent of the families owned more than four hectares: therefore they must have been able to independently maintain their households. That is in stark contrast to the situation in the landlocked regions of Flanders, particularly in the eighteenth century.39 However, during the second half of the seventeenth century, more than 38 percent of the holdings were smaller than one hectare, more than 84 percent smaller than five hectares in the sand-loamy parts of Inland Flanders.40 Based on data for Newtown and similar towns in New England, Jessica Kross, for example, noted the existence of a relatively Richard Lyman Bushman, “Markets and composite farms in early America,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 55 (July 1998), 351–74. 33

Ibid., 363.

Kulikoff, “Households and markets,” 344.

Jacobs, New Netherland, 219.

Erik Thoen, “A ‘commercial survival economy’ in evolution. The Flemish countryside and the transition to capitalism (Middle Ages–19th century),” in: Peter Hoppenbrouwers and Jan Luiten Van Zanden, eds., Peasants into farmers? The transformation of rural economy and society in the Low Countries (middle ages-19th century) in light of the Brenner debate (Turnhout, 2001), 102–57; Allen Kulikoff, “The transition to capitalism in rural America,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 46 (January 1989), 1: 120–44. 37

Edmund Bailey O’Callaghan, The Documentary History of the State of New-York, 4 vols. (Albany, 1865), 139–61(for 1675) and 470–511 (for 1676 and 1683). 38

Lambrecht, Een grote hoeve in een klein dorp, 21.

Herman Van Isterdael, “Landbouwstrukturen in het Land van Aalst (17de-18de eeuw),” Het Land van Aalst 40 (1988), 3: 269–308, 271. 40

Kross, The Evolution of an American Town, 96.

de Halve Maen

Table 1. Size of the Holdings in the Five Dutch villages in 1675 and Gravesend in 1683.

Source: Database Assessment Roles. The size of holdings is converted from Amsterdam morgen to hectares (0.8387 ha). The reason for this is the assumption that the WIC administration introduced the “Amsterdam morgen.” Other common morgens in the Republic were generally slightly larger, but not enough to dramatically alter the overall

picture. For more information see the database of old Dutch weights and measures of the Meertens Institute, http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/mgw/. egalitarian society.41 In order to establish whether a similar egalitarian society was in place in Western Long Island, we compared the average size of holdings and the coefficient of variation expressed in percent of the average size. Amersfoort, Boswijck, Breuckelen, and Middelwout had a very similar average size close to ten hectares. Only Gravesend and Nieuw-Utrecht had a slightly higher average size up to sixteen hectares.42 However, based on the coefficient of variation, which varies between 70 and 110 percent, we can conclude that an egalitarian rural society was not in place.43 The explanation for this remarkable conclusion must be the presence of the large number of cottagers without any significant land. However, if this group is left out, the numbers point to a more equal society, with coefficients of variation between 35 percent and 77 percent.44 Livestock: Now we turn to livestock. Table 2 shows the distribution of cattle (oxen and cows) between villages, Table 3 shows the relation between landholding and possession of cattle. In the case of livestock, like the division

of landholdings, the group households without any was a substantial minority: 46 (almost 19 percent). Almost half of the 71 household not possessing any land, did

also not have any cattle. The other households at least owned one cow, but three households managed to hold more than seven. We should be careful when drawing conclusions: households without any cattle, horses, or land would probably not have appeared on the tax list. On the other hand, a comparison between the number of households (212 in 1675, excluding Gravesend) and the number of families, as represented in the census of 1698 (276, including Gravesend), indicated that a substantial section of the population must have been represented.45 But, the fact that a substantial number of households (36) without landholdings held livestock could imply that they fed their cattle with food crops, which they purchased from other farmers. Another more likely reason could be that the communities had sufficient common grounds to graze cattle on. This was a common practice in settlements in the landlocked regions of the northern Netherlands, from where many of these farmers had migrated.46 A study by Amersfoort 12.6 hectare, Boswijck 9.8 hectare, Breuckelen 8.2 hectare, Gravesend 17.3 hectare, Middelwout 9.5 hectare, and Nieuw-Utrecht 16 hectare. 42

Amersfoort 110 percent, Boswijck 110 percent, Breuckelen 100 percent, Gravesend 70 percent, Middelwout 90 percent, and Nieuw-Utrecht 100 percent. 43

Amersfoort 70 percent, Boswijck 77 percent, Breuckelen 73 percent, Gravesend 48 percent, Middelwout 35 percent, and Nieuw-Utrecht 66 percent. 44

DHNY 3: 133–38.

Bieleman, Boeren in Nederland, 97.

Kross, The Evolution of an American Town, 61.

Table 2. Livestock in the Five Dutch Villages in 1675 and Gravesend in 1683.

Source: Database Assessment Roles.

Spring 2017

Table 3. Livestock Compared to Size of Holdings.

Source: Database Assessment Roles.

Jessica Kross of nearby Newtown shows that the village owned land collectively which was only partly distributed among the inhabitants. A substantial portion was left untouched and used as commons.47 It is also possible that households without landholdings were able to use the land of other farmers, for example in exchange for the provision of labor or non-agricultural goods. An analysis of Elbert Elbertsen Stoothoff’s accounts in the next section may shed more light on this matter. In the peasant regions of the Low Countries, the all-important threshold whether a household could be considered as powerful was the possession of a horse. Horses could

be considered as important capital goods not only for working the land but also as a means of transport. Research by Vermoesen in the Aalst region of Flanders clearly shows that horse ownership was essential in order to dominate rural as well as urban circuits.48 The overview in Table 4 illustrates the relative importance of horse ownership. On average, more than 70 percent of the households owned at least one horse and more than half of those households owned two or more. This also differs significantly from the situation in Inland Flanders, where the number of households with horses decreased rapidly in the seventeenth century (even more so in the eighteenth century), due

