22 lionel martina by Jonge Historici

Introduction

The invention of ethnicity: How to put the Dutch in Dutch American? 1.1 What is ethnicity? 1.2 Are Dutch Americans ethnic?

7 8 13

Religion 2.1 New Netherland and the revolution era in New York 2.2 A Protestant schism 2.3 CRC and RCA: Dutch Reformed with a difference? 2.4 The Midwest 2.5 New York State 2.6 Religious ethnicity

19 20 22 26 29 30 32

Origins and Goals 3.1 The Dutch â&#x20AC;&#x153;Koloniesâ&#x20AC;? 3.2 The Midwest: a homogenous plurality 3.3 Post-colonial New York State 3.4 The Achterhoek trek to the United States 3.5 From Zeeuws-Vlaanderen to the United States 3.6 Connected regions 3.7 E pluribus unum

34 35 36 40 42 43 45 47

Cultural production 4.1 The field of cultural production 4.2 Cultural definition from outside 4.3 Cultural production from the inside 4.4 Tulip Festivals 4.5 Invented tradition and ethnicity 4.6 Production, invention and tradition

50 51 53 58 61 63 67

Conclusion

Bibliography

Peter Stuyvesant and the Dutch West India Company bought the island of Manhattan for a few beads and mirrors;1 that was how I imagined the beginning of Dutch history in North America. I probably would have remained blissfully unaware of the start of Dutch American history if it were not for a trip to New York. I had told my friend, an American, that I really liked to read about history and that I loved New York City, too. “Well,” he said, “if you want to combine these two things I can recommend you a book: The Island at the Center of the World. The Epic

Story of Dutch Manhattan and the forgotten Colony that shaped America. As the title suggests, it is about the Dutch history of New York. You can kill two birds with one stone.” Because this was all the recommendation I needed, I went to Strand Bookstore on Broadway the next day and bought the book. I had finished the book before I flew back to the Netherlands two days later. Shorto’s elegantly written book did not exactly lead to an epiphany, but it did open my eyes to the long history of Dutch and North American interconnectedness. I already knew, for example, that many New York names originated from the relatively short period of Dutch colonial history. I knew about Broadway’s “Breedeweg” roots, as well as the linguistic roots of Brooklyn (Breukelen), Harlem (Haarlem), Yonkers (jonkheer), cookie (koekje), and boss (baas). What I did not know, was that the Dutch colony of New Netherland stretched into what is now New York State, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Delaware. All this new knowledge made me wonder if there was even more to the Dutch history in the United States. The next step in this story is Saturday, November 11, 2012, when two worlds merged. This was the day that I, a Dutchman, married Carlyn, my American wife. This merger of two worlds was not the first Dutch-American union, nor will it be the last. In a way, this was a continuation of business as usual. As we know, the Netherlands and the United States have a long history of relations. This relation stretches back to the days before there even was a United States of America, when Hendry Hudson discovered Manhattan and the river that would bear

1 Of course, it was Peter Minuit who bought Manhattan in 1626 for the equivalent of sixty guilders. Willem Frijhoff and Jaap Jacobs, “The Dutch, New Netherland, and Thereafter (1609-1780s),” in Four Centuries of Dutch-American Relations 16092009, ed. Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles Scott-Smith (Amsterdam: Boom, 2009), 31–47.

his name, in 1609. From 1609 onwards, colonists from the Dutch Republic settled the American colonies together with their English, French, Swedish, and Spanish counterparts. Those original colonizers were courageous men and women, braving the wilds to build up a new life for themselves and their children.2 The colonies vied for supremacy with the British, each other, and their Native American neighbors.3 In 1674, the direct involvement of the Dutch in North America ended when the British took over control of Manhattan and the colony of New Netherland. However, the British takeover did not signify the end of Dutch presence in North America, as the Dutch colonists of New Netherland remained a dominant group in parts of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. This presence was most visible in the Dutch religious institutions that were a part of every town with a population of Dutch descent. However, the sheer weight of numbers and the passage of time lessened the Dutch colonial presence and visibility. Around 1847, this dwindling was about to be reversed. A combination of a potato blight and a bad economic outlook strengthened certain Dutch people in their belief that there was a Promised Land: the United States. Again, the Dutch came to colonize the lands like their ancestors had done before them. The existence of these two groups of Dutch colonists raises several questions. What did the older Dutch immigrants and the newer Dutch immigrants share, and in which ways did they differ from each other? Furthermore, to what extent can we speak of a Dutch ethnicity in the American context? Are there Dutch Americans, and if so, what constitutes a Dutch American? When speaking of hyphenated Americans, the term ‘ethnicity’ comes to mind. Ethnicity can be defined as a duality of a person’s heritage and place of birth on one side, and how other people define that person on the other. In this thesis I will argue that there is a distinct Dutch American ethnicity and that it was originally built upon religious beliefs. These beliefs encouraged Dutch Americans to build and strengthen religious connections with other Dutch Americans. By strongly identifying with their own religion, Dutch Americans formed a distinct

2 Of course, not all inhabitants of the colonies went out of their own volition. I am aware of the fact that the African slaves and the indentured servants saw their “adventure” in a completely different light. However, it does say something that people were willing to leave everything (how little it might be) behind to start anew in a strange, wild land. 3 Some argue that the battles with the Indians continue until the present day. As an example, the current debate about the offensive and derogatory nature of the name of the Washington Redskins comes to mind.

ethic group within the United States. Although religion was a very distinct marker of Dutch American ethnicity in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, Dutch immigrants were not the only immigrants for whom religion played a major role. Take for example the Catholic immigrants from countries like Ireland and Italy, or the Jews from Eastern Europe that came to the United States in great numbers. The Dutch were predominantly Protestant, but Protestantism in its different forms was the religion with the largest following in the United States. Therefore, one would not expect this religion to be a marker of Dutch ethnicity. Nevertheless, what set Dutch Protestants apart from other Protestants was their Calvinism. To keep true to their Calvinist beliefs, they formed their own institutions to support the one ‘true religion’. This ‘Cement of the Churches’, as Hans Krabbendam calls it, would prove a strong bond for Dutch Americans.4 One of the reasons the Dutch immigrants were able to maintain such strong bonds is that they tended to cluster together. This clustering in a relatively small geographic area set them apart from the British and French colonists, who settled in larger areas.5 Dutch clustering is not a new phenomenon, since it already started in the seventeenth century, as evidenced by settlements in what is now New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.6 The immigrants that made the trek from the mid nineteenth century onward continued this tendency of clustering in regions such as New York, Michigan, and Wisconsin. For this new wave, clustering began before they even left the Netherlands. Leading up to the immigration, potential immigrants founded so-called Immigration Societies that came to colonize a distinct part of the United States. These immigration patterns led to Dutch Americans settling in the old New Netherlands colony on the Eastern Seaboard, in the new American Midwest, and in upstate New York. The latter two groups are commonly grouped and studied as one distinct group because they immigrated in the same time period. However, unlike their immigrant brethren in the Midwest, Dutch immigrants in upstate New York and in Wisconsin originated from more religiously plural regions and came to the United States for a better life, with no real intentions of transplanting

4 “Cement of the Churches” is the title of Chapter 4 of the book. Hans Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon: Dutch Immigration to America, 1840-1940 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009). 5 Of course, what also played a role is that the French and British sent more colonists to North America than the Dutch. This also led to those colonists settling in a larger area. 6 In that area, New York (New Amsterdam) and Albany (Beverwijck) were the main Dutch settlements.

Dutch society. This history made these immigrants more pragmatic and less dogmatic than their contemporaries, molding their identity slightly differently than the rest of the Dutch American ethnic group. Ethnic groups can be perceived and defined, from both inside and outside, by looking at works of cultural production, such as literature and art. There are two main flavors of cultural production, small-scale and large-scale. Small-scale cultural production is directed only at a small group, whereas large-scale cultural production is accessible to the masses. Cultural production of Dutch Americans from outside the ethnic group took the form of large-scale production. Washington Irving’s book about Dutch New York, A history of New York, from

the beginning of the world to the end of the Dutch dynasty, is the first example of outside production in relation to Dutch Americans. This book was shortly followed by a book by Edmund B. O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland; or, New York under the Dutch. Unlike Irving’s book, that portrayed gruff caricatures of Dutch Americans, O’Callaghan used factual information to detail Dutch colonial history in the United States.7 O’Callaghan inadvertently set the stage for “Holland Mania.” Holland Mania was a period in which everything Dutch was valued in the United States. The period led to a new appreciation of Dutch Golden Age art. Dutch masters like Rembrandt and Vermeer depicted the idealized, clean, and frugal Protestant work ethic that Americans valued. This appreciation was a response to the rising immigration from regions that were not “white” or Protestant, like Italy and Eastern Europe. During Holland Mania, this perceived “Dutchness” was used to define the American ideal. When the United States closed its borders with the Quota Acts of 1921 and 1924, unwanted immigration was halted. The Dutch were no longer necessary as a role model and were therefore discarded. Holland Mania had come to an end. Despite the sudden abandonment of Holland Mania, Dutch Americans continued to produce both small-scale and large-scale productions. For example, religion remained central for many Dutch immigrant communities, causing the small-scale cultural production of Dutch language church services. Dutch language newspapers also continued cultural production, shifting their focus from inside their respective communities to reporting the events in all Dutch

7 “Review of History of New Netherland; Or New York under the Dutch by E. B. O’Callaghan,” The North American Review 62, no. 131 (April 1, 1846): 447–64., p. 449.

areas. Large-scale production continued as well. A major example of large-scale production from inside the Dutch American community are the so-called Tulip Festivals. These festivals not only celebrated the unique immigrant view on Dutch ethnicity, but also give an indication of the strength of Dutch ethnic identity in particular regions. Indeed, as Dutch immigrants went westward or became more Americanized, Tulip Festivals followed suit. All in all, these festivals were places where invented traditions, imagined communities, and cultural production all came together. Because of the long connection between the Dutch and the United States, one could start many discussions about the influence of the Dutch on American society. Although â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;influenceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is difficult to measure, there have been many theories about the Dutch shaping of American identity. This thesis is not intended to prove or disprove these theories; the intention is to explore in which ways Dutch immigrants left an impression in the United States. This search led me along the paths that Dutch immigrants have followed for centuries. First after starting as localized communities, Dutch Americans eventually imagined a national ethnic identity. This ethnic identity was largely centered on the Calvinist religious heritage of the immigrants. These roots led to the establishment of ethnocentric schools, churches, and newspapers. The Dutch immigrants also tended to cluster within these established communities in an attempt to transplant Dutch society to the United States. These communities eventually evolved and celebrated a now Americanized version of Dutch ethnicity in the form of Tulip Festivals. Perhaps due to all of these similarities in both small- and large-scale cultural production, historiography tends to focus on only two groups of Dutch immigrants. These groups are the older immigrants who settled in what had once been New Netherlands and the newer immigrants who settled in the Midwest and upstate New York. However, if one looks closer into the details of their individual ethnic roots, religion, choice of settlement, and cultural production, a small rift begins to emerge. In this thesis, I aim to explore what defines Dutch ethnicity and how that definition shifts over time. By analyzing small cultural differences, we may fully understand the true complexity of the Dutch American melting pot.

Currently, 4.3 million Americans say they are of Dutch descent.8 The literal definition of ‘descent’ is relatively straightforward: descent is tied to a biological lineage. However, the definition of ‘descent’, when put into relation with culture, is ambiguous.9 It becomes even more complicated when we use ‘descent’ to describe the construct of ‘ethnicity’. Werner Sollors explores this ambiguity in his book Beyond Ethnicity: Consent and Descent in American

Culture. For Sollors, descent is a relation of substance, while consent is a relation of law. As he stated: “Descent language emphasizes our position as heirs, our hereditary qualities, liabilities, and entitlements; consent language stresses our abilities as mature free agents and ‘architects of our fates’ to choose our spouses, our destinies, our political systems.”10 This leads me to the question of what makes an American a Dutch American. Firstly, what definition does the U.S. Census Bureau use to determine a person’s descent? Interestingly, the U.S. Census Bureau assumes it is a matter of consent. Under federal guidelines, what ethnicity and descent a respondent has, is a choice. In the end, the respondent decides of what ethnicity, if any, he is a part.11 Secondly, does Dutch ancestral history or choice define a Dutch American? If you can only be a Dutch American by descent, what constitutes this descent? If being Dutch American is a choice, what is this choice?12 To find out if being Dutch American is based on descent, consent, or both, I will first define ethnicity in the context of this paper. What makes a person ethnic? Is it a choice or simply a matter of ancestry? After defining ethnicity, I will delve into the specific markers of Dutch American ethnicity. What makes a

8 U. S. Census Bureau, “Dutch Heritage in the United States,” accessed March 13, 2014, http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_1YR_S0201&prodType=table. 9The Oxford Dictionary describes ‘descent’ as follows: The fact of ‘descending’ or being descended from an ancestor or ancestral stock; lineage. “Descent, N.,” OED Online (Oxford University Press), accessed April 18, 2014, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/50722. 10 Sollors, Beyond Ethnicity.p. 6. 11 The U.S. Census Bureau uses the definition from the Office of Management and Budget to determine ethnicity. Quite surprisingly, the only ethnic distinction the federal government makes is ‘Hispanic or Latino’ and ‘Not Hispanic or Latino’. “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity | The White House,” accessed June 4, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_1997standards/. 12 Of course, this is under the assumption that no such person as the Dutch American exists.

person Dutch American? Do religion, language, and culture make someone Dutch American, or is there more to it? After I have discussed these different markers, I will look into different groups of Dutch Americans. Are they similar or different? Is there one distinct type of Dutch American, or are there more flavors to the Dutch American stew? 1.1

What is ethnicity?

As Werner Sollors suggests in The Invention of Ethnicity, “The forces of modern life embodied by such terms as ‘ethnicity,’ ‘nationalism,’ or ‘race’ can indeed be meaningfully discussed as ‘inventions.’”13 Dutch American is the name for a specific group of people in the United States of America. This specific group distinguishes itself from other Americans by using the prefix ‘Dutch’. Therefore, one of the markers of ethnicity is how the group perceives its ethnicity. If I follow Sollor’s definition, being Dutch American is also an invention. However, like most ‘ethnics’, Dutch Americans most likely do not see themselves as inventions.14 One of the questions of this thesis is what else makes an American ‘Dutch American’. In other words, how do we define Dutch in the American context? Is it a matter of ethnicity, nationality, culture, religion, or a combination of all of the above? The old Greek word ethnikos originally meant either ‘gentile’ or ‘heathen’ and signified people who were ‘other’ and not of the own group. The Greek context also implies that ethnics do not possess citizenship rights. Ethnics were by definition not of the polis and could therefore not possess the same rights as the citizens. The first definition, of a people that were ‘other’ than the dominant group, is also the definition we currently use when we talk about ethnicity.15 A second marker of ethnicity, therefore, is in how far a person has citizenship rights. Interestingly enough, although the root of the word goes back to ancient Greek, the current use of the word ‘ethnic’ is relatively new. According to Sollors, the first use of the word

13 Sollors, The Invention of Ethnicity., p. xi. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge etc: Cambridge University Press, 1983). Anderson, Imagined Communities. In chapter 4 I will discuss the invention of Dutch American traditions in more detail. 14 See, for example, the essays celebrating Dutch American scholar Robert P. Swierenga’s 35-year career. For the authors, Dutch and American alike, being Dutch American is a tangible fact. Hans Krabbendam and Larry J. Wagenaar, eds., The Dutch-American Experience: Essays in Honor of Robert P. Swierenga (Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij, 2000). 15 Sollors, Beyond Ethnicity, p. 25.