Table 4. Presence of Horses per Village in 1675 (Gravesend 1683).

to population growth and the fragmentation of land ownership. This allowed the remaining horse farmers to occupy a key position in local and urban networks.49 Where horse ownership in the peasant regions of the Low Countries could be considered a proxy for social and economic power, the presence of horses in New Netherland was highly (and significantly) correlated with the size of holdings.50 We also discovered that the majority of the households without landholdings (41 out of 71 or 58 percent) did also not own a horse. Based on the results, it is clear that corporate structures, as well as the presence of horses and cattle, created favorable conditions for most farmers in the research area to operate independent businesses. Yet there was a significant minority of households which owned little or no land, no cattle, and, in the majority of cases, no horses. How could this situation have affected the role of a major landowner like Elbert Elbertsen from Amersfoort? We thus will now turn to his account books and see what his role in the exchange of products in the local economy looked like. Local Exchange: Circuits and Products: The account books of Elbert Elbertsen Stoothoff contain a lot of information, especially on corporate flows—for example the products and services that were exchanged, can be identified, as well as prices, the quantities, transaction dates, and many customer names. The profiles of his customers were elaborated in detail. In all, 156 different customers appeared in the account books. For 132 of these individuals, the villages they lived in and one or more professions could be obtained from the tax documents, the Bergen index,51 or other sources.52 However, “profession” is a relative concept.53 Some rural residents combined farming with a craft, such as cobbler or innkeeper. Some townspeople combined a craft, like brewing or baking, with trading on a limited scale in furs or grain. Vermoesen, Markttoegang; Vermoesen, “Paardenboeren in Vlaanderen.” 48

Vermoesen, “Paardenboeren in Vlaanderen.”

Pearson r = 0.653

Teunis G. Bergen, Register in alphabetical order, of the early settlers of Kings County, Long Island, New York (New York, 1881). 51

Mainly Herbert Levi Osgood, Austin Baxter Keep and Charles Alexander Nelson, eds., Minutes of the common council of the City of New York 1675–1776, 8 vols. (New York, 1905). 52

Kross, The Evolution of an American Town, 37.

Source: Database Assessment Roles.

Lambrecht, Een grote hoeve in een klein dorp, 123;

de Halve Maen

Figure 2: Trading Volume In Number Of Transactions (1674–1688)

Figure 3: Trading Value In Guilder Sewant (1674-1688)

Based on the account books we created two pictures (Figures 2 and 3). Figure 2 shows the products and services that were exchanged by Stoothoff and customers in the surrounding villages and New Amsterdam. Figure 3 shows the total value of these transactions as well as the separate value of buying and selling. In “Binnen-Vlaanderen,” the research showed that the uneven distribution of landholdings led to dependency relationships between production pedlar (large tenant farmers) and surrounding peasants based on labor and capital goods. What role did Elbert Elbertsen play, being an important farmer and trader in the local community and the largest landowner of Amersfoort? From his trade with the six villages and New Amsterdam, a clear picture emerges. The majority of the exchange took place within Amersfoort, Stoothoff ’s home village (almost 60 percent of the total number of transactions), followed by New

Amsterdam (13 percent) and the villages of Gravesend (8.4 percent) and Midwout (6.7 percent). When we examine the total value of these transactions, it appears that, although the overall picture stays the same, the trade with New Amsterdam is much more important than it appeared to be based on number of transactions only. The local exchange within Amersfoort, on the other hand, is much smaller. This could point at a typical intermediary role between town and countryside. On the one hand we see Stoothoff exchange many small quantities of low value with local customers, acting as a local retailer. On the other hand, he exchanges fewer transactions but of larger quantity and higher value with customers in New Amsterdam. In the end, the value of the transactions with New Amsterdam and Amersfoort customers is almost the same. The Rural Circuit: When we look at what products were being bought and sold in

Amersfoort and the other villages, most of the transactions were related to agricultural and non-agricultural goods. Together, those accounted for more than three quarters of all transactions (buying and selling). Land, capital goods, labor and payments (mainly book credit and clearings and settlements for clients) were less important. Subsequently, the flows of agricultural and non-agricultural goods were researched in more detail. Among non-agricultural goods, various fabrics, gunpowder, shoes and rum predominated. Because Stoothoff regularly bought new shoes for his household, shoes made up more than three quarters of all rural purchase transactions. Other products were locally produced, such as furniture, beer, and needlework. Sales were dominated by imported goods, such as gunpowder, rum and several types of fabrics. Non-agricultural goods, especially imports, were popular in the countryside, because they could not always be produced by local households. In the agricultural goods category, Stoothoff mainly purchased grain (wheat and rye) and tobacco. Stoothoff sold, apart from grains, butter, meat, skins, and a large group of other goods (apples, cider, peas, fat turnips but also fish, whale bones and cod liver oil). Nearly 35 percent of his sales in this rural circuit consisted of agricultural products. Again it seems Stoothoff operated as a retailer in the local community. Additional research was conducted into the customers who bought agricultural products from Stoothoff, in particular in relation to their land holdings (Table 5). This showed that especially the group of households with little or no land holdings (about one third of the customers) accounted for almost three quarters of the transactions. A likely explanation is that these households could not, or at least not fully, meet their own food supply and therefore were partially dependent on third parties. Stoothoff catered to these needs in exchange for shoes, furniture, needlework or tools. Among the customers were two tailors, a cooper, a smith, a weaver, a merchant, a mason, a woodworker/carpenter, and a magistrate. The Urban Circuit: As was the case for the rural circuit, an inventory of buying and selling transactions within the researched urban circuit has been compiled. In this circuit, the bulk of the transactions Vermoesen, Markttoegang.

Spring 2017

Table 5. Agricultural Sales Transactions in the Rural Circuit as Related to Customers and Landholdings. # of transactions

Cumulative %

# customers

Cumulative %

# transactions per customer

No land

116

47.1%

31.5%

4.1

< 4 ha

71.5%

33.7%

30.0

4–10 ha

76.4%

49.4%

0.9

10–20 ha

84.9%

73.0%

1.0

20–40 ha

99.1%

95.5%

1.8

> 40 ha

100.0%

0.5

Total

246

Size of the holdings

2.8

Source: Database Stoothoff account books / Database Assessment Roles.

(almost 85 percent) involved agricultural and non-agricultural output. The categories land and labor are completely absent. Capital goods, payments and taxes are also relatively limited. It appears that in this circuit agricultural products mainly flowed from countryside to town (134 of the 139 transactions) and non-agricultural products from town to countryside (42 of the 44 transactions). Amongst agricultural goods, grain predominated, representing no less than 79 percent of all transactions. Although rye was the main cereal (115 transactions, 61 wheat transactions) in the rural circuit, wheat dominated the urban circuit (80 transactions, rye only fifteen transactions). This might suggest that wheat was mainly grown for local sales and export, while (cheaper) rye was sold for rural consumption. With 13 percent of transactions, butter was the second most important product. The overview of non-agricultural goods shows a more fragmented picture. Fabrics, rum and gunpowder again played a major part (10–20 percent of transactions), but this time as bought goods. In addition, there was a large “other” category of nearly 50 percent, which contained all kinds of products such as soap, salt and beaver skins. In the time period being researched, Stoothoff sold twenty-nine head of cattle in the rural circuit, as well as fourteen in the urban circuit. This is not unexpected for an area with mostly mixed agriculture. It also corresponds with the picture Bernard Mason presents of the important role of the villages of Long Island in the delivery of cattle and pork to the city.55 Finally, the analysis of the Assesment Roles showed that a majority of the households had at least one bull and often a few cows as well,

which could refer to the existence of cattle trade. This seems to be emphasized here. The main conclusion from the quantitative analysis of the transactions is that agricultural and non-agricultural goods were the two categories that dominated the local exchange. Capital, credit, and labor were of minor importance although the cattle trade, appeared to be an exception. If we compare the researched rural and urban circuits, it becomes clear that the flow of goods in the rural circuit is less homogeneous than in its urban equivalent. Whereas in the urban circuit agricultural goods were sold and non-agricultural goods were bought, in the rural circuit both categories were bought and sold. In the rural circuit, agricultural goods were bought and sold in small portions, which illustrates Stoothoff’s role as a retailer primarily serving households with no or very small land holdings and households with non-agricultural professions. In the urban circuit, exchanges of grain and butter were crucial for obtaining imported goods, such as fabrics, rum and gunpowder. For merchants, agricultural goods were increasingly important for importing non-agricultural goods.56 Conclusion: Notwithstanding the commercial setting in which the rural settlements emerged, large-scale market orientated farms based on hired labor were scarce. On the contrary, family farms became the dominant feature of the colonial agricultural system in New Netherland. However, while some similarities with other peasant regions in the motherland existed, labor scarcity and the abundance of land shaped a particular local economy. Although more than 70 percent of the households owned enough land and live-

stock to be self-sufficient, Stoothoff was able to act as a production pedlar. However, a situation as in “Binnen-Vlaanderen,” where significant inequalities in land ownership resulted in strong dependency relationships in labor and capital did not exist in the research area. On the other hand, exchanging agricultural and non-agricultural products, appeared to be very important. The role as an intermediary and local retailer was especially sustained by the group of households that did not have enough land to be selfsufficient and those households that were active in professions other than farming. The research findings support the statement that specifically for agricultural goods the majority of the transactions were exchanged with this group of (rural) customers. Furthermore, it is not implausible that the need for intermediaries existed especially in the urban circuit. After all, intermediaries could collect the (relatively minor) surpluses of agricultural products for the merchants, which would otherwise have been a time-consuming job. The Hudson River was the scene of a constant flow of small boats, operated by intermediaries that transported wheat to New York or even further.57 Dealing with a small number of intermediaries may have been preferable to maintaining contacts with dozens or even hundreds of different individual farmers. It is a situation comparable to the one Vermoesen found during his research on merchants in the hop trade in Aalst. The latter preferred to trade with a small number of horse farmers (the intermediaries of in rural communities) and to enter into credit relationships with them.58 What remains open is what the balance of power between “production pedlar” and customers looked like. How equal were the relationships between Stoothoff and his rural customers and between Stoothoff and his customers in New Amsterdam? We will have to address that question in a future contribution.59 Bernard Mason, “Aspects of the New York Revolt of 1689,” New York History 30 (1949), 2: 165–80, 171. 55

Beal, Selling Gotham, 110.

Alice P. Kenney, Stubborn for Liberty: The Dutch in New York (Syracuse, N.Y., 1975), 106. 57

Vermoesen, Markttoegang.

More information about the balance of power in economic relationships as well as an overview of the researched households can be found in: Rogier van Kooten, “‘Like a child in their debt, and consequently their slave’? Power structures in the commercial circuits of a colonial agro-system near New York around 1675” (Master thesis, History Department, Universiteit Antwerpen, 2016). Also available on Academia. edu. An article in Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis by Rogier van Kooten and Reinoud Vermoesen is forthcoming in 2017. 59

de Halve Maen

Book Review Joyce D. Goodfriend, Who Shall Rule at Home? Confronting the Elite in British New York City (Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press, 2017).