‘ethnicity’ in its current form was in 1941 by W. Lloyd Warner and Paul Lunt.16 For Warner and Lunt, someone “was classified as belonging to a specific ethnic group if (1) he considered himself or was considered by the Yankee community as a member of the group, and (2) if he participated in the activities of the group.”17 Warner and Lunt furthermore state, “The concept of ethnicity is not based simply on place of birth.”18 If we follow this definition, the simple fact that a Dutch American was born in the Netherlands does not make his or her ethnicity Dutch.19 In addition, the simple fact that a person residing in the United States descends from Dutch ancestors does not make one Dutch American. However, the question that remains is what else makes a person ‘ethnic’ or ‘other’? A Yankee is a native inhabitant of New England, which at the time was a synonym for White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP). The Dutch immigrants were also white and Protestant, and apart from the language at least outwardly indistinguishable from the WASPs.20 Sollors provides a definition for ethnicity in Beyond Ethnicity; there, he writes that ethnicity is a construct. As a construct, ethnicity appears to be natural and bound to descent, but at the same time, it is also rooted in consent and acceptance.21 Ethnicity in this sense is a result of his or her heritage. As a child of Dutch parents, you are automatically Dutch. However, if you are born of Dutch parents in the United States, part of your Dutch ethnicity is defined by the acceptance of your Dutch roots. With Warner and Lunt in mind, this acceptance has to be from both the ethnic group itself and from the ‘others’. Without acceptance of these

16 Ibid, p. 23. The book in question is Warner, W. Lloyd, and Paul S. Lunt, The Social Life of a Modern Community, Yankee City Series, vol. 1, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941).Warner was a member of the Second Generation of the Chicago School of Sociology, which came up under the tutelage of Robert E. Park and Ernst W. Burgess. One of Warner’s more famous contemporaries is Louis Wirth, who wrote the influential ethnic study “The Ghetto”, on communication and social maintenance. For an overview of the Chicago Schoool of Sociology and its professors, see Wayne G. Lutters and Mark S. Ackerman, “An Introduction to the Chicago School of Sociology,” vol. 1996 (presented at the UCI-ICS Social Worlds Lab #96-1, Irvine, Cal., 1996). 17 Ibid., p. 23. Sollors also asks the question if Yankees are also ethnic, p. 24. His main conclusion, which I share, is that for the dominant group in a country all other persons who are not of that group is ethnic. This raises the question if the new immigrant Dutch were ethnic compared to the descendants of the colonial Dutch Yankees. 18 Sollors, Beyond Ethnicity, p. 23. 19 According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "Yankee" is probably derived from the Dutch "Janke”. This would mean that by Lloyd and Lunt's definition Dutch Americans are not ethnic. However, in the United States “Yankee” usually refers to a White Anglo Saxon from New England, or WASP. “Etymology of ‘Yankee’,” Oxford English Dictionary, March 18, 2014, http://www.oed.com.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/view/Entry/231174?result=1&rskey=XxvoGc&. 20 At least according to one of the Dutch letter writers in Kathleen Anne DeHaan, “‘He Looks like a Yankee in His New Suit.’ Immigrant Rhetoric: Dutch Immigrant Letters as Forums for Shifting Immigrant Identities.” (Northwestern University, 1998). 21 Sollors, The Invention of Ethnicity., pp. x-xii.

roots, you are just an American, not Dutch American. In short, ethnicity is a choice, while at the same time also a result of descent/ancestry. The author Horace Kallen is inexorably connected to the debate about ethnicity. His 1915 essay Democracy versus the Melting-Pot was a critique of the theories of the American melting pot metaphor that were prevalent in his time. Kallen substituted the melting pot metaphor with his own metaphor of an orchestra. America was like an orchestra, where different instruments came together to create ‘a symphony of civilization’. These instruments were also a synonym for the different ethnicities in the United States. In Kallen’s synonym, outsiders also defined ethnicity like in the Greek ‘ethnikos’, or Warner and Lunt’s ‘Yankee’. Kallen further introduced new terminology to the ethnic debate by referring to this symphony as ‘cultural pluralism’.22 From this idea came his claim that “an Irishman is always an Irishman, a Jew always a Jew. Irishman or Jew is born, citizen or lawyer, church-member is made. Irishman and Jew are facts of nature; citizen and church-member are artifacts of civilization.” Therefore for Kallen, ethnicity was a given, a matter of descent, which could not be changed.23 In his opinion, multiple ethnic groups enrich the nation by adding their own tone to the symphony. By differentiating ethnicities, America is prevented from becoming a broken record, repeating the same stanza repeatedly. In Kallen’s definition, ethnicity is also something that is determined by the view outsiders have of a certain group. It is up to the listeners on the outside to distinguish the different sounds of the ethnicities. However, as I have shown previously, the question if ethnicity is a matter of consent or descent might not entirely fit Kallen’s music sheet. There are also proponents of the theory that ethnicity is a matter of choice and consent. If ethnicity is a matter of consent and acceptance as well, which type of consent makes a person specifically Dutch American? Willem Frijhoff tries to answer this question in his essay

Dutchness in Fact and Fiction.24 One of his main concerns is how to define Dutch and

22 Sollors, Beyond Ethnicity, p. 97. Kallen himself would not have spoken of ethnicity, since the word was not in use until the 1940s. Instead, Kallen talked about races and nations when writing about what we consider ethnicities. For clarity, I have translated Kallen’s terms race and nationality to ethnicity. 23Sollors, Beyond Ethnicity, p. 183. Robert P. Swierenga was also part of the discussion in the 1970s and beyond on what constitutes ethnicity. He subscribed to Kallen’s definition of a pluralistic society, Robert P. Swierenga, “Ethnocultural Political Analysis: A New Approach to American Ethnic Studies,” Journal of American Studies 5, no. 1 (April 1, 1971): 59–79. 24 Willem Frijhoff, “Dutchness in Fact and Fiction,” in Going Dutch: The Dutch Presence in America, 1609-2009, ed. Joyce D. Goodfriend, Benjamin Schmidt, and Annette Stott (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 327–58.

Dutchness.25 For Frijhoff, Dutchness is primarily based on consent and secondarily on actual nationality. In order to understand this consent, he places the Dutch ethnicity and nationality in a historical perspective. For Frijhoff, the consensual definition of being Dutch starts with seventeenth century colonial New Netherland. For the inhabitants of the Dutch Republic, citizenship was not determined by place of birth alone, but was also something that could be bought, therefore implying consent. Citizenship was tied to your place of residence and, with that, slightly reminiscent of the Greek polis. If you legally lived within the gates of a city or town (inside the Poort), you were of that city or town. If you were not of that town, you could become a legal resident by paying for the privilege. If one can become Dutch by paying for it, becoming Dutch is a choice.26 The colonists, many of whom were not born in the Dutch Republic but came from elsewhere, transplanted this consensual form of Dutchness to New Netherland. When the British took over the colony in 1674, a treaty between Britain and the Dutch Republic protected the Dutch freedoms, property, and liberties. A major example of these freedoms was the municipal government of New York. The military governor of New York kept the New Amsterdam system of a chosen council of ‘Burgemeester’ and ‘Schepenen’ (loosely translated as mayor and aldermen) in place. Another example is the monopoly on trade with the natives held by the town of Beverwijck, which transferred to its successor Albany.27 Those are only two examples of how the former Dutch colonists, now under British rule, had their own special status within the British colonies. Because of this special status, Dutchness became a badge with which these citizens could defend their privileges against their neighbors and their

25 Ibid. For instance his statement that “Dutch” is actually not a Dutch word. Since it is an externalist term, by definition “Dutch” is about the outside perception of the people of the Netherlands. 26 A, unfortunately, incomplete record of the “Poorters” (citizens) of Amsterdam can be found in the Amsterdam City Archive. Stadsarchief Amsterdam, “Amsterdamse Poorters,” n.d., http://stadsarchief.amsterdam.nl/presentaties/amsterdamse_schatten/amsterdammers/poorters/index.html. A person born in Amsterdam was automatically an Amsterdammer, but not automatically a “Poorter”. This privilege could be bought and came with its own privileges. For a more extensive summary of “Poorters” and citizens in the 17th century Dutch Republic see Maarten Prak, “The Dutch Republic as a Bourgeois Society,” BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review 125, no. 2–3 (January 1, 2010): 107–39. 27 For more on governance and city rights after the transfer of power, see Simon Middleton, “The Waning of Dutch New York,” in Four Centuries of Dutch-American Relations 1609-2009, ed. Hans Krabbendam and Giles Scott-Smith, 2009; Simon Middleton, “The Idea of ‘Amsterdam’ in New Amsterdam and Early New York.,” ed. George Harinck and Hans Krabbendam (Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij, 2005), 45–54; Jaap Jacobs, “‘To Favor This New and Growing City of New Amsterdam with a Court of Justice.’ The Relations between Rulers and Ruled in New Amsterdam.” In Amsterdam-New York: Transatlantic Relations and Urban Identities Since 1653, ed. George Harinck and Hans Krabbendam (Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij, 2005), 17–29. These rights were all based on the Municipal Charter that the Dutch States-General implemented in 1653. In turn, this charter is the basis for New York’s City Charter. For more on the trade monopoly of Albany, see Bernard Mason, “Aspects of the New York Revolt of 1689.,” New York History 30, no. 2 (April 1, 1949): 165–80.p. 171-172.

new rulers. Religion and language became markers of both Dutchness and Dutch identity in New York, with which these colonists could mark their special status.28 Dutchness was a means to establish and defend citizenship rights. Therefore, I place the beginning of what I will call ‘Dutch ethnicity’ in America at the founding of the colony of New Netherland. Language, culture, and religion set those colonists and their descendants apart from the ‘English’ that surrounded them. Even when the Dutch colonists were not actually born in the Netherlands, they spoke Dutch among each other and predominantly belonged to the Dutch Reformed Church. Culture in the discourse of seventeenth century New York is the public culture of the Dutch Republic and, more specifically, its rights and privileges. This definition does not necessarily include the production of culture in literature, art, or folklore.29 The English takeover also marks the beginning of a tradition of seeing the Dutch Republic as one of the foundations of modern democracy. This shift in perception also lessened the importance of nationality in the idealized Republic.30 Instead of placing importance on the place of descent, people regarded cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity as the basis of this society. According to some theories, the Dutch community was the seed of New York and, therefore, the basis of the United States, as we now know it.31 Of course, claims about the origins of American culture are not solely for the Dutch. This theory is one in a long line of theories on how American culture came into being. Frederick Jackson Turner’s ‘Frontier Thesis’ is one that comes to mind.32 The British, who gave the United States their language, among

28 Frijhoff, “Dutchness in Fact and Fiction”, pp. 346-349. De Jong also dedicates a chapter to the integration of the Dutch colonists in Colonial America (chapter 5), pp. 67-86. Gerald Francis De Jong, The Dutch in America, 1609-1974 (Boston, Mass: Twayne Publishers, 1975). His main conclusion is that the effects of the Dutch colonial period were minimal, but that this is not be confused with the stereotypes that Washington Irving helped spread, p. 86. 29 Simon Middleton, “The Waning of Dutch New York,” in Four Centuries of Dutch-American Relations 1609-2009, ed. Hans Krabbendam and Giles Scott-Smith, 2009. Middleton gives a very concise summary of how cultural Dutchness changed over the years after the English takeover. 30 Anderson, Imagined Communities, p. 46. Anderson places the origin of the modern nation state in the period between 1776 and 1838. I am aware of the fact that nationality as such was not used in 17th century Holland or America, but found this the best word to describe a person coming from a specific country that is not part of the Dutch Republic. 31 Willem Frijhoff and Jaap Jacobs, “The Dutch, New Netherland, and Thereafter (1609-1780s),” in Four Centuries of Dutch-American Relations 1609-2009, ed. Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles Scott-Smith (Amsterdam: Boom, 2009), 31–47, come to a similar conclusion. On maybe a less scientific basis, but definitely an enjoyable version of this story is Russell Shorto, The Island at the Center of the World: The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony That Shaped America (New York etc: Doubleday, 2004). 32 According to Turner, American’s struggle with the frontier in their own country formed American culture and traditions. He concluded that the first chapter of the United States closed when its borders stretched from ocean to ocean. Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1921), http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22994., p 38.

many other things, also need to be included in this discussion.33 However, since this thesis is about Dutch Americans and their culture, I will not expand on these British theories. There is debate whether a small group of Dutch colonists is responsible for the later identity of a city or a country. However, during the seventeenth and a large part of eighteenth century, there was a definite benefit for the continuation of Dutch cultural identity. In the end, maybe with the exception of smaller towns in the Hudson Valley, the eventual assimilation of the colonial Dutch into the English and later the American society went fast. The result was that by the end of the eighteenth century the former Dutch colonists were a part of the American fabric.34 Dutch ethnicity had lost its function of being ‘other’, and with this loss of function Dutch ethnicity had also lost its distinction at the beginning of the nineteenth century. However, with the emergence of nation states and large waves of immigration, Dutch ethnicity would not be dormant for long. 1.2

Are Dutch Americans ethnic?

According to the definition of Warner and Lunt, a person is ethnic if both he or she and the host society think that he or she is part of another group. Ethnicity is a way of defining the ‘other’ by defining your own group, which group is at the same time being defined by others. This defining of the other is not a twentieth century American invention. If we consider the founding of New Netherland and its colonization to be the first wave of Dutch immigration to the United States, the second wave starts around 1846. At that time, the combination of a potato crop failure and a bleak economic future led many people on the path of emigration. These Dutch emigrants had a few things in common. The majority of the emigrants were Protestant, they were predominantly coming from a rural environment, and they were of modest financial means. Most of the Dutch emigrants originated from the so-called ‘clay provinces’ of Zeeland, Groningen, and Friesland, and from the sand provinces of Gelderland and Noord-

33 The prime example of this theory is Fischer’s “Albion’s Seed”, in which Fischer claims that American culture originates in the folkways that were exported by the immigrants coming from distinct British regions. The book was a reaction to the frontier theory and the Germ Theory. The latter claimed that Germanic liberties were the root of American culture. David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America (New York etc: Oxford University Press, 1989). 34 Middleton, “The Waning of Dutch New York.”