ETTING THE STAGE for her mainly class-based argument as to how the “little people” confronted and ultimately, by the time of the Revolution, emerged as a strong and vocal foil to the ruling class in British New York City, Joyce Goodfriend opens her book with a description of the lavish homes, furnishings, and accouterments of the power-hugging elite in Anglophile New York, lately New Amsterdam. She structures her work in three Parts, with Part I dealing with the “indigestible Dutch”; persisting despite creative attempts by the British to render them as the dregs of society, they were better likened to a too-rich meal the effects of which could not so easily be got rid of. Although most accounts of this period following the British takeover of the Dutch colony in 1674 grapple with a complex mix of class, ethnic, religious, and political factors to account for the contentious acrimony in New York, where Country versus Court factions played out against a background of international political intrigue, Goodfriend skillfully uses primary sources to hone and focus her argument that the British primarily used class signifiers to humble and demean the Dutch. By casting them into the role of “cultural outsiders,” vis à vis the influx of Huguenots from France in the 1680s, for example, elite rulers attempted to drive the “Dutch nation” out of power, not so successfully. The Dutch persisted, to British annoyance, culturally, linguistically, politically and in their Reformed faith well after the British takeover and well into the eighteenth and even the nineteenth centuries, especially linguistically. If learning English meant abandoning Dutch, retaining Dutch became a means of challenging English cultural authority (p. 50). In the decades after the English takeover, the establishment of three forces—the Anglican confession in Trinity Church, the aggressive English Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, and the English legal system in courts, along with the advent of printing in the shape of William Bradford—combined to cast the Dutch as “rabble and scum” in the minds of the public. The use of scurrilous epithets and

ungrounded slanders to demonize and ruin one’s opponents was par for the course in the day, of course, and the Leislerians, say, were not shy with their own insults and slanders and could give as good as they got from their anti-Leislerian opponents. Calumny was how things got done, as the best-known case—of Lord Cornbury hopelessly slandered by his enemies for dressing as a woman—illustrates. Building on her own previously published essays on Reformed ministers Archibald Laidlie and Lambertus De Ronde, the Dutch book trade in colonial New York City, and the Presbyterian Church in the 1750s, Goodfriend demonstrates how retaining the Dutch language was a “subversive act, a way to defy the polite promoters of the enveloping English culture, whether by people of Dutch ancestry or Britons”(p. 73.) This is telling, for the Dutch themselves were fractured, with one side committed to Dutch and Dutchlanguage preaching and the other to modernizing and Anglicizing, as well as being fractured along class lines. In Part II, “Pious Commoners,” Goodfriend turns to the revivalist preacher George Whitefield, whose influence on New York City “has consistently been deemed negligible by historians,” she writes (p. 79). She shows just the opposite, marshaling her formidable research skills and insightful observations to establish that, in all sections of the populace—not just among the lower sort of Dutch, but Anglicans as well—a defiance to the elite authorities inspired to a major extent by Whitefield’s preaching was setting in and becoming ingrained. People responded to his heroic preaching of the “new birth” with zest. To the perhaps as-yet unspoken question, who should rule at home, the answer was evolving and emerging, with another question, what must I do to be saved, impelling it. On the eve of the Revolution, a “deepening chasm” was evident between the “rascally Whig mob” and the “despised Loyalist Anglican clerics” of Trinity Church. Emboldened by Whitefield’s “stinging critique of unregenerate ministers and self-righteous elders, the people began to chart their own path to salvation,” just as the Dutch had defied English notions of gentility by stubbornly clinging to their own ways. Now, the people were “Becoming Religious Consumers,” the title of Chapter 4

of Part II, where Goodfriend breaks new ground in eighteenth-century New York City’s heretofore not so closely examined religious history. In this era, as increasingly numerous and alluring consumer goods became available in the city, so did the opportunities to shop around for a new church or minister, with the result that ministers “found themselves vying with each other for followers” (p. 112), and churchgoers found themselves joining together in small private groups of “godly friends” to talk and rejoice “in the Glorious way of salvation as is Sett forth in the gospel” (p. 113), a message they perhaps were not hearing from more orthodox pulpits on Sundays. They also bought by the scores books of a devotional nature in this flourishing trade in the city and lovingly bequeathed their precious libraries to family members in their wills. In gathering information very difficult to access to make her case about the consumers of religion, Goodfriend in this chapter has plumbed hundreds of near-forgotten works, printed primary sources, memoirs, newspapers, obscure catalogues, letter books, account books, diaries, and journals. If she continues to cite her own published works among them, and she does, then well she might, for she has labored in this vineyard throughout her long and illustrious career and knows more about it than anyone else. When Methodism came to town in the 1760s and 1770s, so did a “conspicuous threat” to religious life in British New York City (p. 137), for the people now had a lively and populist alternative to highminded elite and hierarchically arranged congregational life. Being a consumer in the religious setting “was intoxicating and empowering,” she writes. The key word here is empowering, for now the little people “claimed the right to weigh ideas for themselves” and rewarded themselves with latitude to set a new course in their spiritual lives. This was the “substance of a freedom yet to be realized in the political sphere,” she concludes (p. 142), although it was bound to. In Part III, Goodfriend addresses the question of who should rule at home literally as she examines the relations between men and their wives, and their servants and slaves. Assumed to be “masters of their households,” eighteenth-century New York City husbands of the middling and lower sort found themselves often rudely chal-

Spring 2017

lenged in this assumption by disgruntled wives who took out their frustrations by buying and spending out of control, or by “eloping,” leaving husbands behind to splutter in disbelief in public disavowals of any debts their absconding wives might raise. The same was true of dissatisfied servants and apprentices, as well as slaves who had to stare at the prospect of lives of unending bondage and unremitting work. When the Methodists took up their pulpits in the city, they not only criticized slave owners’ behavior as Christians, “but ac-

cused them of ignoring their dependents’ spiritual needs” (p. 195) in the process, giving enslaved people the courage to confront owners who attempted to dissuade them from Methodism, thus opening “a new front in the household contest over cultural authority” (p. 197). Where would it end? Goodfriend is careful not to claim too much for the authority-defying, freethinking, and liberty-loving denizens of early New York City in the run-up to the Revolution. But as she gracefully puts it in her final paragraph: “when the microbursts

of defiance that had been punctuating the lives of local luminaries flowed into the broader political stream in the years leading up to the American Revolution, the likelihood of more robust forms of resistance increased” (p. 239). All in all, an admirable work of heart, mind, and soul that should become a classic of colonial New York City history.