Brabant.35 Since a lot of the immigrants came from rural communities, they also set out to become farmers in the United States. Next to financial hardship and a dream of a better life, many of these Dutch immigrants had another reason for immigrating to the United States. In 1834, conservative factions had seceded from the Dutch Reformed Church, which was the official state church in the Netherlands at the time. This secession led to an estrangement of the Dutch that were still part of the ‘traditional’ church. Although the Seceders were not actively persecuted, mainstream Dutch society would not fully accept them until the end of the nineteenth century.36 Moreover, the opportunity to buy land in the United States and to obtain more religious freedom was hard to resist. It gave many Seceders reason to emigrate to the U.S. They emigrated with their entire family, which was a result of their orthodox beliefs. This family style of immigration also separates the Dutch Protestants (both Reformed and Seceders) from other immigrant groups at the time.37 Another distinct trait of Dutch immigrants was that they emigrated in organized groups.38 This trait is not a specific trait of ethnicity. However, it is something that differentiated the Dutch immigrants from other groups at the time. The Netherlands’ very liberal emigration policy contributed greatly to this. For the Dutch government, emigration was a way to release internal pressure. These pressures could be economic, but also religious. To facilitate emigration, the Netherlands allowed its citizens to form so-called ‘immigration societies’. These societies decided where to emigrate, formed beachheads for immigrants, and informed potential immigrants of the possibilities in the new land.39 Due to these factors, a big percentage of Dutch immigrants ended up in immigrant colonies in the American Midwest. The choice for this region was logical at the time. Because it was still frontier country, the Midwest offered a positive economic environment with new farmland available in abundance.40 After the initial settlement

35 Hans Krabbendam, Vrijheid in het verschiet: Nederlandse emigratie naar Amerika 1840-1940 (Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verloren, 2006), 26-27. For a very extensive breakdown of the number of immigrants, their origins, their occupation, their social situation, religion, and much more, see Robert P. Swierenga, Faith and Family : Dutch Immigration and Settlement in the United States, 1820-1920 (New York etc: Holmes & Meier, 2000). 36Krabbendam, Vrijheid in het verschiet: Nederlandse emigratie naar Amerika 1840-1940., p. 29. Also Robert P. Swierenga, “The New Immigration,” in Four Centuries of Durch-American Relations 1609-2009, ed. Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles Scott-Smith (Amsterdam: Boom, 2009)., 295-296. 37 Krabbendam, Vrijheid in het verschiet: Nederlandse emigratie naar Amerika 1840-1940. 145-147. 38 De Jong mentions the three most important emigration associations from Utrecht (Scholte), Arnhem (Van Raalte), and Zeeland (Van der Meulen). These associations would end up determining where the majority of emigrants emigrated. 39 Krabbendam, Vrijheid in het verschiet: Nederlandse emigratie naar Amerika 1840-1940. 45-47 40 Hans Krabbendam, Vrijheid in het verschiet, 48-49

phase, new arrivals would follow their predecessors to these locations, since there was space available with the added benefit of a likeminded community of compatriots. It is also telling that the Dutch immigrants came to colonize an already existing nation. Reverend Scholte, who was one of the leaders of this new wave of immigration, said on this point: If Hollanders are scattered among a foreign population, they will be left too much to themselves, because they cannot in so short a time familiarize themselves with the language in which the Gospel is preached. Through colonization, those who will leave will be able to hear the Gospel in their native tongue during the first few years at least, and may thus receive that spiritual sustenance which will conform in them the faith, kindle them in love, warm them against the cravings of the flesh that militate against the spirit.41

Colonizing part of a country, staying together in tightly knit communities and remaining faithful to the Gospel, is something that set Dutch immigrants apart from their European contemporaries. Dutch immigrants, especially those immigrating to the Midwest, saw themselves as colonists, which also meant that they emigrated to stay permanently. A permanent stay was not what other immigrants at the time had in mind when they moved to the United States. These other immigrant groups consisted predominantly of labor migrants who intended to move to the United States for a short period.42 The Midwest was, of course, not the only location of Dutch immigration. The Dutch that settled in upstate New York, who are also part of my research, are a notable exception. Other Dutch immigrants also stayed on the eastern seaboard in cities like Paterson and Albany, while others moved even further west

41 De Jong, The Dutch in America, 1609-1974, p. 135. In his book De Jong used a part of the quote in Bertus Harry Wabeke, Dutch Emigration to North America, 1624-1860 (New York city, Netherlands information bureau, 1944), http://archive.org/details/DutchEmigrationToNorthAmerica1624-1860, p. 114. The colonization of Michigan and Iowa is discussed at length in the works of Van Hinte and Lucas. Jacob van Hinte, Netherlanders in America: A Study of Emigration and Settlement in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in the United States of America, ed. Robert P. Swierenga, trans. Adriaan de Wit (Grand Rapids Mich: Baker Book House, 1985); Henry S. Lucas, Netherlanders in America: Dutch Immigration to the United States and Canada, 1789-1950 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; London, 1955). 42 For an example of how Eastern Europeans traveled the transatlantic routes, see Adam Walaszek, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Central Eastern Europeans in the Euro-Atlantic Migration System Before the First World War,â&#x20AC;? in Tales of Transit Narrative Migrant Spaces in Atlantic Perspective, 1850-1950, ed. Michael Boyden, Hans Krabbendam, and Liselotte Vandenbussche (Amsterdam University Press, 2013), 29â&#x20AC;&#x201C;44.

to Oregon and California. The majority of nineteenth century Dutch immigrants, however, did settle in the Midwest. For the Dutch immigrants that immigrated to the United States between 1847 and 1860, a sense of national identity seems to have been missing. They were first and foremost Protestant, possibly Seceder, from a specific province, region, or municipality.43 According to the data, 75% of emigrants came from only 12% of the municipalities in the Netherlands. 44 Therefore, emigration was clearly a local affair.45 Another factor that says a lot about the ideas of the early Dutch immigrants to the Midwest is how they named their new towns. Names like Overisel and Zeeland in Michigan, South Holland in Illinois, and Friesland and Overijssel in South Dakota, tell much about the roots and affiliation of their settlers.46 Furthermore, a majority of the emigrants came from small rural villages and municipalities. A shift in places of origin to more urban centers, such as Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, and Utrecht would only take place after the 1880s.47 The fact that the Dutch were emigrating from smaller communities is not something that sets them apart when compared to other immigrant groups at the time. What does set the Dutch apart, however, is their intent. Dutch immigrants did not go to the United States to earn money or make a better future for themselves or their children. The Dutch moved to the United States to found colonies of transplanted communities. These colonies were predominantly in the Midwest, but there were also settlements in upstate New York, to which I will come back in later chapters. The majority of immigrants did not move to the big urban centers where quick assimilation was the norm, but instead clung together in

43 Swierenga, Faith and Family, p. 156. Only 18% of Dutch emigrants between 1831-1880 was Catholic and only 1% was Jewish. Since 59% of the emigrants was Dutch Reformed and 20% was Seceder, for all intents and purposes “the Dutch emigrant” was a Protestant. 44 Robert P. Swierenga, “Exodus Netherlands, Promised Land America,” in A Bilateral Bicentennial: A History of DutchAmerican Relations, 1782-1982, ed. J.W. Schulte Nordholt and Robert P. Swierenga (Amsterdam: Octagon Books, 1982), p. 133. This leads Swierenga to the conclusion that the Dutch immigrants in the Midwest were part of transplanted communities, a conclusion John Bodnar would repeat 3 years later. 45 The Dutch did not have a monopoly of localized emigration. Among many examples are the immigrants from 19th century Central and Eastern Europe. Nominally part of empires like the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, or German empires, immigrants from these areas also identified more with region than country. Walaszek, “Central Eastern Europeans in the Euro-Atlantic Migration System Before the First World War.” However, as Swierenga has also noticed, the Dutch tendency to group together can be traced back to New Netherland colonial times, Swierenga, “Exodus Netherlands, Promised Land America.”, p. 133. 46 Robert Swierenga also mentions this apparent lack of a Dutch national identity with the emigrants. Swierenga, “Exodus Netherlands, Promised Land America.” 47 Robert P. Swierenga, “The Delayed Transition from Folk to Labor Migration: The Netherlands, 1880- 1920,” International Migration Review 27, no. 2 (July 1, 1993): 406–24, doi:10.2307/2547131.

those rural colonies. There, Dutch dialects prevailed and assimilation was slower than in the big cities.48 The habit of moving to preplanned American colonies originating in localized emigration is a defining trait of Dutch immigrants. The religious organization of the Dutch was another factor that distinguished Dutch immigration in the nineteenth century from the immigration of East and South Europeans. I call this organization another ethnic marker, since it was a way to distinguish the Dutch from ‘others’. Church services were in Dutch, as it was felt that the language was more suited to keep a proper distance between the young and their elders. Dutch was perceived as being more formal than English and may thus have constructed a natural hierarchy between young and old. Where Dutch Catholic and Jewish immigrants mostly joined existing American churches and temples, the Protestant Dutch of the nineteenth century founded their own churches in the United States. Because religion played a central part in their lives, founding a new church was one of the first things immigrants did upon arrival. This church and its community then became the focal point of the surrounding country.49 It was via these churches that the Dutch immigrants also stayed abreast of religious developments in the Netherlands. Due to these relatively closed communities, the assimilation of Midwestern Dutch immigrants was relatively slow and arduous when compared to their predecessors on the East coast. In part, this delay was natural since they arrived at a different time. No longer were immigrants pioneers on sparsely populated land, but instead they were moving into a nation that was already formed. Furthermore, the fact that these immigrants clustered in likeminded communities, most likely, did not help their assimilation. Since religion plays such an important role in the perception people have about Dutch immigrants, I will research immigrant religion in more detail in chapter two. None of these characteristics by themselves constitutes an ethnic identity. However, combined they are a strong indication of the process of ‘othering’ that many nineteenth century Dutch immigrants felt necessary to keep their identity and culture. At the time of the first wave of immigration from 1847, nationality did not play a large part in defining Dutchness. The Dutch nation state, in which citizens exchanged their local citizenship for a national one, had

48 Robert Swierenga also emphasizes this tendency of Dutch immigrants to cluster and behave “clannish.” Swierenga, Faith and Family, pp. 78-79. 49 Hans Krabbendam, Vrijheid in het verschiet, 71.

only just begun with the introduction of the Constitution of the Bataafse Republiek in 1798.50 Therefore, immigrants were from Zeeland or Gelderland, not per se from the Netherlands. In that way, Dutch Americans comply to Kallen’s definition of ethnicity: they are their own instruments and, with that, they add their distinct sound to America’s symphony. However, at the same time, Dutch Americans do not exactly fit Kallen’s ethnic definition. The simple fact that you are born Dutch makes you Dutch. At the same time, consent and civilization are what make a church-member. Since religion is a big part of the Dutch American makeup, this implies that a Dutch American is made as well. When we bring Kallen’s definition to its logical conclusion, Dutch ethnicity is a result of both descent and consent.

50 Before this constitution, the Netherlands were more or less a collection of loosely allied provinces and “Generaliteitsgebieden” (the predominantly Catholic provinces of the South that were ‘governed’ by the Holland provinces). Hans Knippenberg and B. C. de Pater, De eenwording van Nederland: schaalvergroting en integratie sinds 1800 (Nijmegen: SUN, 1988). pp. 18-19. Their thesis is that a Dutch national identity did not exist until the second half of the 19th century. It finally came to fruition in the second half of the 20th century. The mere fact that legally the Netherlands was one country since 1795 did not make it one in the hearts and minds of its citizens.

One of the distinct markers of Dutch ethnicity in the United States is religion.51 When we look at the dominant religion in the United States in the nineteenth century, this is somewhat surprising. After all, the majority of Dutch emigrants were Protestant and they were immigrating to a Protestant nation. So was Dutch religion as distinct from American Protestantism as we assume? If so, what was it that set Dutch religion apart from ‘mainstream’ Protestantism in the United States? Furthermore, why was religion so important for Dutch ethnicity in the United States? Were the Protestant Dutch the same in the Hudson Valley, Upstate New York, and the Midwest, or did these groups differ? In order to answer these questions, I will start with a brief overview of Dutch religious history in the United States.52 Next, I will look into the role of religion in the three different areas of Dutch settlement on which this thesis is focused. I have selected these areas because I think their Dutch immigrants each have a distinctive Dutch flavor that merits further research. Because I cannot cover the entirety of these areas within the scope of this thesis, I have made a selection of a few communities within these areas. What these communities have in common, is that they share immigrant groups that make comparison possible. The majority of the immigrants in these communities originate from the Netherlands regions of the Achterhoek and Zeeuws-Vlaanderen. For the Midwest, these communities are Sheboygan and Alto in Wisconsin; for the Hudson Valley, Albany, New York; and for Upstate New York, I have selected Clymer and East Williamson.53 The common origins of their immigrants are also the reason for me to research these origins in chapter three. Finally, I will compare these three regions to see if I can distil a distinct Dutch aspect of religion.

51 One example is Swierenga, Faith and Family., in which Swierenga gives a breakdown of the religion of the emigrants between 1831-1880, pp. 157-166. Also in earlier works, religion is an important part of Dutch ethnicity. Hinte, Netherlanders in America; Lucas, Netherlanders in America. 52 Swierenga, Faith and Family. p. 156. Since the non-Protestant immigrants are ‘only’ 19% of the total were less visible as a separate ethnic group, I will focus solely on Dutch Protestant immigrants. 53 What I call East Williamson in this paper consists of 3 townships: East Williamson, Pultneyville, and Sodus. These towns lie within a few miles of each other.

2.1

New Netherland and the revolution era in New York

Ever since the Dutch started their colonization of the New World, religion was an important factor in Dutch culture. As early as the seventeenth century, the Dutch Republic was a haven for religious tolerance and, by extension, so was the Dutch colony of New Netherland. At least, this was the perception of the time.54 In part out of necessity, the Dutch West India Company relied on foreigners to help colonize New Netherland. Among these foreigners were Protestant Walloons and Germans, but also Flemish Catholics and Portuguese Jews.55 At the time, the Dutch Reformed Church was the official church of the Dutch Republic and of its colonies. However, this did not mean that other religions were not permitted. As was the case in the Dutch Republic, New Netherland had religious freedom of sorts. Peter Stuyvesant tried to reassert the dominance of the Dutch Reformed Church, but this did not take hold.56 The English takeover of the colony of New Netherland in 1674 marked another beginning. In the nineteenth century, some viewed the Dutch Republic as one of the foundations of the modern United States. Religious diversity, next to cultural and linguistic diversity, was the basis of this society. As I have discussed in chapter one, there are many competing theories about the seed of American civilization and culture. One of these theories is that the community of New Amsterdam was the seed of New York and the basis of the United States, as we know it now.57 A foundation of this theory is that the English takeover did not signify the end of the Dutch Reformed Church in the colonies. The Dutch Reformed Church was the second officially recognized church in the Colonies, next to the Church of England, under the treaty that

54 Thomas E. Carney, “A Tradition to Live By: New York Religious History, 1624–1740,” New York History 85, no. 4 (October 1, 2004): 301–330. In this article gives a very thorough description of religious practices and traditions in colonial New Amsterdam and New York. Joyce Goodfriend also touches on this subject, Joyce D. Goodfriend, “Foreigners in a Dutch Colonial City,” New York History 90, no. 4 (October 1, 2009): 241–69. The question then, as it is now, is if it was actual tolerance or just indifference: As long as you do not bother me, I will not bother you. However, since this is outside of the scope of this thesis, I will not dwell on the meaning of tolerance in the Dutch or American context. 55 Goodfriend, “Foreigners in a Dutch Colonial City.” Naturally, not everybody agrees with this version of events. In 1918 Frederick Zwierlein was one of the first who tried to debunk this myth, Frederick J. Zwierlein, “New Netherland Intolerance,” The Catholic Historical Review 4, no. 2 (July 1, 1918): 186–216. 56 Carney, “A Tradition to Live By.” Naturally, not everybody agrees with this version of events. In 1918 Frederick Zwierlein was one of the first who tried to debunk this myth of Dutch religious tolerance, Zwierlein, “New Netherland Intolerance.” 57 Willem Frijhoff and Jaap Jacobs, “The Dutch, New Netherland, and Thereafter (1609-1780s),” in Four Centuries of Dutch-American Relations 1609-2009, ed. Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles Scott-Smith (Amsterdam: Boom, 2009), 31–47, come to a similar conclusion. On maybe a less scientific basis, but definitely an enjoyable version of this story is Shorto, The Island at the Center of the World.

governed the takeover.58 This was in marked contrast to the influence of the French colonists in the northern colonies. The French were predominantly Catholic, and with that, their religion was not compatible with the Protestant Church of England. Besides that, the French and British would be vying for supremacy until the end of the French-Indian War in 1760.59 The Dutch colonists, now loyal British subjects, had therefore a special place in the hierarchy of the British colonies. Furthermore, Dutch mores continued to dominate many parts of the Hudson Valley, New Jersey, and Delaware in 1809.60 The persistence of Dutch mores was aided, in a large part, by the survival of the Dutch Reformed Church in New York and New Jersey. New churches were still founded, sermons were still given in Dutch, and Reformed ministers were still ordained in the Netherlands. All this happened in a period where no new Dutch colonists were arriving.61 Washington Irving, who did such a good job satirizing the Dutch presence in the Hudson Valley, did not write much about the Dutch Reformed Church. Even though Irving mentions the actual church building of the Dutch Reformed Church in his Legends of Sleepy Hollow, he does not go into much detail about religion itself.62 Irving’s stories about the Dutch of the Hudson Valley provide further evidence of the lasting Dutch influence in New York outside of religion. Later authors would reemphasize Dutch religion. Only forty years after Irving’s Knickerbocker stories were first published, scholars had Dutch ethnicity veering back towards its colonial and Protestant origins. The books of John Lothrop Motley and Edmund B. O’Callaghan went back to a more positive view of the Dutch colonists and their American