—Firth Haring Fabend, President Jacob Leisler Institute for the Study of Early New York History

Here and There in New Netherland Studies New Netherland Institute’s 40th Annual Conference

HE NEW NETHERLAND Institute’s 40th Annual Conference will be held on September 22nd and 23rd at the New York State Museum in Albany, New York. The topic of this year’s conference is Women in New Netherland in recognition of the 100th anniversary of women obtaining the right to vote in the State of New York. The conference program will open on Friday morning with a talk by NYU professor Susanah Romney entitled, “Housewives and Businesswomen: Changing how we Think about Dutch Women in the Atlantic World.” Other speakers include Artyom Aniken, “The Short History of Witch Trials in Colonial New York,” Bill Greer, “Who Wears the Trousers? Dutch Folk Tradition and the Battle of the Sexes in New Netherland,” Karen Hess, “A Sketch of a Portrait: Adriaantje Coeymans, Dutch Colonial Dame,” Lana Holden, “Catalina Trico: A Reflection of New Netherland,” Kate Lynch, “‘She Removed to the Dutch against the Advice of Her Friends’: Lady Deborah Moody and New Netherland’s Dissident Women,” Dirk Mouw, “Women and the Dutch Reformed Church in North America: What We Can Learn from Congregational Records,” Ruth Piwonka, “Female Traders, Obscure, Unexpected,” Peter G. Rose, “Ms. Cookbooks as Documents of Social and Family History,” Julie Van Den Hout, “Mary Doughty van der Donck: This Preacher’s Daughter was No Shrinking Violet,” and David William Voorhees,

“Women in Leisler’s Rebellion.” In addition to the two-day conference sessions, there will be the New Netherland Dinner on Friday evening. A tour of Crailo and their “Women in New Netherland” exhibit has been arranged for Saturday at two p.m. For further information, go to the New Netherland Institute website at www. newnetherlandinstitute.org

Dutch Culture Showcased at Historic Huguenot Street

ISTORIC HUGUENOT STREET celebrates the 340th anniversary of the Huguenot settlement with several exciting programs this fall. Founded in 1677, this ten-acre National Historic Landmark encompasses seven historic house museums, a reconstructed 1717 French Church and authentically-built Esopus Munsee wigwam, as well as a research library, archives, and museum collection. Historic Huguenot Street features what is arguably the most significant, intact architectural concentration of late seventeenth- and early eighteenthcentury stone houses in the United States. Visitors experience four centuries of history through the lens of a Huguenot refugee community in New Netherland. A new guided tour—prepared with the aid of top scholars in the field of colonial New York history—relays the stories of the Esopus Munsees (New Paltz’s first settlers), the town’s French and Dutch founders, and the Africans they enslaved. An exhibit of Esopus Munsee artifacts, found in New Paltz and environs, is featured in the DuBois Fort Visi-

tor Center through December 17, 2017. The Fall Harvest Celebration on September 30th debuts a special installation of a late seventeenth-century Dutch period room to celebrate the enduring cultural influence the New Netherland colony in the Hudson Valley. The exhibition, entitled Living in Style: Selections from the George Way Collection of Dutch Fine and Decorative Art, features fine Dutch sixteenth- and seventeenth-century furniture, paintings, and decorative arts acquired by Way over a fifty-year period. The exhibition will be on view September 30 through December 17, 2017, and accompanied by a full-color catalogue with an essay by Ruth Piwonka, coauthor of Remembrance of Patria: Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America, 1606-1776. Funding for the exhibition and catalog has been provided by a grant from the Peggy N. and Roger G. Gerry Charitable Trust and a private donation. The September 30th event will continue with a farm-to-table dinner celebrating the agricultural bounty of the Hudson Valley. For more information and to register for this special event, please visit huguenotstreet. org/fallharvest. Following the private debut, the exhibition will be featured as part of Historic Huguenot Street’s regular hourly tours through the end of the year. Historic Huguenot Street is only 90 miles north of Manhattan in the beautiful Hudson River Valley in historic New Paltz, NY. The museum is open from nine to five every weekday except Wednesdays. For further information contact the Director of Marketing and Communications at media@ huguenotstreet.org.

de Halve Maen

Society Activities Annual Meeting

HE 131st Annual Meeting of The Holland Society of New York was held at The Cornell Club of New York on East 44th Street in Manhattan on Friday, April 7, 2017. Holland Society President Andrew Terhune called the meeting to order at 5:15pm. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America and invocation by Rev. David. S. Lent, President Terhune called for a motion to waive the reading of last year’s minutes. President Terhune presented Vice President and Membership Chair, Col. Adrian Bogart III’s report, which reflected that since June the Society had received fortyseven applications for membership, of which thirty-two were elected as of date. Reflecting the Society’s 2016 membership change to allow women to become full Members, of the thirty-two new Members, twenty are women. The Membership report was followed by a reading of the necrology for the past year with reminiscences by those present about the departed and a prayer by Rev. David Lent. President Terhune asked for a vote to fill the roles of Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary and Domine until the next Annual Meeting in 2018. The Trustees voted to approve until the next Annual Meeting in 2018, Col. Adrian Bogart as Vice President, Eric DeLamarter as Treasurer, Dean Vanderwarker as Secretary, and Rev. Paul Lent as Domine. Trustees reelected at the meeting to terms ending in 2021were Trustee and Domine the Rev. Paul Lent and Trustees David Nostrand and Greg Outwater. Newly elected to the same term is Ken Winans, who joins us from California. Mr.

Above: Glen Umberger of the New York Landmarks Conservancy presents the history of The Society’s bronze tablet commemorating the launching of the first Dutch ship built in New Netherland, the Onrust. Right: Members and guests sing the Dutch and American National anthems before dinner. Winans replaces Trustee John Lansing, who served as Chair of the Genealogy Committee, and retired from the board. The Trustees adjourned the business meeting at 6:17 to join family, Friends, and guests for cocktails and the Annual Meeting Dinner. Fifty-five Members, including past-Presidents William Van Winkle and

Members at the Holland Society Annual meeting applaud Society President Andrew Terhune during his address.

Spring 2017

Walton Van Winkle, and guests, including Tessa Dikker, the Cultural Affairs Officer of the New York Consulate General of The Netherlands. The festivities began with the traditional toasts to the King Willem Alexander of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, given by President Terhune, to the President of the United States, given by Ms. Dikker, and to the Holland Society of New York, given by William Van Winkle, as well as by the singing of the Dutch and American national anthems. Piano music was provided by the talented Arthur Heydendael, husband of Society Executive Director Odette Fodor-Gernaert. Before food was served, Members, Friends, and guests were treated to a presentation by Glen Umberger of the New York Landmarks Conservancy on the history of Society’s bronze tabletto commemorate the 1614 launching of the Onrust (Restless), the first ship built by Europeans in the Hudson River Valley. The tablet had been installed

in 1890 at 45 Broadway in Manhattan, but has been traveling with the Society’s offices since the 1980s when that building was demolished. Through Mr. Umberger’s efforts, the owners of the new building have agreed to allow The Holland Society to reinstall the tablet in a ceremony, which is planned for September. Following a dinner consisting of an arugula, pear, and carmelized walnut salad with crumbled blue cheese and a champagne vinaigrette, Parmesan crusted chicken breast with lemon basil risotto and asparagus, and an apple cobbler with vanilla bean sauce, President Terhune gave a lively speech about the present and future state of The Holland Society. In addition, he presented to Society Past President Charles Zabriskie Jr. (in absentia) the Branch President of the Year Award, for his years of service as New England Branch President. Following the formal conclusion of the dinner, Members, Friends, and guests retired to an adjoining room to enjoy an informal collation and beer donated by Heineken USA.

Florida Branch Meeting

HE FLORIDA BRANCH of the Holland Society of New York met for its annual luncheon meeting on January 28, 2017. It was held at the elegant Club at Admirals Cove in Jupiter, Florida, thanks to long-time Holland Society Friend Shirley Longstreet. After a congenial cocktail hour for drinks and conversation, the luncheon meeting commenced with a toast to King Willem Alexander of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Remarks given by Holland Society Past President Charlie Zabriskie were the highlight of the program. The Holland Society Members and their guests in attendance were Charlie and Star Zabriskie, Steven and Randi Zabriskie, Donald and Emily Westervelt, Cooper and Barbara Lansing, James Lansing, Alan and Alice Deyoe, Lane Deyoe, J. Garrett and Margaret DeGraff, Kent and Joanne Booream, Jonathan, and Karen Booream, Roland Bogardus and friend Rose Pisani, and Patricia Anderson. The Florida Branch luncheon meeting offers an exceptional opportunity for Holland Society Members, their families, and their friends from all over the country who happen to be in Florida in the height of winter to gather for conversation and networking.

Members and Friends of the Florida Branch gather at the Club at Admirals Cove, in Jupiter, Florida.

Letter from the President: Move of Holland Society Library and Offices Members and Friends, At the time of the Annual Meeting, we had been hopeful that an affordable option to share our office with other entities would allow us to remain at 20 W. 44th St. Sadly, that is not the case, and we will be moving to a temporary office between now and the end of July. The space we have occupied for the past ten years is ideal for what it was conceived to be, but with the relocation of the bulk of our library to the New Netherland Research Center, we no longer need to rent such a large space. Nor can we afford it in Midtown Manhattan, one of the most expensive real estate markets in the world. Preparing for the move has been a lot of effort, but is has also been a voyage of discovery. We have a wealth of information in our records and archives. Most of this has been relatively inaccessible and much of it

uncatalogued. Among our missions in the coming year will be to properly catalogue what we have and to begin the process of making our records more easily available to both Members and scholars. As we continue our search for an alternative to our former location, we need to have all options on the table including the possibility of having a “virtual” office rather than a physical office. Whichever route we go, we will be more financially sound. Our hope is that we can use our strengthened finances to resume funding research in cooperation with other societies whose interests overlap with ours. I believe this may, in hindsight, be seen as a blessing. When we are no longer weighed down with the burden of high rent and office costs, we will have options that we simply do not have today. There is a lot of work to do, and we have not had the resources to tackle things that we have needed to do for a long time. Andrew Terhune President The Holland Society of New York