58 This status was an official sanction of the Dutch Reformed Church by the Church of England. Edwin S. Gaustad, Historical Atlas of Religion in America, [1st ed.] (New York etc: Harper & Row, 1962), p. 27. 59 You could even say that they would battle each other for supremacy in North America until the end of the American Revolution, when the French aided the struggling young Republic. Because this was almost a century after the British took over control of the Dutch colonies, it is not relevant to this thesis. 60 Charles H. Anderson, White Protestant Americans: From National Origins to Religious Group (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970). p. 91. Also, Arnold Mulder, Americans from Holland (Philadelphia, PA etc: Lippincott, 1947), p. 68. 61 Gerald Francis De Jong, The Dutch in America, 1609-1974 (Boston, Mass: Twayne Publishers, 1975), pp. 52-54. Until 1772, the Dutch Reformed Church in America still fell under the Classis Amsterdam. Only then did it become its own classis. Hans Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon: Dutch Immigration to America, 1840-1940 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), p. 100. 62 The Headless Horseman plays a key role in “Sleepy Hollow”, but the church and its graveyard feature only to bury his victims. According to some, this was a conscious effort by the descendants of English colonists in the United States to erase Dutch history from American memory. Judith Richardson, “The Ghosting of the Hudson Valley Dutch,” in Going Dutch: The Dutch Presence in America, 1609-2009, ed. Joyce D Goodfriend, Benjamin Schmidt, and Annette Stott (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 59–86. Interestingly, De Jong also has the stories of Irving, together with the stories of James Fennimore Cooper, as one of the pull factors for Dutch immigration to the United States after 1847, De Jong, The Dutch in America, 1609-1974, p. 134. This is even more surprising, since the sketch of Dutch Americans by Irving does not appear to be to flattering.

offspring.63 Especially Lothrop’s 3 part series The Rise of the Dutch Republic: a History, originally published in 1856 was well read. These books focused on the heroic struggle of the new (Protestant) Dutch Republic against the mighty (and Catholic) Spanish empire. Combined with the growth of the number of Reformed Churches in the United States in 1850 to 330 from 79 in 1750, Dutch Reformed Protestantism was part of the American mainstream.64 2.2

A Protestant schism

Up to 1850, 300 out of 330 Reformed Churches in the U.S. were either in New York or New Jersey. This balance would shift after 1847, when the combination of a potato crop failure in 1845 and a bleak economic future led many Dutch people on a path to emigration. Most of these Dutch immigrants did not stay in the old colonial possessions, but rather moved to what was then America’s western frontier. In part, this decision was due to the availability of cheap farmland. The other factor that guided these new immigrants was religion. Many of the new colonists followed their church leaders to the United States. The most prominent church leaders were the reverends Scholte, Van Raalte, and Van der Meulen. Their decision to move to Iowa (Scholte) and Michigan (Van Raalte and Van der Meulen) not only influenced their followers, but also later immigrants. Scholte, Van Raalte, and Van der Meulen were so-called Seceders. The Seceders were an offshoot of the Dutch Reformed Church and had formed a separate church after the Secession of 1834. This Secession was a reaction to the organization by King William I of the Netherlands of a new Reformed Synode in 1816. With this action, many of the more orthodox Protestants felt that the Dutch Reformed Church succumbed to state interference. Furthermore, the centrality of human agency in the new preaching forms, instead of the divine word of God, was something that did not sit well with orthodox Protestant pietists. In 1834, reverend Hendrik de Cock of Ulrum in Groningen was the first minister to secede with his congregation. A few young, freshly ordained ministers from Leiden University soon followed his example, among

63 John Lothrop Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic (New York: Harper & brothers, 1898); E. B. (Edmund Bailey) O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland; Or, New York under the Dutch (New York: D. Appleton & co., 1848). 64 Of those 330 churches, 300 churches were in New York and New Jersey. Gaustad, Historical Atlas of Religion in America, p. 97.

who were the aforementioned reverend Scholte and Anthony Brummelkamp. Other ministers, like Simon van Velzen, Albertus van Raalte, and Cornelius van der Meulen, later joined these early secessionists.65 In essence, the goal of the Seceders was to have a pure church, untainted by humanist doctrine and modern influences. According to them, the liberal winds that were blowing through Europe at the time, could only lead to worse things to come. In this vision, the United States was less corrupted and therefore a logical destination for this pure church. Although Scholte, Van Raalte, and Van der Meulen all were Seceders, not all Seceders were the same. Scholte was a proponent of a quick integration of the immigrants into American society, whilst Van Raalte was proposing a transplantation of the Seceder church to the United States. Van Raalte was also an enthusiastic supporter of the Dutch Reformed Church in the United States. This also implied support to Sunday schools, since these had become important in religious education in the Dutch Reformed Church. Van Raalte stayed loyal to the Dutch Reformed Church and, in turn, they helped him establish Hope College.66 What Scholte, Van Raalte, and Van der Meulen had in common was the wish to establish Christian schools. They believed that this wish could come true in the United States because the United States offered religious freedom and did not have a state church.67 During those first years of settlement, the Seceders’ dreams of Christian education were partially realized. Teachers from the community were responsible for public education in frontier settlements, which meant that the children were schooled in both the language and the pure Christian doctrine of their parents. At the same time, English was starting to make headway in education, especially at the public schools. For reverend Van Raalte, this was more than sufficient. For him and his followers, the public school system combined with the Sunday school system was in line with their wishes. In the opinion of some of the more orthodox immigrants, however, this shift to English was the first encroachment on the ‘True Church’.68

65 One of many authors on the subject of the Secession is Henry Beets, himself an immigrant in the United States. Henry Beets, De Chr. geref. kerk in N. A.; zestig jaren van strijd en zegen (Grand Rapids, Mich., Grand Rapids printing company, 1918), http://archive.org/details/dechrgerefkerkin00beet. On the Secession, see pp. 17-36. Also, Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon, pp. 10-16. 66 Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon. Hope College, originally called Holland College, was established in 1866. The language in which was taught was English. I will delve more in education later in the chapter. 67 Ibid., p. 104. After all, the interference of the state in the church led to the original Secession in 1834. 68 Ibid., p. 233-236. James Bratt also includes the perceived doctrinal and liturgical impurity of the Eastern branch of the Dutch Reformed Church. According to Bratt, this also led to some people in the colonies to doubt Van Raalte’s reliability. This is in line with the Seceders original claims that the new Dutch Reformed Church, with its emphasis on human agency in

As stated before, the first wave of immigrants started new churches after arrival. Those communities joined the already existing Dutch Reformed Church in America. However, a new rift was already in the making. Some of the causes of the Secession in the Netherlands also led to a new schism in the Reformed Church. The encroachment of English on the true church was one example of the pressure points. Furthermore, since there were no special Dutch Reformed or Christian schools in the United States, Reformed children went to public schools out of necessity. These children got their theological education in special Sunday schools, which also taught in English. The Americanization of the Dutch Reformed churches in the East was another point of contention by the time the second wave of Dutch immigrants arrived. In the East, sermons were in English.69 For some of the new immigrants, all these factors would only lead to a loss of Dutch identity and, with that, a loss of the sacredness of their religion and the ‘True Church’.70 The loss of Dutch identity led to another secession in 1857 and the formation of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC). Between 1857 and 1880, many of the Dutch immigrants in the Midwest that had originally joined the Dutch Reformed Church in America, switched to the new CRC. Apart from a few congregations in Michigan, many of the new immigrant churches in the Midwest had made this switch by 1890. Not only the settled Midwestern immigrants, but also the immigrants that followed them also switched allegiance.

its teachings, was becoming too liberal. By sticking to Dutch, the purity of the teachings could be safeguarded. James D. Bratt, Dutch Calvinism in Modern America: A History of a Conservative Subculture (Grand Rapids, Mich: WBEerdmans PubCo, 1984). p. 39. 69 Thomas J. Wertenbaker, The Founding of American Civilization: The Middle Colonies (New York etc: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1938). In chapter III Wertenbaker gives an extensive description on the changes that took place in the Dutch Reformed Church after the British takeover of New Netherland. The 1857 schism is not the first (or last) schism in the Dutch Reformed Church in America. As Wertenbaker describes in chapter III and De Jon g in chapter VI, a struggle between those who wanted to keep the ties with Classis Amsterdam (the Conferentie) and those who wanted an “independent” American classis (the Coetus) took place in the late 18th century. De Jong, The Dutch in America, 1609-1974, pp. 87-108. In the end, the “Coetus” faction won the argument, since New York became an independent Classis in 1772. Also, in 1822, some ministries had seceded from the Dutch Reformed Church in America to become the True Dutch Reformed Church. This latter denomination would join the CRC in 1890. George Harinck and Hans Krabbendam, eds., Morsels in the Melting Pot: The Persistence of Dutch Immigrant Communities in North America (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2006), p. 19. 70 Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon, p. 103. Swierenga, Faith and Family; Donald A. Luidens and Roger J. Nemeth, “Dutch Immigration and Membership Growth in the Reformed Church in America: 1830-1920,” in The Dutch-American Experience: Essays in Honor of Robert P. Swierenga, ed. Hans Krabbendam and Larry J. Wagenaar (Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij, 2000), 169–88. Swierenga, Luidens, and Nemeth also point to the fact that their Dutch Reformed brethren in the East had helped the early immigrants of 1847 extensively. They therefore were more likely to stay within the Dutch Reformed Church in America. Lucas has devoted a passage on Van Raalte’s reception in the United States and the help he received from the reverend Wyckoff. Lucas furthermore comments very briefly on the Zeeland immigrants in Rochester, on whom I will have more later. Lucas, Netherlanders in America, pp. 70-74.

For many Dutch Reformed immigrants, the main reason for switching denominations was a controversy that had embroiled the Dutch Reformed Church in America since the early 1880s. In the United States, Masonry was no threat to Christian beliefs. Because some of the Founding Fathers had been Freemasons, the Dutch Reformed Church in America did not rule out church membership to Freemasons.71 The main arguments against Freemasonry, mainly voiced in the Midwestern classes, were that Freemasonry was un-Republican, un-Christian, and anti-Reformed. The fact that the Freemasons swore an oath to a godlike power was especially a reason for protest. A good Reformed Christian, after all, could not swear an oath to a deist secret society, since this would lead to the worship of multiple deities.72 This controversy led to more Midwestern churches changing denomination, and caused the new immigrants to choose the CRC over the existing Dutch Reformed Church. A shift in immigration during the 1860s also fed the growth of the CRC. The majority of immigrants were now from the more orthodox Northern provinces of the Netherlands, which made a choice for the CRC all the more logical.73 By and large, the churches in New York and New Jersey remained within the Dutch Reformed Church in America. By 1890, the CRC was the Dutch church of the Midwest, while the Reformed Church in America (RCA; the Dutch Reformed Church in America changed its name to Reformed Church in America in 1876) was the church for the East.74 Although it is difficult for an outsider to distinguish between the two denominations, this schism led to a different course in American life for both groups involved. In my opinion these different courses also led to a difference in ethnicity between the different Dutch groups in the United States. This ethnic diversity stretched beyond the East-Midwest divide and included the Dutch from upstate New York and Wisconsin as well. Although these two groups shared many similarities with the other Dutch American groups, I will show that

71 For more on the debate on the Masons, see Elton J. Bruins, “Americanization in Reformed Religious Life,” in The Dutch in America: Immigration, Settlement, and Cultural Change, ed. Robert P. Swierenga (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1985), p. 181. Bruins also points to the difference in perception of the Masons between the Netherlands and the United States. This is further evidence that the 1857 schism was in a large part rooted in pre-existing conflicts within the Seceder communities. 72Beets spent an entire paragraph on this controversy. Even 28 years after the original controversy, is was still a hot topic in Christian Reformed circles. Beets, De Chr. geref. kerk in N. A.; zestig jaren van strijd en zegen, pp. 174-185. 73 Bratt, Dutch Calvinism in Modern America, p.39. Bratt also shows that the membership of the CRC in the Midwest quickly surpassed the Dutch Reformed Church membership there (p. 239). For the origins of the later immigrants, see Swierenga, Faith and Family, p. 183-188. 74 Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon, p. 105; Luidens and Nemeth, “Dutch Immigration and Membership Growth in the Reformed Church in America: 1830-1920.”, pp. 174-175. Swierenga, Faith and Family, p. 187-188.

the first two groups were neither purely ‘in’ the East nor ‘in’ the Midwest in this and later chapters. 2.3

CRC and RCA: Dutch Reformed with a difference?

On theological grounds, the two denominations hardly differ from each other. Both denominations were Calvinist and based their teachings on the Synod of Dordrecht.75 Most of their disagreements were about worldly matters like the singing of hymns instead of psalms, the opening of Sunday schools instead of Christian schools, and the speed at which they should assimilate in American society.76 The latter was the major difference in the trajectories of the denominations and their adherents in the second half of the nineteenth century. As Peter Moerdyke, a prominent member of the RCA in the West pointed out, a switch to English sermons was only logical for RCA churches. Thereby, they could connect more easily to their younger congregants. Even before Moerdyke made his comments, Van Raalte was already promoting American citizenship for all who could apply for it. Furthermore, since there was not a sufficient amount of ministers who spoke English, Van Raalte invited Dutch Reformed clergy from the East to preach at the Midwestern churches. This process of assimilation was sped up even more when most new pastors in the RCA were no longer ordained in the Netherlands, but instead graduated at the English speaking New Brunswick Theological Seminary.77 The members of the CRC, on the other hand, were more reluctant to let go of Dutch as the language of the Church and of education. They kept to the Seceder ideal of Christian

75 Herbert Brinks J., “Religious Continuities in Europe and the New World,” in The Dutch in America: Immigration, Settlement, and Cultural Change, ed. Robert P. Swierenga (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1985), 209–223. According to Brinks, the 1857 schism is predominantly based on differences that already existed before emigration began in 1847. 76 Hans Krabbendam quotes the RCA minister Peter Moerdyke, who claimed that the main difference between CRC and RCA was their respective worldviews. According to Moerdyke, the CRC wanted to remain Dutch and provincial, while the RCA was worldly and more progressive. Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon, pp. 119-120. Moerdyke is also quoted in Robert P. Swierenga, “Walls or Bridges? Acculturation Processes in the Reformed and Christian Reformed Churches in North America,” in Morsels in the Melting Pot: The Persistence of Dutch Immigrant Communities in North America, ed. George Harinck and Hans Krabbendam (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2006), p. 35, "We believe in a safe, Christian, rapid Americanization of all our young people.” 77 Swierenga, “Walls or Bridges? Acculturation Processes in the Reformed and Christian Reformed Churches in North America.”, p. 36. Bruins, “Americanization in Reformed Religious Life.”, pp. 183-184.

schools, were the teachers preferably taught in Dutch. Teaching and preaching in Dutch would keep the Reformed teachings pure. Masonic membership was anathema to a devout Dutch Christian, which made the struggle against its membership a banner under which many Dutch Reformed immigrants could gather. In the early years, the CRC was also more orthodox than the RCA. As shown by Swierenga, a majority of the CRC clergy and CRC members came from the Northern provinces of the Netherlands.78 These same provinces adhered to the so-called orthodox Northern Dortian teachings of Hendrik de Cock and Simon van Velzen. Assimilation slowed even further by the fact that until 1900 every CRC pastor was trained in the Netherlands.79 Education was equally important to both denominations. Their main difference was in its implementation. As shown before, the RCA was a proponent of the public school system, since it was more or less based on Christian teachings.80 Even though Van Raalte had claimed that one of the main reasons for immigrating to the United States was the possibility to found Christian schools, he let go of this demand after he arrived.81 Perhaps he thought the combination of the, in essence Protestant, public school and Sunday school were sufficient to ensure the Reformed children a proper education. Van Raalte’s preoccupation with education did not stop there, since he also was a big proponent of higher education. With financial assistance from the Eastern RCA, he managed to found an English language secondary school that would become Hope College in 1866.82 The original goal of this college was to prepare students for theological studies at the New Brunswick Theological Seminary in New Jersey. The

78 Swierenga, Faith and Family, p. 179-188. Henry Beets and Lucas van Hinte had come to a similar conclusion in earlier works. Herbert Brinks only partly agrees with Swierenga’s claim that the CRC members were predominantly from the Northern provinces in the Netherlands. According to Brinks, the CRC ministers had been trained in the North (mostly at the newly founded Theological school in Kampen), but they had served throughout the Netherlands. Although this is probably true, the fact remains that these ministers did all originate in the Northern provinces and had a more orthodox vision than the RCA ministers. That they had not only served in the north is a minor matter. 79 Swierenga, “Walls or Bridges? Acculturation Processes in the Reformed and Christian Reformed Churches in North America.”, p. 35. 80 Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon, pp. 238-240. 81 Of course this did not mean that Van Raalte had given up on this ideal. He did establish an parochial school “to educate their children in schools where they will be subjected to specific Christian influences, and that as a consequence, since an overwhelming influence of unbelief and superstition is found, it is highly incumbent upon them to establish parochial schools.” Hinte, Netherlanders in America., p. 391. Due to a lack of support it eventually closed in 1862. On the same subject, Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon., p. 235. 82 When it came to education, the Dutch immigrants were not as conservative as some would expect. Out of the 18 students at the predecessor of Hope College, two were girls. According to Van Hinte this was a conscious effort by the immigrants to co-educate their children. Hinte, Netherlanders in America., pp. 393-394.

Dutch Reformed Church had established this seminary in 1784 to train Reformed ministers. With the establishment of a theological seminary in Holland, Michigan (originally as a part of Hope College, but later as the independent Western Theological Seminary), students at Hope College could prepare for their ministries in Holland, Michigan.83 Scholte was also active in establishing Christian institutes of higher learning by assisting in the founding of a Christian college, Central University. Because this college was originally co-founded with Baptists, the re-christened Central College would not be a part of the RCA until 1916.84 For the CRC a Christian education was not only their duty for their children, but it would also prove to be a way to ensure their own survival. However, just as Van Raalte had struggled within the RCA to establish parochial schools, so did the CRC have trouble actually establishing the Christian schools they wanted. In the period between 1857 and 1873, not much headway was made with establishing the CRC schools. It also became clear that their preference for Dutch as the main language at those schools was not viable.85 As was the case with RCA affiliated schools, in most CRC schools English eventually became the main language. This did not stop the establishment of Christian schools, which took flight after the CRC allied itself with the Netherlands Christian Reformed Church (Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland). The latter had started an ambitious program of establishing Christian schools under the auspices of Abraham Kuyper, a pattern that was followed in the United States as well.86 In the CRC’s early years, the emphasis of education was on a primary and secondary level. However, since the CRC wanted to isolate itself from the Americanizing influences of the RCA, it could not send its theological students to New Brunswick or Holland. As a result, the CRC founded the Theologische School in Grand Rapids in 1876, later extended with a non-theological

83 Ibid., p. 600. The original seminary at Hope College was not a success and was eventually replaced by Western Theological Seminary. 84 Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon., p. 240. 85 In 1875, the CRC decided that Dutch no longer needed to be included in the curriculum. This was decided mainly because many of the smaller congregations just did not have the means to provide good education in Dutch. See article 4, “Minutes of the Highest Assembly of the Christian Reformed Church, General Assembly 1875” (Christian Reformed Church in America, June 2, 1875), http://library.calvin.edu/content/downloads/4915. 86 Bruins, “Americanization in Reformed Religious Life.”, p. 187.

department, and re-christened Calvin College.87 Both RCA and CRC now had their institute of higher learning.88 2.4

The Midwest

Sheboygan, Wisconsin, was an example of the ease with which some Dutch immigrants could ‘switch’ denominations. It is also an example of the mild denominational clash between RCA and CRC that took place in the second half of the nineteenth century. Interestingly enough, the first Dutch church in the region was not a Dutch Reformed Church, but a Presbyterian Church under the leadership of the Reverend Zonne. This church, established in 1848, was a joint effort by immigrants coming from different provinces in the Netherlands, to which I will come back in chapter three. However, like with the American Protestant secession of 1857, some immigrants did not think that Zonne and the Presbyterian Church were orthodox enough. Predating this schism by seven years, they founded a new church in 1850 in the nearby settlement of Oostburg, which quickly aligned with the RCA.89 The second Dutch Reformed Church came 10 years later. In 1860, Hope Reformed Church, also a part of the RCA, was established. It had 50 families amongst its founding members, which by 1912 had grown to 85 families. The church did not have a Christian school, but instead organized a Sunday school. John Sietsema was Hope’s first pastor, starting in 1894. Sietsema was a typical RCA minister of the time. He was born in Michigan in 1867. He graduated from Hope College in 1891 and from Western Theological Seminary in 1894, after which he went to serve in Sheboygan. By 1890, the number of CRC members in the Midwest was still slightly below the number of RCA members. The same was true for the Dutch immigrant communities of

87 Calvin College 3201 Burton SE et al., “History - About,” Calvin College, accessed April 24, 2014, http://www.calvin.edu/about/history/. See also Richard H. Harms, “Forging a Religious Identity: The Christian Reformed Church in the Nineteenth-Century Dutch Immigrant Community,” in The Dutch-American Experience: Essays in Honor of Robert P. Swierenga, ed. Hans Krabbendam and Larry J. Wagenaar (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2000), 189–208., p. 190. 88Van Hinte’s chapter on education has been very instructive. Hinte, Netherlanders in America., Ch. 13, pp. 389-414. See also Lucas, Netherlanders in America. Ch. XI, pp. 579-607. Currently, the ‘score’ between RCA and CRC colleges is four (including New Brunswick, Hope College, Central College, and Northwestern College), and 2 (Calvin College and Dordt College). 89 Sipko F. Rederus, “The Dutch Settlements of Sheboygan County,” The Wisconsin Magazine of History 1, no. 3 (March 1, 1918): 256–65., pp. 262-263. Also, Russell L. Gasero, Historical Directory of the Reformed Church in America (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992), p. 407.

Sheboygan and Alto, Wisconsin. Five charter members established the Christian Reformed Church in Sheboygan in 1889. Sheboygan got its first church building in 1890 and the church started a Christian school in 1890.90 Originally ministered by itinerant ministers, the CRC church got its own pastor, Theodore L. De Lange, in 1896. De Lange was also a typical CRC pastor of the time, as Sietsema was a typical RCA minister. De Lange was born in the Netherlands in 1861. His official CRC biography does not mention from what church he originated, but it is likely that he came from the Dutch branch of the Seceded Protestant Church (Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland). De Lange went to Calvin Theological Seminary in 1892 and was ordained in 1896. 2.5

New York State

The influence of the Hudson Valley Dutch logically is a lot larger in upstate New York than in the Midwest. Bordering Lake Ontario, the Dutch immigrant communities of Clymer and East Williamson both started a Reformed Church in 1847.91 These churches were established in the year that the Seceder immigration to the United States began in earnest. However, as I will show in chapter three, these churches preceded the Seceder immigration. As was the case in Sheboygan, the East Williamson Reformed Church also started as a Presbyterian church with 104 members.92 Another similarity with Sheboygan is that a few of the more orthodox church members decided that they were better off under the wings of the Dutch Reformed Church. As early as 1849, they started their own Dutch Reformed Church, which would eventually merge with the Presbyterians in 1862 to form an undivided Dutch Reformed Church.93 The Clymer church showed the interconnectedness that existed between East and Midwest in the middle of the nineteenth century. Clymer’s first minister was J.W. Dunnewold, who had originally immigrated to Milwaukee, Wisconsin. However, after he was asked by the

90 Carl Zillier, Sheboygan County Wisconsin: Past and Present, Vol. 1 (Chicago: S.J. Clarke Publishing Company, 1912), pp 157-158. 91 Russell L. Gasero, Historical Directory of the Reformed Church in America (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992), p. 407. 92 Community of the Lord at East Williamson, “East Williamson New York Reformed Church Membership Lists Part I,” n.d., Roosevelt Study Center, Middelburg, accessed February 17, 2014. 93 Community of the Lord at East Williamson, “The Register of the Actions of the Consistory of the Community of the Lord at East Williamson,” 1884 1847, Roosevelt Study Center, Middelburg, p. 11.

Clymer community to minister their congregation, he would minister in upstate New York between 1853 and 1865.94 In East Williamson a similar situation occurred. Gerrit Hospers, from Pella, Iowa and a graduate from Western Theological School, was the minister from 1887 until 1892. His brother Henry on the other hand, studied theology at the Free University in Amsterdam and was ordained after finishing his education at New Brunswick Theological Seminary. Henry Hospers ministered the Clymer’s Abbe congregation from 1893 until 1897.95 Because Clymer and East Williamson were smaller communities than Sheboygan, which had the first Dutch language American newspaper, there are no records of other schools than the public school at the time.96 In Albany, which was one of the original settlements of the seventeenth century Dutch colonists of New Netherland, the first Dutch Reformed Church hailed from 1642. By 1834, Albany had three Reformed Churches. Albany was also the place where the Americanization of the Dutch Reformed Church in America was most clearly visible. In 1847, when the new wave of Dutch immigration was starting, the reverend Wyckoff was Albany’s minister. He still preached from the Heidelberg Catechism and he still spoke Dutch.97 Because of this, Wyckoff was instrumental in the settlement of the Midwest and upstate New York by the new Dutch immigrants. However, by 1890, none of the ministers in any of the three RCA churches in Albany was of Dutch descent. It is therefore very likely that the ministers Johnson, Selden, and Dailey did not preach in Dutch as their predecessor Wyckoff had.98 This is the main difference with the smaller congregations in upstate New York, where the ministers and their flock still spoke Dutch. What is missing from the New York church landscape, however, is the CRC. Until 1890, when the CRC merged with the True Dutch Reformed Church, the CRC had no churches in New York State. In 1907, when all but three of the True Dutch Reformed congregations seceded

94 Gasero, Historical Directory of the Reformed Church in America, p. 36. 95 Ibid., p. 109. 96 Currently there are schools from many denominations in both areas. However, all these schools have been established in the second half of the 20th century. One notable exception is Fredonia University that was established in 1826 and is a part of the SUNY system since 1948. As all state schools, it is a public, non-denominational institute. For more on the first Dutch language newspaper in the United States, “De Sheboygan Nieuwsbode”, see Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon, pp. 270271. 97 Ibid., p.34. 98 Gasero, Historical Directory of the Reformed Church in America, p. 287 for the list of RCA churches in Albany. The different ministers can be found on pp. 48, 116, and 211.

once more, that number came down to none.99 This lack of CRC churches in New York State in the 1890s could lead to the conclusion that the CRC was a Midwestern church and the RCA an Eastern church. In part, this is correct because until the 1920s around 70% of the RCA congregants lived on the Eastern seaboard.100 Meanwhile, the CRC had established its theological seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This location was not random, since it was near the original CRC congregations of Graafschap and Grand Rapids, the ‘power-base’ of the CRC. However, this would oversimplify matters, since both denominations spread their base. Until the controversy over the Freemasons broke out, a majority of new Dutch immigrants joined the RCA. Since most immigrants immigrated to the Midwest, this meant that the RCA grew prolifically in that region.101 In the 1890s, the RCA was therefore larger in the Midwest than the CRC. Only after the Freemason controversy, would the scales in the Midwest tilt in favor of the CRC. Since membership of either denomination was very much linked to Dutch immigration and most of the Dutch immigrants of the nineteenth century moved to the Midwest, the Midwest would turn into the powerbase for Dutch Reformed religion in general.102 2.6

Religious ethnicity

Nineteenth century Dutch immigration to the United States was comprised predominantly of immigrants moving from one Protestant country to another. Dutch Protestant history in the United States started two centuries prior to that, when colonists from the Dutch Republic used their religious identity as a means to differentiate themselves from the people surrounding them.

99 The True Reformed Church was an offshoot from the Dutch Reformed Church in America. They seceded in 1822 because they thought the Dutch Reformed Church was becoming too worldly. The merger between the True Reformed Church and the CRC apparently was an unhappy one, according to Henry Zwaanstra. For one, there was a language barrier, since all the congregants and ministers of the True Reformed Church spoke English and not Dutch. This was one of the factors that led to the break-up in 1907. Henry Zwaanstra, Reformed Thought and Experience in a New World: A Study of the Christian Reformed Church and Its American Environment, 1890-1918 (Kampen: JHKok, 1973)., pp. 9-13. Currently, the closest CRC church to Albany is Trinity CRC in Richfield Springs, New York, 63.5 miles away. 100 Luidens and Nemeth, “Dutch Immigration and Membership Growth in the Reformed Church in America: 1830-1920.”, p. 174. 101 Ibid., p. 183-187. Currently, the majority of RCA members live in the Midwest. James Bratt has the tipping point of RCA membership in the Midwest around 1965. Bratt, Dutch Calvinism in Modern America., pp. 222-223. 102 Nemeth and Luidens show this exclusivity of the RCA for Dutch ethnics. Until the present day, almost all RCA clergy claim some Dutch descent. Roger J. Nemeth and Donald A. Luidens, “The Persistence of Ethnic Descent: Dutch Clergy in the Reformed Church in America,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 34, no. 2 (June 1, 1995): 200–213, doi:10.2307/1386765.

Although Dutch religious identity was dormant for a while, it would come back into the American consciousness. For the Seceder ministers and their followers, the United States was the Promised Land. It was a country where they could freely practice their religion. Furthermore, the United States offered the possibility to retain pure faith and educate the next generations accordingly. The first wave of Dutch immigrants would try to retain their Dutch identity, while at the same time becoming a part of the American fabric, by joining the RCA. However, the rift that caused the Secession in the Netherlands had also crossed the Atlantic. After 1857, Dutch immigrants once again could choose between joining the organized religion or stay true to more pietistic beliefs. The CRC filled an area where the purity of religion and language were coupled. For a few years, the CRC would be a safe haven for those immigrants who wanted to savor their Dutch identity longer. A similar differentiation occurred in the different regions where the Dutch settled. The Midwest was the region where the more orthodox immigrants settled. The Freemason controversy that embroiled the RCA strengthened this effect. The East, on the other hand, was Americanizing faster. The roots of the RCA and its Anglicized religion were nestled in New York and New Jersey, where Freemasonry was not a sin. However, claiming that there is a strict delineation between East and West is a bridge too far.103 The denominations and regions were, and are connected, but retain their own characteristics. Howard Kallen said it best when he claimed that a church member is made. As I have shown in chapter one, being a member of a church or denomination is a choice and a matter of consent. Not long after the major wave of Dutch immigration started, immigrants could choose to which Dutch Reformed denomination they wanted to belong. Although the differences between the two seems small from the outside, and both denominations shared a Calvinist heritage, for the immigrants at the time it was a momentous decision. However, what both RCA and CRC had in common was that they helped establish a firm Dutch ethnic identity. Being a member of either the RCA or CRC automatically meant that you were Dutch.

103 See Robert Swierengaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s essay on this exact subject for a concise overview of this point. Swierenga, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Walls or Bridges? Acculturation Processes in the Reformed and Christian Reformed Churches in North America.â&#x20AC;?, pp.33-42.