de Halve Maen

In Memoriam Francis Wilbert Sloat Holland Society of New York Life Mem-ber Francis Wilbert Sloat passed away on May 30, 2014, at the age of eighty. Mr. Sloat was born on December 22, 1933, in Middletown, New York, son of Leslie Win-field Sloat and Dorothy Shinn. He claimed descent from Jan Pieterszen Slot, who in 1650 emigrated from Holstein, Denmark, to New Harlem. Mr. Sloat joined the Holland Society in 1994. Mr. Sloat graduated from the Moorestown Friends School, Moorestown, New Jersey, in 1951. He went on to earn a Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Princeton University in 1955. He served with the United States Army Security Agency from 1956 to 1958. Mr. Sloat married Eleanor Frances Brown in Glenside, Pennsylvania, on November 24, 1962. The couple had four children: William Edward Sloat, born on November 8, 1963, in Philadelphia; James Michael Sloat, born on September 8, 1966, in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania; Debbi Lynn Sloat, born on July 31, 1968, in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania; and David Andrew Sloat, born on January 18, 1976, in Reading, Pennsylvania. Mr. Sloat worked as a project manager as a registered professional engineer. His employers included Clifton Precision Products in Clifton, New Jersey, where he was Assistant Chief Engineer, Kuss Industries in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Teleflex, Inc., in North Wales, Pennsylvania. He also worked for Forensic Technologies in Annapolis, Maryland, and Gilbert Com-monwealth in Reading, Pennsylvania. From 1987 to 2004 he worked as a construction project manager for a variety of employ-ers including Warder and Associates of Clinton, Maryland, BP Corporation in Millersville, Maryland, Anne Arundel County Public Schools, and Nova Enterprises in Millersville, Maryland. After 2004, he was self-employed as a project consultant. Throughout his adult life Mr. Sloat was an active church member. He was a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Glenside, Pennsylvania, serving as trustee and chairman of the building committee as a member of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, also of Glenside, of the Evangelical Free Church of Elverson,

Spring 2017

Pennsylvania, serving as an elder, and as a member of the Presbyterian Church of America. Mr. Sloat was a member of the Project Management Institute and the National Society of Professional Engineers. He also took great interest in his family genealogy, becoming a member of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society, the Order of the Founders and Patriots of America, and the Sons of the American Revolution through the John Paul Jones Chapter, in addition to his membership in the Holland Society. He was also the Major Domo of the Princeton Prospect Club. He was Republican in his politics. Mr. Sloat is survived by his wife, Eleanor, four children, William Edward Sloat, James Michael Sloat, Debbi Lyn Sloat Castro, and David Andrew Sloat, and five grandchildren. Memorial services were held at Pasadena Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Interment was at the Maryland Veterans Cemetery, Crownsville.

Harry Rulef Schanck Holland Society of New York Life Member Harry Rulef Schanck died at his home in Manchester, New Jersey, on June 7, 2014, at the age of eighty-eight. Mr. Schanck was born in Brooklyn, New York, on April 10, 1926, the son to Harry Schaefer Schanck and Gertrude Margaret Goebel. He claimed descent from Roelof Martenszen Schenck who came to New Netherland from Amers-foort, Utrecht, in 1650 and settled in Flat-lands, Long Island. Mr. Schank graduated in 1943 from Mount Hermon Preparatory School, Mount Hermon, Massachusetts. During the Second World War, he served in the Pacific Theater with the United States Navy as an Aviation Radioman, seeing active duty in the South Pacific. After attending Champlain College, he graduated in 1950 from Rider College in Trenton, New Jersey, with a Bachelor of Arts with a major in Business Administra-tion. Throughout his business career, Mr. Schanck worked in sales engineering for various firms. He retired from the Barish Pump Company. He lived in Stamford, Connecticut, from 1957 until less than a year before his death, when he moved to Manchester. On June 6, 1948, Mr. Schanck married Eleanor Drury in Chasm Falls, New

York. The couple had two sons, Andrew Van Schanck, born January 11, 1962, and Theodore Jan Schanck, born November 4, 1965. His wife, Eleanor, predeceased him, as did his son Theodore. Mr. Schanck was a member and past Master of the Freemason Union Lodge 5 in Stamford, Connecticut, receiving the York Rite Cross of Honor in 1971. He was a member of the Sons of the American Revolution, serving as president of the Capt. Matthew Mead Branch of Greenwich, Connecticut, in 1996–1997. He was also active with the First Presbyterian Church in Stamford, Connecticut, serving as a deacon, trustee, elder, and Sunday School teacher. From 1986 to 1996, he served with the Literacy Volunteers of the USA. Mr. Schanck is survived by his son Andrew Schanck of Manchester, New Jersey. Burial arrangements by Oliverie Funeral Home of Manchester. Cremation was private. Interment was in the Ocean County Memorial Park, Toms River, New Jersey.

Norman Campbell Odekirk Holland Society of New York Life Mem-ber Norman (“Dutch”) Campbell Odekirk passed away on March 13, 2015, in St. Maries, Idaho, at the age of seventy-nine. Mr. Odekirk was born on June 28, 1926, in Roosevelt, Utah, son of Frank Odekirk and Clara Wilma Tolliver. He claimed descent from Jan Janszen Oudekirk, a cooper by trade, who emigrated from Oudekirk on the Amstel River, Holland, to Beverwijck in 1664. Mr. Oudekirk joined the Holland Society in 1993. Mr. Oudekirk was raised in Roosevelt, Utah, until he was twelveyears-old, when his family moved to Ogden, Utah, where he lived until he was drafted into the United States Army. He served with the Infantry and fought in the Battle of the Bulge among other engagements. Mr. Odekirk served in France, Belgium, and Germany. He received a Third Award Combat Infantry Badge for fighting in three consecutive battles. Mr. Odekirk married Gayle Pauline Gardner in Deweyville, Utah, on December 30, 1948. The couple had four children: Jerilyn Gayle Odekirk, 25 born September 18, 1951; Norman Cambell Odekirk, born on

December 13, 1952; Frank Verl Odekirk, born on February 23, 1955; and Juli Marie Odekirk, born on June 4, 1958, all in St. Maries, Idaho. Mr. Odekirk and his wife separated for thirty-one years, but reunited in 2006. In 1952 Mr. Odekirk purchased the Flying D Ranch near St. Maries, Idaho, where he lived for most of the remainder of his life. Mr. Odekirk was preceded in death by his love, Gayle, and his son Frank Verl Odekirk. He is survived by his children Jerilyn Odekirk Ewing of Odgen, Utah, Norman Cambell Odekirk of King Salmon, Alaska, and Juli Odekirk of American Fork, Utah, fifteen grandchildren, and tweny great-grandchildren. Funeral arrangements were made by Hodge Funeral Home, with services held on March 19, 2015, at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, St. Maries Ward. Interment was at Woodlawn Cemetery, St. Maries, Idaho.