The Dutch immigrants of the nineteenth century were a relatively small group in the totality of the immigrant groups of the era. According to estimates, around 220,000 Dutch have immigrated to the United States between 1820 and 1920. When we compare this to the entire European immigration to the United States of approximately 33 million, for the same period, the 0.64% of Dutch immigrants is quite a small number.104 These small numbers, both in a relative and absolute sense, do not necessarily dictate that the Dutch immigrants should have assimilated without leaving a trace. However, because of these small numbers it is possible to research the Dutch ethnic identity in the United States. In order to ascertain how they managed to maintain this identity, apart from religion and education discussed in previous chapters, I will break down the origins of the Dutch American immigrating to distinct regions. Interestingly enough, many of the immigrants that lived outside of the colonies of Michigan and Iowa came from the Achterhoek and Zeeuws-Vlaanderen regions in the Netherlands. These groups clustered together in Wisconsin and upstate New York. Why did they cluster together, and why did they stay in these chosen places? I also want to explore if their location says something about their Dutch identity within the United States. To answer these questions, I will start with a brief description of the first main wave of Dutch immigration to the United States in the period of 1846-1847. Next, I will look at the background of the settlements in Wisconsin and upstate New York. Finally, I will conclude with my analysis of the groups and the areas they settled.

104 United States. Department of Homeland Security, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Yearbook of Immigration Statitics: 2012â&#x20AC;? (United States Department of Homeland Security, 2013), http://www.dhs.gov/publication/yearbook-2012., pp. 6-8. The Yearbook comes to a total of Dutch immigration of 214,474. As discussed by Robert P. Swierenga, this number is probably too low. However, since the statistical difference on the total of legal immigrants is negligible, I have taken the data from the Yearbook as the basis for this calculation.

3.1

The Dutch “Kolonies”

A major part of the groundwork for immigration, like the forming of immigration societies, naturally originated in the Netherlands. Before he was to leave for the United States, Henry Scholte met the American minister Thomas de Witt of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church in America. Together with his colleague, the Reverend Isaac Wyckoff, De Witt would prove to be important for the final trajectories of the main colonist groups. Scholte, however, was not the one who would meet with Wyckoff upon arrival. Because of numerous factors, Albertus van Raalte would meet Wyckoff. Wyckhoff directed Van Raalte to Detroit, Michigan, where there was an organization to aid Dutch immigrants. Although Van Raalte still planned to settle in Wisconsin, Michigan boosters eventually convinced him to stay in Michigan instead.105 So partly because of the very cordial reception by Wyckoff in Albany and the letters of recommendation he gave Van Raalte, Van Raalte let go of his original goal to colonize parts of Wisconsin and settled in Michigan.106 Meanwhile, Scholte and his followers went inland from Baltimore without meeting with Wyckoff. Although originally intent on going to Wisconsin, Scholte also changed his mind and decided on Iowa. In part, this was to avoid having to team up with Van Raalte, who was moving his followers to Michigan. Although they started out as friends and likeminded immigrant activists, their later relationship was not as cordial.107 A personal clash between its two leaders was not the only thing that separated these colonies. The original colonists of what would later become Holland, Michigan, had followed Van Raalte from Gelderland and Overijssel, the provinces where he had ministered. Scholte’s followers to Pella, Iowa, had mainly come from Zuid-Holland and Utrecht. These different backgrounds also influenced the settlement patterns.

105 Henry Lucas suspects that Van Raalte contacted Michigan booster Theodore Romeyn through Wcykoff. Romeyn was one of the persons who convinced Van Raalte to forsake Wisconsin and stay in Michigan instead. Lucas, Netherlanders in America., p. 73. Elton J. Bruins, “Albertus C. Van Raalte: Leader of the Dutch Emigration to the United States, 1847-1867. Origins 19, No. 2 (2001): 4-11. (Elton J. Bruins),” Origins, Fall 2001. Pp. 6-7. 106 Henry S. Lucas, Netherlanders in America, pp. 70-74. Hinte, Netherlanders in America., pp. 132-136. Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon., pp 34-40. Wyckoff also assisted the new communities in Michigan during their first year. B. de Beij, Stemmen Uit de Hollandsch-Gereformeerde Kerk in de Vereenigde Staten van Amerika, (Groningen,, 1871), http://hdl.handle.net/2027/nyp.33433069131211., p. 63. 107 Van Hinte also hints at the fact that there was a class distinction between the two immigrant groups. Scholte’s followers were, on average, financially better off than Van Raalte’s. This could also have led to some recriminations. Hinte, Netherlanders in America., pp. 137-143.

Scholte’s followers were relatively affluent, while Van Raalte’s followers came from the poorer regions of the Netherlands. As a result, Scholte’s group could easily afford the more expensive prairielands of Iowa. Because the available land in Michigan had to be deforested first to be cultivated, land prices were lower than in Iowa. This monetary consideration was also a factor in Van Raalte’s decision to settle in Michigan.108 Financial capabilities also influenced the decision of a third group, coming from the province of Zeeland that was underway to the United States at the same time. Under the leadership of Cornelius van der Meulen, these Zeeuwen had to decide where to go. Were they to join the new colonies of Michigan or Iowa, or were they to found their own colony? Just like Van Raalte’s group, the Zeeuwen were on average less affluent than Scholte’s followers were.109 In the end, most of the Zeeuwen decided that Michigan was the best choice.110 These meanderings of the immigration leaders and financial restraints led to the situation that the new colonists had two major centers at the end of the first major wave of immigration: Michigan and Iowa. It was in these centers that the Dutch American ethnicity would come to full fruition. 3.2

The Midwest: a homogenous plurality

One of the characteristics of Dutch immigrants was that they traveled in well-organized groups. As I have shown before, the religious orientation of many of the immigrants partly underlies this phenomenon. The overwhelming majority of the immigrants were Dutch Protestants, of which a minority was of so-called Seceder origin. According to Robert P. Swierenga, 59% of nineteenth century emigrants to the United States were Dutch Reformed, while ‘only’ 29% were Seceders.111 However, both groups tended to travel in church and family groups.112 As I have stated in the previous chapter, this group immigration is not something that set the Dutch

108 Krabbendam points to the fact that land in Iowa was more expensive than in Michigan and could therefore be more easily afforded by Scholte’s followers. I have derived the statement that the cheaper land of Michigan better fit Van Raalte’s purse from this. An added bonus was that the building material for the first houses was readily available in Michigan.Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon., pp. 39-40. 109 The Zeeland Immigration Society tried to bring along everyone who wanted to immigrate. This meant that the more affluent members of the Society had to pay for the less fortunate ones. Ibid., pp. 19-20. 110 Ibid., p. 41.111 Swierenga, Faith and Family. Pp. 60-61. 112 Ibid., p. 304. This probably holds true for the period until 1870. As Swierenga concludes, it is possible that after 1870 more single immigrants, mostly men, made the trek to the United States from the Netherlands.

apart from other immigrant groups per se. What did set the Dutch apart, however, was the tendency to move to rural areas and avoid most of the major urban centers. Naturally, not all Midwestern Dutch immigrants lived in farming communities. Cities like Grand Rapids and Detroit, Michigan and Chicago, Illinois also attracted Dutch immigrants.113 What these cities shared with rural settlements in Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois is that the Dutch did have a tendency to live in close proximity to each other. In this respect, they were like most immigrant groups that ended up in American cities.114 This tendency to group together makes sense when looking at the regions of origin of Dutch immigrants. They were predominantly from rural regions in the Netherlands and came from farm related jobs.115 In the United States, Dutch immigrants mostly reassumed their original occupations. This tendency to continue their occupations from the Netherlands in the United States is perhaps not specifically Dutch, but I believe that it was based on the traditional Calvinist worldview of the immigrants.116 Furthermore, the Colonies that were specifically set up as farming communities also drew in new immigrants. Logically, these new imports would also join agricultural occupations. In the second half of the nineteenth century, these migration patterns were normal. Within Europe, many migrants moved from destination to destination, often for seasonal work. The advent of steamships, the low prizes for steerage passage, and the relatively quick transatlantic passage resulted in the inclusion of the United States in these migration patterns. As they did within Europe, many migrants went to the United States temporarily, earned some money, and went back home. The Dutch migrants, on the other hand, were permanent migrants. Their intention was to stay in the United States, transplant their traditional worldview, and colonize parts of the United States with likeminded compatriots. In short, the mindset with which many of the

113 According to Swierenga, by 1920, over 56% of foreign-born Dutch lived in cities of over 2,500 people. By 1930, only 23% of foreign-born Dutch lived on farms, the rest lived in urban centers. Of course, the question is in how far a place with more than 2,500 is by definition an urban center. Robert P. Swierenga, “The Dutch Urban Experience,” in The Dutch in Urban America, ed. Robert P. Swierenga, Donald W. Sinnema, and Hans Krabbendam (Holland, MI: Joint Archives of Holland, 2004), 1–12. 114 For a more extensive account of how Dutch immigrant communities fared in cities, or the “salad bowl” as he calls it, see Robert P. Swierenga, “The Dutch in Urban America,” in The Dutch in Urban America, ed. Robert P. Swierenga, Donald Sinnema, and Hans Krabbendam (Holland, MI: Joint Archives of Holland, 2004).. Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon., 87-93, and again Swierenga, “The New Immigration.”, 300. 115 See Swierenga. Swierenga, Faith and Family., pp. 259-260. 116 Swierenga comes to a similar conclusion. According to him, the colonists found safety in the New World in their transplanted, traditional communities. Ibid., p. 188. He also emphasizes the Dutch preference to cluster together more than any other immigrant group. Ibid., p. 79.

nineteenth century Dutch immigrants came to the United States set them apart from many other immigrants.117 The Dutch not only tried to isolate themselves from other nationalities. The Dutch immigrant groups also had a tendency to isolate themselves from other Dutch groups. For instance, the main difference between the immigrants immigrating to the Midwest and their contemporaries in upstate New York was that the Midwesterners came to the United States as colonists.118 They set out from the Netherlands to colonize a part of the New World and put down distinct Dutch roots.119 Many of the immigrants that ended up in upstate New York did so by accident or went there because friends and neighbors had already preceded them. These New York settlers were immigrants, not colonists. They did not specifically come to plant their own communities in upstate New York. Other would be colonists stopped there on their way to the Colonies after they concluded that a fruitful life was possible in New York. In other words, Dutch immigrants did not form one homogenous mass of immigrants, but had their intergroup distinctions. There were differences within the Midwestern colonist movement as well. The communities of Holland, Michigan, and Pella, Iowa, centered on strong leaders who had guided their flocks to the Promised Land. In contrast, the Wisconsin colonies were more the result of happenstance and did not start out under leaders in the mold of Scholte, Van Raalte, or Van der Meulen. The communities were predominantly rural, with relatively few Dutch immigrants living in the cities. Wisconsin, in general, and Milwaukee, in particular, had a big German community. Although they came from neighboring countries, Dutch Calvinist immigrants did not assimilate into the larger German immigrant community. In part, this was because the

117 Within immigration history, the notion that the majority of migrants did not go to the United States to settle there, is described in more detail in Michael Boyden, Hans Krabbendam, and Liselotte Vandenbussche, eds., Tales of Transit Narrative Migrant Spaces in Atlantic Perspective, 1850-1950 (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013). Especially illuminating is the chapter about Eastern European migration patterns. Walaszek, “Central Eastern Europeans in the Euro-Atlantic Migration System Before the First World War.” 118 The articles of foundation for the “Vereeniging van Christenen voor de Hollandsche volkschverhuizing naar de Vereenigde Staten in N- America” mentioned a Christian colony. Hinte, Netherlanders in America. pp. 123-124. 119 Anthony Brummelkamp and Albertus C. van Raalte, Landverhuizing, of Waarom Bevorderen Wij de Volksverhuizing En Wel Naar Noord-Amerika En Niet Naar Java?, 2. druk. (Amsterdam,, 1846), http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015071202058. Brummelkamp en Van Raalte’s work is, as the title suggests, one grand argument for colonizing ‘the West’ instead of ‘the East’. In part, this was because the Dutch government had stifled religious dissent in the Dutch East Indies, something Brummelkamp en Van Raalte feared could happen again. This prompted them to colonize the West.

German immigrants from the southern parts of Germany, like Bavaria, were Catholic. Related to the non-assimilation within the German community is the fact that Wisconsin was also the favored destiny of the Catholic immigrants from Brabant.120 Dutch Catholic immigration to Wisconsin was the result of a concerted effort by the Catholic Church to strengthen the missionary zeal.121 This led to a Catholic ‘takeover’ of Little Chute, in northern Wisconsin. On the other hand, the Protestant immigrants moved to the South and East of Wisconsin and hardly had any contact with their Catholic compatriots.122 Unlike in Michigan or Iowa, there was no strong Dutch group identity in Wisconsin. Furthermore, unlike in the Colonies, the Dutch immigrants were almost never the dominant group in any town or village they settled in. This lack of Dutch dominance in Wisconsin led to situations, as the one I have described in the chapter about religion, where the Reverend Zonne started a Presbyterian Church in Cedar Grove, Wisconsin. Although Zonne was a Seceder minister, he was not solely dependent on his Dutch followers to form a viable congregation by founding a Presbyterian Church. The fact that Zonne was willing to forgo the founding of a Dutch Reformed Church is a distinct difference with the communities in Michigan and Iowa. In those communities, the foundation of a Dutch Reformed Church was one of the priorities. The combination of loosely organized communities and ‘assimilating’ Catholics made Wisconsin less visible as a typical Dutch destination for immigration.123

120 Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon. pp. 21-25. According to Krabbendam, there are two reasons that the Dutch Catholics were less visible than their Protestant contemporaries were. The first reason is that it was a much smaller group, whose impact is therefore also smaller. The second reason is that they tended to join existing Catholic churches and communities, therefore Americanizing even more quickly than their Protestant counterparts did. 121 Robert P. Swierenga and Hans Krabbendam, “Dutch Catholics and Protestants in Wisconsin: A Study in Contrasts and Similarities,” Diverse Destinies: Dutch Kolonies in Wisconsin and the East (Holland, MI: Van Raalte Press, 2012), 39–64. p. 43. 122 Protestant and Catholics did not “mix.” Dutch, Irish, and German Catholics did not have this problem. Another key difference between the Catholic and Protestant Dutch in Wisconsin is that the Catholics predominantly lived in urban areas, whereas the Protestants lived in rural areas. Yda Schreuder, “Ethnic Solidarity and Assimilation among Dutch Protestant and Dutch Catholic Immigrant Groups in the State of Wisconsin, 1850-1905,” in The Dutch in North-America, ed. Rob Kroes and Henk-Otto Neuschäfer, European Contributions to American Studies, XX (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1991), 195–218. 123 Robert P. Swierenga and Hans Krabbendam, “Dutch Catholics and Protestants in Wisconsin: A Study in Contrasts and Similarities,” Diverse Destinies: Dutch Kolonies in Wisconsin and the East (Holland, MI: Van Raalte Press, 2012), 39–64, come to a similar conclusion.

3.3

Post-colonial New York State

As we know, the Dutch history of Northwest New York State predates the Dutch colonization of the Midwest by two centuries. After establishing New Netherland and New Amsterdam in the 1620s, the Dutch spread out through parts of New York State, Connecticut, and New Jersey to settle and start plantations. Outside New York City, these Dutch settlers usually ended up in the Hudson River Valley in small towns like Kingston and Sleepy Hollow.124 After the English takeover of New Netherland, the Dutch colonists and their descendants led a relatively quiet life, as characterized by Washington Irving’s stories.125 Apart from Dutch surnames and Dutch Reformed Churches in America, these descendants were not a highly visible ethnic group. 126 Instead, as was proven later when three presidents of Dutch descent came to power, the Dutch were part of the American landscape and establishment.127 The connection between the Dutch and the United States was a warm one. A famous example is when Dutch bankers financed part of the American Revolution through some offshore loans and issued the first United States bonds.128 Dutch investment in the United States did not stop after the Revolution. Dutch investors established the Holland Land Company in 1792 with the sole purpose to buy and sell land for profit. Clymer, New York is one of the towns established in 1821 because of these land purchases. Although the Holland Land Company’s name originates with its Dutch financiers, almost none of the settlers were Dutch. In 1808, Chautauqua County, of which Clymer is a part, was established. The founding of Clymer and its sister communities was a part of the socalled Genesee Purchase. Western New York and Pennsylvania were still frontier areas at the time, where land was relatively cheap and abundantly available. This combination made it

124 According to Sleepy Hollow’s own historian, Adriaan van der Donck, of New Amsterdam fame, founded the town. “History of the Village | Sleepy Hollow NY,” November 13, 2013, http://www.sleepyhollowny.gov/home/pages/history-ofthe-village. 125 Frijhoff, “Dutchness in Fact and Fiction.” 126 By 1790 there were 125 Dutch Reformed churches in the United States, all centered on New York State. Gaustad, Historical Atlas of Religion in America. 127 The presidents, of course, were Martin van Buren, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt. Not coincidentally, they all were born in New York State. 128 The first loan was 3 million Guilders, which was paid off quickly and without default in the payment of interest, This made it easier for the United States to issue new bonds later on. Wayne Te Brake, “The Dutch Republic and the Creation of the United States,” in Four Centuries of Durch-American Relations 1609-2009, ed. Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles Scott-Smith (Amsterdam: Boom, 2009), 204–15.

interesting for the Holland Land Company to speculate on farmland in the region.129 According to the 1845 census, Chautauqua County had 46,548 inhabitants of which the majority was born in America.130 Furthermore, according to census data, they were mostly of British descent. When the Erie Canal was finished in 1825, Chautauqua connected to the rest of New York. This connectivity attracted Dutch immigrants, mainly from Zeeland and Gelderland, who were settling in upstate New York since the 1830s with the main group arriving in 1844.131 Even before the 1830s, there had already been settlers of Dutch descent in the area. As early as 1805, Dutch settlers are mentioned in the area of upstate New York. However, these early settlers are most likely the descendants of Hudson Valley Dutch families, not recent Dutch immigrants.132 As Van Hinte also wrote, the influence of the Holland Land Company on immigration to upstate New York should not be overstated. The development that began under the Company, however, did make it possible for later immigrants to settle the area. New York was no longer solely the province of the Hudson Valley Dutch.

129 For an extensive overview of the rise and fall of the Holland Land Company, see Paul Demund Evans, The Holland Land Company (New York: Buffalo Historical Society, 1924). For a brief, but nonetheless impressive overview, see Stadsarchief Amsterdam, “Archief van de Holland Land Company,” accessed May 12, 2014, https://stadsarchief.amsterdam.nl/archieven/archiefbank/overzicht/333.nl.html. The Holland Land Company was predominantly an investment vehicle and as such, not a great motor for Dutch immigration to the United States. This is also visible in the advertisements for the Holland Land Company that emphasized the possible return on investment, and not the possibility of immigration. 130 “New York State Census 1845. Chautauque County,” 1845, http://128.121.13.244/awweb/main.jsp?flag=browse&smd=1&awdid=21. In contrast, at the 1875 Census, the percentage of foreign-born inhabitants of Chautauqua had risen to almost 18%. “New York State Census 1875.,” 1875, http://128.121.13.244/awweb/main.jsp?flag=browse&smd=1&awdid=1., p 121. 131 John Phillips Downs and Fenwick Hedley, History of Chautauqua County, New York, and Its People (Boston, New York [etc.]: American historical society, inc., 1921), http://archive.org/details/historyofchautau02downs., p. 87. Downs and Hedley would fit in well with Edward Bok’s Dutch Seed theory of the same time. They draw a straight line from the Dutch colonial possessions in the Hudson Valley, to the American Revolution and to the Holland Land Company’s purchase of Western New York. They even proclaim that the “Dutch national traits” of those settlers will survive longer than those of other nationalities will. 132 The suggestion that the Dutch immigrated to Western New York as early as 1805 comes from Lucas. Lucas, Netherlanders in America. p. 38. However, I agree with Van Hinte who states that Dutch immigration to the region probably did not start until the late 1840s or early 1850s. It is therefore most likely that the Dutch surnames were from the descendants of the Hudson Valley Dutch, although Lucas makes a good case for Abraham Albright being Dutch by birth. Hinte, Netherlanders in America., pp. 114-115. Another source for this suspicion is Hilary P. Garrett, “Dutch Immigration to Sodus & Williamson” (n.a., 1979), Roosevelt Study Center, Middelburg., p. 15.

3.4

The Achterhoek trek to the United States

In 1845, one of the forerunners for Van Raalteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Colony was Roelof Sleijster.133 After a trek past mostly German hosts, the majority of whom he did not trust, he settled in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin.134 By moving there, he laid the foundation for a small Dutch community in the area. Several other settlers from Dinxperloo and Winterswijk followed him.135 The immigration by these Achterhoekers was even more proof that in the early nineteenth century immigration was a local and not a national affair. In part, the Achterhoekers emigrated for the same reasons that made their contemporaries move: a failed potato harvest and bleak economic prospects. However, in addition to these push factors there also was a pull factor for the Achterhoekers. The neighboring German county of Westphalia had promoted emigration for a number of years to help lessen the dire economic circumstances of that region. In the period of 1830-1848, the seven municipalities closest to the Achterhoek sent 7,251 emigrants to the United States.136 These Westphalian and Achterhoek communities shared more bonds with each other than with their respective countries. When word came back to Westphalia that a better life awaited in the United States, not only did Germans decide to take a chance but also did their Achterhoek neighbors.137 The Achterhoekers were the pioneers of the later immigration waves, which was the main reason that the Achterhoekers are well represented among the immigrants that went to the United States prior to 1847.

133 Van Raalte contacted Isaac Wyckoff through Sleijster. Interestingly Van Raalte himself did not follow his emissary Sleijster to Wisconsin. Hinte, Netherlanders in America., p. 130. 134 In a way, Sleijster was an atypical Achterhoeker. As G.H. Ligterink states, many of the Achterhoekers moved to the United States after receiving positive feedback from their German neighbors. They usually had more in common with Westphalians than with Hollanders. G. H. Ligterink, De landverhuizers: emigratie naar Noord-Amerika uit het GeldersWestfaalse grensgebied tussen de jaren 1830-1850 (Zutphen: Walburg pers, 1981)., pp. 35-41. 135 Hinte, Netherlanders in America., p. 151.Van Hinte makes reference of a letter in Anthony Brummelkamp, Stemmen Uit Noord-Amerika: Met Een Begeleidend Woord (Amsterdam: Hoogkamer, 1847), http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015071201936. , p. 59. Sleijster originally came from Velp, which is not part of the Achterhoek, but is just outside of this region. 136 Ligterink, De landverhuizers. The numbers are from his inventory of German emigrants, p. 109. Ligterink also gives an interesting reason why the Achterhoekers did not end up in the forested regions of Michigan, but instead moved to the more easily cultivated areas of Wisconsin and New York. They had ample experience with the trouble forested areas could bring to agriculture. This was something where the Zeeuwen and Frisians from their clay provinces lacked experience. Ibid., p. 55. 137 Raymond Cohn also mentions the regionalism of the area in the first half of the 19th century. Germany did not yet exist as a country, but was a collection of regions, principalities, and kingdoms. Raymond L. Cohn, Mass Migration under Sail: European Immigration to the Antebellum United States, 1 edition (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008). pp. 31-34.

What also differentiated the Achterhoekers from other Dutch immigrants is that they, in part, also broke with tradition. The sandy soil in the Achterhoek was relatively poor in quality and did not make intensive farming possible. In order to supplement their income, Achterhoek farmers had to find other sources than farming. Therefore, by the nineteenth century the Achterhoek had a very extensive home-based textile industry. However, the Achterhoekers did not export this skill to the United States, but concentrated solely on farming instead. Also interesting is that although the reverend Van Raalte had preached in areas that were relatively close to the Achterhoek, not many Achterhoekers ended up in the Holland Colony in Michigan.138 As mentioned before, not even his forerunner Roelof Sluijster settled the Holland Colony with Van Raalte. Instead, Sluijster moved to Wisconsin, which was the original destination for the Colonists. Another destination of the Achterhoekers was upstate New York, where they predominantly settled around Lake Ontario. Clymer, which I have mentioned before, and East Williamson were the final destination for many Achterhoekers.139 3.5

From Zeeuws-Vlaanderen to the United States

The Gelderlanders from the Achterhoek were not the only Dutch immigrants in the area. The immigration of a few families from Zeeland to Western New York also predated the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;firstâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; immigration wave of 1847.140 Jan Cappon and his family were from Cadzand, one of the towns of Zeeuws-Vlaanderen. Together with his compatriot Jacob Puynbroek, Cappon wrote enthusiastic letters about life in Wayne County to Zeeuws-Vlaanderen, prompting more people from the town of Cadzand to immigrate to that area from 1836 onward.141 A few years later, the Eernisse brothers did the same for Rochester.142 Of course, the reasons for settling in Western New York are numerous. However, one of the main reasons for settlement after 1847 was the fact that these communities were on the route from New York to the Midwest. With the exception of the settlers who arrived before the immigration of Scholte, Van Raalte, Van

138 Of course, this did not mean that no Achterhoekers immigrated to the Holland Colony. However, the majority of immigrants ended up elsewhere. Ligterink, De landverhuizers., p. 61-65. 139 Swierenga, Faith and Family., p. 106. Also, Hinte, Netherlanders in America., p. 312. 140 Hinte, Netherlanders in America; Wabeke, Dutch Emigration to North America, 1624-1860. 141 Wabeke, Dutch Emigration to North America, 1624-1860., p. 113. Also Lucas, Netherlanders in America., pp. 38-39. 142 Hinte, Netherlanders in America. P. 120.

der Meulen, and their followers, many of the immigrants in Western New York settled there while they were on their way to the Midwest. An example of one of those communities en route to the Midwest is East Williamson. Part of Wayne County, New York, East Williamson was one of the last stops on Lake Ontario before immigrants would enter the Midwestern states. In 1845, a few families from ZeeuwsVlaanderen consisting of 156 people settled in the area under the guidance of Marinus Clicquennoi.143 In 1847, fellow immigrant Josias Bruijnooge was one of the elders involved in establishing a Presbyterian Church.144 Despite their shared origins, two years later internal strife surfaced. In 1849, 48 members of this church decided to leave the Presbyterian Church to join the Dutch Reformed Church. This denominational division led to a short break-up in the Dutch community in East Williamson that would last until January 1862. In that month, the consistories of the Presbyterian Church and Dutch Reformed Church of East Williamson agreed on a merger of the two churches under the auspices of the Dutch Reformed Classis of Geneva.145 Dutch immigration to East Williamson went according to a distinctly Dutch immigration pattern. First, a couple of families settled the area. After the first families had settled, they invited friends and family members and others from their region to join them. When their numbers were sufficient to form a church, they did so. As mentioned before, there is a difference between Dutch immigration to upstate New York and to the Midwest. First, the Dutch were never the majority in their communities in New York. According to census data, the Dutch immigrants and their descendants formed 8.5% of the population of Williamson in 1850. By 1915, this number had risen to 21.3%.146 However, in both years the Dutch did not form the majority of the population. These numbers supported a larger trend. Two thirds of the immigrants from the Zeeuws-Vlaanderen part of Zeeland settled in the Rochester-ClymerBuffalo area of New York State. Some people from Zeeuws-Vlaanderen did end up in Zeeland,

143 Lucas, Netherlanders in America., p. 39. Cliquennoi came from Cadzand, like the Eernisse family that preceded him in the region. Cliquennoi is also mentioned in Garrett, “Dutch Immigration to Sodus & Williamson.”, p. 15. 144 Bruijnooge, who was born in Terneuzen in Zeeuws-Vlaanderen in 1809, is mentioned in the introduction to the Consistory of the Reformed Church of East Williamson. For his birth, see DE REE Archiefsystemen BV, “Daane, Pieter (emigrant),” accessed May 9, 2014, http://www.zeeuwengezocht.nl/nl/zoeken?mivast=1539&miadt=239&mizig=862&miview=tbl&milang=nl&micols=1&mires=0 &mip3=daane&mip1=pieter&mip5=Westkapelle&mibj=1835&miej=1840. Community of the Lord at East Williamson, “Consistory of East Williamson.” 145 Community of the Lord at East Williamson, “Consistory of East Williamson.”, p. 11. 146 Garrett, “Dutch Immigration to Sodus & Williamson.”, p. 16.

Michigan, others ended up in Oostburg, Wisconsin. As described before, mostly Gelderlanders (from the Achterhoek region) settled the land near Clymer Hill, southwest of Buffalo.147 The Achterhoekers also settled in Wayne County, New York, Alto, and Sheboygan, Wisconsin.148 In short, either Zeeuws-Vlamingen or Achterhoekers settled many of the immigration foci outside of the Dutch colonies. 3.6

Connected regions

Accidental or not, Western New York, Sheboygan, and Alto were all the favorite destinations of immigrants from Zeeuws-Vlaanderen and the Achterhoek. The fact that Zeeuwen and Gelderlanders ended up in the same places, is not completely random. A major reason for this grouping was that the Zeeuwen and Gelderlanders were forerunners for the bigger immigration wave of 1846-1847.149 Sleijster is not the only example of an immigrant that moved to the United States before Van Raalte, Scholte, and the others. Other examples are the Zeeveld family in Wisconsin and Marinus Clicquennoi and his fellow Zeeuwen in East Williamson, New York.150 None of these early communities was based upon religion; instead, they formed more or less accidentally. Furthermore, these settlements were distinguished by their ethnic makeup. The majority of the settlers came from either Zeeuws-Vlaanderen or the Achterhoek. A mix of liberal and orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic populations is what both regions had in

147 Hinte, Netherlanders in America. p. 312. According to Van Hinte, a Dutch church was established there in 1849. The historical directory of the Reformed Church in America predates the Dutch church to 1847, Russell L. Gasero, Historical Directory of the Reformed Church in America, 1628-1992 (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001)., p. 407. 148 Swierenga, Faith and Family. P. 108. 149 According to Van Hinte, the immigrants from the Achterhoek were the ones who set Brummelkamp and Van Raalte on their path to immigration to the United States. By following their German counterparts to the United States and enthusiastically writing back about it, they paved the way for Van Raalteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s immigration society. Hinte, Netherlanders in America., p. 122. Gerald De Jong also sees German influences in Dutch immigration to the United States prior to 1847. De Jong, The Dutch in America, 1609-1974., p. 134. 150 According to a short biography, Louw Zeeveld (in the U.S. John Zeeveld) was born in Oostkapelle, Zeeland. He married three times, his third wife being German. Portrait and Biographical Record of Sheboygan County, Wisconsin: Containing

Biographical Sketches of Prominent and Representative Citizens of the County, Together with Biographies and Portraits of All the Presidents of the United States and the Governors of the State of Wisconsin (Chicago: Excelsior Publishing Company, 1894), http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/WI/WI-idx?type=header&id=WI.PortBioRed&isize=M., pp. 551-552. Hans Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon: Dutch Immigration to America, 1840-1940 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), p. 43. Van Hinte has an even more extensive summary on the origins of the Dutch immigrants in upstate New York, Hinte, Netherlanders in America., pp 148-149. The American British origins from Wayne County are clear, since Pultneyville is named after the Pultney estate that used to be in the area, while Williamson is named after Pultneyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s estate agent, Charles Williamson.