Deforest Barkley Voorhees Sr. Holland Society of New York Member Deforest Barkley Voorhees Sr. passed away on June 9, 2015, in New Braunfels, Texas, at the age of 103. Mr. Voorhees was born in Brooklyn, New York, on June 20, 1911, son of George Edward Voorhees and Elizabeth Burgess. He claimed descent from Steven Koerts, who emigrated from Hees, Drenthe, to New Amersfort, Long Island, in 1660. Mr. Voorhees joined the Holland Society of New York in 1976, Mr. Voorhees family moved to Montclair, New Jersey, when he was young. In 1929 he graduated from Montclair High School, where he was the captain of the New Jersey State Championship track team in his senior year. Mr. Voorhees went on to Dartmouth College, from which he graduated in 1933 with an A.B. degree. While at Dartmouth, he lettered in track and was a member of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. He also attended the Tuck Graduate School of Business Administration. Mr. Voorhees began his business career at R. H. Macy in New York City. After two years, he joined the Custody Department of the Guaranty Trust Company. In 1938 he joined the Treasury Department of Standard Oil which later became Exxon Mobil. Mr. Voorhees retired from Exxon Mobil in 1976, having held management positions in the 26 treasury, supply, controllers, traffic,

and purchasing departments of several of Exxon’s affiliated companies. On April 20, 1940, Mr. Voorhees married Jean Scudder in East Orange, New Jersey. The couple had two children, Deborah Scudder Voorhees, born on May 12, 1942, and Deforest Barkley Voorhees Jr., born December 16, 1947, both in Orange, New Jersey. Jean Scudder Voorhees passed away on August 19, 1978. On March 31, 1979, Mr. Voorhees married Nan Loylette Preble in Houston, Texas. She died in September 2010. In 1972 the Voorhees family moved to Houston, Texas. In 1999, he and his wife, Nan, moved to New Braunfels, Texas. Following his son’s death in November, 2014, Mr. Voorhees moved to the Rio Terra Assisted Living Facility in New Braunfels. Mr. Voorhees was a member and past President of the Pine Forest Country Club in Houston, of which he was a member of the board of directors in 1978–1980 and served as president of in 1980. Mr. Voorhees was president of the Young People’s Group of the Union Congregational Church of Upper Montclair, New Jersey, in 1928, and was an active member of the First Congregational Church of Houston, Texas, from 1975 to 2001, and the First Protestant Church of New Braunfels, Texas, from 2001 until his death. With a keen interest in genealogy, he was a member of the Van Voorhees Association and the Miles Merwin Association. He served as the Treasurer of the Texas Branch of the Holland Society. He enjoyed gold, sailing, gardening, and collecting antique English sterling silver. He was Republican in his politics. Mr. Voorhees is survived by his daughter Deborah Heideman of Houston, Texas, and granddaughters Elizabeth Barrera of Keller, Texas, Katie Whytal of Oviedo, Florida, and Heather Deiss of Houston, Texas, as well as four great grandchildren. Funeral arrangements were made by Zoeller Funeral Home, New Braunfels, Texas.

George Arthur Blauvelt Jr. Holland Society of New York Member George Arthur Blauvelt Jr. passed away on June 29, 2015, in Westminster, Colorado, at the age of seventy-three. Mr. Blauvelt was born on November 23, 1941, in Brooklyn, New York, son of George Arthur Blauvelt and Astrid Swenson. He claimed descent from Gerrit Hendrickszen, who emigrated

from Deventer, Overijssel to New Amsterdam in 1637. He joined the Holland Society of New York in 2006. In 1963, he graduated from New York University with a Bachelor of Science degree. Mr. Blauvert married Doris Anne Reeber on June 22, 1963, in Valley Stream, New York. They had three children, William Arthur Blauvelt, born January 25, 1965; Kenneth Alan Blauvelt, born on October 16, 1968; and Laurie Anne Blauvelt, born on November 7, 1970, all born in Huntington, New York. Mr. Blauvelt’s wife, Doris, predeceased him. Mr. Blauvelt began his career in New York with Metscher Foods as a sales representative. In 1967, he joined Nestle and rose to National Sales Manager for the Specialty and Cheese Division. Mr. Blauvelt retired from Nestle after sixteen years. He then became Vice President of Fromageries Bel, Inc., a French cheese company, where he managed sales for the North American operations. In 1993 Mr. Blauvelt moved from Danbury, Connecticut, to Westminster, Colorado where, for four years, he led DPI Dykstra Sales, a perishable food distribution company. Mr. Blauvelt and a friend acquired Aspen Food Marketing from DPI. Later he started a marketing consulting firm. Mr. Blauvelt was active in the Eastern Dairy Deli Association, now called the Eastern Perishable Products Association, serving from 1984 to 1988 as its President. He was on the boards of directors for the International Dairy Deli Bakery Association and the Denver Association of Manufacturer’s Representatives. Mr. Blauvelt was also active with the Association of Blauvelt Descendants, serving as its president. He has served as president of the Stratford Lakes, Colorado Homeowners’ Association from 2000. He was Methodist in his religion and a conservative Republican in his politics. Mr. Blauvelt is survived by his sons William Blauvelt of South Burlington, Vermont, and Kenneth Blauvelt of Lewiston, Maine, and daughter Laurie Anne, and six grandchildren. Funeral arrangements were made by Olinger Highland Mortuary in Thornton, Colorado. A ‟Celebration of Life” was held at Broomfield United Methodist Church, Broomfield, Colorado, on July 8, 2015, and a Memorial Service was held in New York on September 20, 2015 in New York.

de Halve Maen

Visit us online at www.hollandsociety.org