common.151 Unlike other regions in the Netherlands, that were more homogenous, this plurality probably made the Zeeuws-Vlamingen and Achterhoekers more pragmatic and less divided by religious differences. After all, their neighbors did not necessarily practice the same religion. While true, this lack of a need to separate themselves from other religions also lessened the need for these settlers to immigrate to the preordained destinations of the Dutch Colonies in the Midwest. If we look at the origins of the first wave of immigrants in 1846-1847, both Zeeland and Gelderland had a relatively high number of emigrants. Zeeland was also the main emigration province in both absolute and relative numbers. Gelderland came in third concerning the absolute number of emigrants to the United States. 152 Since these two provinces provided many of the total number of emigrants, it is also not remarkable that these two groups are also well represented in the immigrant communities. Because Dutch immigrants also had a tendency to immigrate to areas where their acquaintances from the old town or region already settled, these areas soon became a focal point for the immigration from local communities. The story of Jan Willem Dunnewold is an example of the local ties that bound immigrants together. Dunnewold was one of the Achterhoek settlers of Clymer. After originally immigrating to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, he moved to Clymer in 1851 to become a minister. He did so at the invitation of a couple of immigrants from Winterswijk, who had settled in the area in the 1840s and had begun their own Reformed Church. The original Winterswijk settlers had a reputation among the local population of upstate New York of being hard working and frugal. This good reputation led the agent from the Holland Land Company in Albany to try to draw even more immigrants from Winterswijk and the surrounding Achterhoek towns to Clymer in greater numbers.153 After ministering the Reformed Church in Clymer, Dunnewold returned to Wisconsin to minister.154 The Daane family offers an example of the reversed direction of

151For more on the regional differences in the Netherlands, see Knippenberg and Pater, De eenwording van Nederland., pp. 188-189. 152 Swierenga, Faith and Family. p. 82. According to Swierenga, 14.300 Zeelanders emigrated between 1835-1880, which was 87,8 per 1.000 inhabitants. When I take the period of 1880-1920 into account as well, the number of Zeeland emigrants rises to 33.600, ibid. pp. 46-48. The number of Gelderlanders emigrating to the United States was 12.400, a large part of which came from the region of the Achterhoek, Ibid., pp. 105-107. 153 Clymer Area Historical Society, “History of Clymer, New York,” 1972, Roosevelt Study Center, Middelburg., p. 19. In this booklet, there is also a list of early Dutch settlers of Clymer, many of whom could have come from Winterswijk or its surroundings. A few of the names I could verify at the genealogy site for the region AaIten/Dinxperlo/Winterswijk are J.W. Dunnewold, of whom we know that he moved to Clymer, and the Willink family. Dutch Genealogy, “Wander Willink Genealogy,” accessed June 2, 2014, http://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/tng/getperson.php?personID=I12681&tree=bredevoort.. 154 Ligterink, De landverhuizers. pp. 71-72.

migration. Peter Daane’s story is also exemplary for the immigrant network and its interconnected local origins. The Daane family emigrated to Pultneyville from Westkapelle in Zeeland in 1842. They later moved to Oostburg, Wisconsin. Peter fought in and survived the Civil War, after which he started numerous ventures, including a bank. Later in life, Peter Daane would rise to become a Wisconsin assembly member.155 Within one generation, the Daane family had thoroughly Americanized. The direction that the Daane’s took was more common than the reverse. More immigrants started in the East and ended up moving to the West than vice versa. Ever since Van Raalte had established a good relationship with the Reverend Wyckoff, Dutch immigrants traveled the road through upstate New York on their way to Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. However, these examples are just two among many more of the interconnectedness of East and West. 3.7

E pluribus unum

In 1923, B.W. Lammers, a Dutch inhabitant of Sodus, mentioned in the Dutch newspaper from Iowa, “De Volksvriend,” that the Dutch in Wayne County were different from their brethren in the west.156 According to Lammers, almost no Dutch immigrants were active in business unlike their Midwestern brethren. Furthermore, Lammers was of the opinion that the Dutch immigrants had adapted quickly to English as the main language and that the early settlers often switched their denomination, not remaining Dutch Reformed.157 Hence, for Lammers, Eastern and Midwestern immigrant groups were distinct from each other. Although Lammers compared ‘East’ (upstate New York) to ‘West’ (the Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin), these regions were not as strictly separated as he claims. First and foremost, the common factor of Dutch immigration was that it was a very local affair. Not only did most of the immigrants come from a relatively small number of municipalities in the Netherlands, but they also stayed together in

155 Rederus, “The Dutch Settlements of Sheboygan County.”, pp. 260-261. Rederus and Van Hinte both spell his name as Daan, probably the Americanized version of his surname. However, according to the genealogical site www.zeeuwengezocht.nl, the correct spelling is Pieter Daane, born March 26, 1835. BV, “Daane, Pieter (emigrant).” See also his biography, Portrait and Biographical Record of Sheboygan County, Wisconsin., p. 539. 156 B.W. Lammers, “Correspondentie uit Sodus, N.Y.,” De Volksvriend, March 1, 1923, Dag edition, Delpher, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag. 157 Hinte, Netherlanders in America., p. 802. Lammers noticed something that was taking place in most Dutch communities in the 1920s. In itself, his remarks are therefore not that remarkable.

the United States. The previous examples of immigrants from Zeeuws-Vlaanderen and the Achterhoek that often ended up in the vicinity of each other are a case in point. It was not just the Achterhoekers and Zeeuwen who had a tendency to group together. The same goes for all other Dutch regions that supplied immigrants in great number. Examples include Zeeland, Michigan, Friesland, Wisconsin, Vriesland, Michigan, and many more towns named after the region of origin of the original immigrants. In that light, Dutch immigrants in both ‘East’ and ‘West’ were very similar. Another similarity between the two groups is their religion, as I have shown in chapter 2. Although the vast majority of Dutch immigrants were Protestant, they were not one homogenous group. A very quick conclusion could be that the Midwesterners were more orthodox in their religion then their Eastern brethren. The founding and rooting of the Christian Reformed Church predominantly in the Midwest could be proof of Midwestern orthodoxy. In East Williamson, New York, for example, the first church organized by Dutch immigrants was a Presbyterian church. On the other hand, the same goes for Wisconsin where the Reverend Zonne founded a Presbyterian church. Not all of the Midwest inhabitants were therefore orthodox in their religion.158 What both these communities share is that they are good examples of the pragmatism that many of the Dutch immigrants took with them to the United States. When viewed from this perspective, religious orthodoxy is not something that sets ‘East’ and ‘West’ apart. The intent with which immigrants settled their Colonies did set the ‘East’ apart from the ‘West’. As the name Holland Colony already suggests, the immigrants to the Midwest predominantly came to colonize that part of the United States. They intended to transplant their religious community. Because of this transplantation, they would defend their Dutch characteristics for a longer time than immigrants who did not move to protect their religion. On the other hand, many of the immigrants who did not end up in the United States because of a preordained plan settled in upstate New York. Some were on their way to the Colonies, but were waylaid along the way; others went to the region by their own choice. Then again,

158 I must also admit that in both instances orthodox Dutch immigrants almost immediately started their own Dutch Reformed Church. This does not impact my main theme, that the tendencies of the Midwest were more orthodox than in the East.

many Dutch immigrants moved to upstate New York even before the great immigration wave of 1847. In general, those immigrants assimilated quicker in American society, as is also noticed by Lammers.159 However, this demarcation between East and Midwest is not as clear as sometimes suggested. As I have shown in this chapter, many Dutch communities in New York and Wisconsin consisted of immigrants from the Achterhoek and Zeeuws-Vlaanderen. These communities stood out less than the Dutch communities in the colonies of Michigan did and Iowa did. First and foremost, these groups shared an internal, regional identity. Immigrants were from the Achterhoek, or Zeeuws-Vlaanderen, and not the Netherlands. However, it is my opinion that a Dutch identity is something a majority of these immigrants shared. However, this Dutch identity had more to do with their religion than with their nationality.160 The motto of the United States, ‘E pluribus unum’, ‘Out of the many, one’, is applicable to the Dutch immigrants and their offspring. Having said that, if this meant anything for the respective group’s Dutch identity is something I will try to answer in the next chapter. What I can conclude from Dutch immigrants’ settlement patterns is that location says a lot about intent. Both the location from whence they came, as the location where they ended determined how Americanized a Dutch American immigrant would become.

159 Lammers, “Correspondentie uit Sodus, N.Y.” 160 Swierenga and Krabbendam come to the same conclusion when comparing the Dutch Protestant and Catholic immigrants in Wisconsin. Swierenga and Krabbendam, “Dutch Catholics and Protestants in Wisconsin: A Study in Contrasts and Similarities.”, p. 40.

In the previous chapters, I have looked at the origin of Dutch American ethnicity and religious influence on Dutch immigrants themselves and their society, as well as the final destination of Dutch immigrants. As we have seen, the Dutch immigration stream to the United States was relatively small, with just over 200,000 immigrants in 100 years. This small stream did not prevent Dutch immigrants and their descendents from leaving a distinct cultural mark. As I have shown in chapters one and two, Dutch immigrants wanted to preserve their Dutch culture in the United States. For a large part, they achieved this preservation through the foundation of their own churches and schools. Another mechanism was the Dutch effort to retain their language as long as possible. However, another part of Dutch ethnicity, or all distinct ethnicities for that matter, is their legacy through cultural production. This chapter will examine a few of the cultural markers as perceived from inside and from outside the Dutch ethnic group. First, I will define cultural production. Second, I will highlight a few of the more visible aspects of cultural production regarding Dutch immigrants in the nineteenth century. This production led to a period in the United States called â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Holland Maniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, which I will also cover briefly. After this, I will look into a very distinct twentieth century phenomenon of Dutch American culture: the Tulip Festival. This part will also tie in the three distinct regions I have discussed in chapter three. Finally, I will end the chapter with my conclusion about the cultural mark the Dutch Americans have left, and are leaving, behind.

4.1

The Field of Cultural Production

According to Pierre Bourdieuâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s theory on cultural production, cultural production is always symbolic.161 To complicate matters further, people can both produce and consume culture. In order to speak of culture, there is also the prerequisite of a dominant class that decides what culture is. However, even in this dominant class, there are distinctions between the dominant fraction within that class and the dominated fraction. The cultural elites define culture, while the rest follows. In order to group these fractions, Bourdieu has designed a diagram that

Fig. 1. Figure adapted from Hesmondhalgh. This figure is a representation of cultural production within the national social space. Small-scale and large-scale productions vary on their cultural and economic capital. The Field of Power represents the non-professional producers, who have low cultural capital and high economic capital.

161 Pierre Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, ed. Randal Johnson (Cambridge etc: Polity Press, 1993).

represents cultural hierarchy. This diagram represents a national social space, where those at the top have high levels of economic and cultural capital while those on the bottom have low levels of capital. In this theory, economic capital is mostly what it appears to be. Cultural production is translated into economic capital, which then represents the monetary value of cultural production. Cultural capital is symbolic and can signify a person’s place within society. Cultural capital consists of things like skills, clothing, taste, and certain material possessions. When you share similar cultural capital with others, you can create a sense of collective identity. According to Bourdieu, there is also a correlation between economic and cultural capital. Usually, the dominant fraction has more economic capital and the dominated fraction has more cultural capital. Within the national social space, distinctions are made between what Bourdieu calls large-scale production and restricted small-scale production. The first is produced for the masses while the latter is produced for the producers themselves.162 Simply put, large-scale cultural production, by definition, is accessible to the masses. It needs to transcend the language of the producer. Restricted production, on the other hand, is the opposite. Its sole purpose is to be appreciated in a small circle. Only the participants fully understand its secret language. When I relate these concepts to Dutch immigrant religion in the nineteenth century, the services in Dutch were restricted productions. These services were only meant for the true believers. The same goes for Dutch language newspapers. Most forms of cultural production, however, were large-scale, as I will show in this chapter. In sociology, cultural production comes in many forms. Among these forms are art, literature, and music, but also law and religion.163 In this chapter, I will focus on literature and art, as these forms of Dutch cultural production were most visible in the United States. However, since cultural production was not limited to these areas, I will also touch upon subjects that are slightly outside of literary and artistic production.

162 For a very concise summary of Bourdieu’s theories, and the main source of my interpretation of Bourdieu, see David Hesmondhalgh, “Bourdieu, the Media and Cultural Production,” Media, Culture & Society 28, no. 2 (March 1, 2006): 211– 31, doi:10.1177/0163443706061682. For cultural consumption, see p. 214. 163 Ibid., p. 212.

4.2

Cultural definition from outside

Ethnicity is something that is determined both from within and without. The ethnic group sees itself as distinct from the others surrounding them. These others can be the host society or other ethnicities. However, in order to be an ethnic group, the surrounding majority must also see them as such. The latter is something that started for Dutch Americans in the early nineteenth century with the books of Washington Irving. Until that time, the Dutch presence in the United States was a non-factor. In part, this was due to the fact that the original Dutch colonists and their offspring were woven into the fabric of the United States at the time. One of them, Martin van Buren, had even become President of the United States in 1837.164 Before the first wave of Dutch immigration to the United States in 1847, almost all Dutch Americans lived in New York State, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Therefore, it is no wonder that Washington Irving situated his stories about Dutch Americans, like his stories of Diedrich Knickerbocker, in New York’s Hudson Valley region.165 Although there was some basis in reality to Irving’s representation of the colonial Dutch, he unwittingly created many negative stereotypes of Dutch Americans and their heritage. In his books, he described the Dutch as being lazy, fat, pipe-smoking dullards.166 However, as it goes with stereotypes, they would turn out to be stronger than the actual cultural representation of the Dutch. The depiction of the Dutch in early nineteenth century popular culture further strengthened the stereotypes originally put forth by Irving.167 There even was an entire genre of paintings to depict the laziness and depravity of the Dutch American settlers of

164 Before his term as president, Van Buren was a Secretary of State and Vice-President under Andrew Jackson. “Martin Van Buren | The White House,” accessed June 12, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/martinvanburen. 165 Washington Irving, A History of New York, from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty. (New York: M. Thomas, 1819). Washington Irving’s depiction of the Dutch in the Hudson Valley is treated more extensively by Elisabeth Paling Funk, “Knickerbocker’s New Netherland: Washington Irving’s Representation of Dutch Life on the Hudson,” in Amsterdam-New York: Transatlantic Relations and Urban Identities Since 1653, ed. Hans Krabbendam and George Harinck (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2005).. 166 Annette Stott, “Images of Dutchness in the United States,” in Four Centuries of Dutch-American Relations: NL-USA. Amsterdam, ed. Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles Scott-Smith (Amsterdam: Boom, 2005), p. 240. A good example is Rip van Winkle. Irving paints him as someone with”an insuperable aversion to all kinds of profitable labour”, who was so lazy that he drank himself in a 20 year stupor to escape it all. Washington Irving, The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent, 5th ed. (London: John Murray, 1821), pp. 45-80. 167For more on how the Dutch were literally pictured in 19th century America, see Annette Stott, “Inventing Memory: Picturing New Netherland in the 19th Century,” in Revisiting New Netherlands: Perspectives on Early Dutch America, ed. Joyce D. Goodfriend (Leiden, the Netherlands; Boston: Brill, 2005),” pp. 13-40. Also, an essay on the figurative cultural extermination and literal ghosting of the Hudson Valley Dutch, see Richardson, “The Ghosting of the Hudson Valley Dutch.”

the Hudson Valley.168 All in all, the cultural representation of the beginning of the nineteenth century did not bode well for the Dutch immigrants that were to follow. From the mid-nineteenth century, opinions about the Dutch and their contributions to society started to shift. Historians like Edmund B. O’Callaghan and John Lothrop Motley started investigating the Dutch United Provinces of the seventeenth century and their North American colony.169 Motley published three volumes of The Rise of the Dutch Republic, a bestseller at the time, between 1856 and 1867. Partly because of their work, the negative stereotypes of the Dutch turned into positive ones. This new perception takes the Dutch ‘off the couch’ and puts them to work. This shift came none too soon for the Dutch immigrants that arrived in the United States from 1847 onwards. That Motley, a New Englander by birth, elevated the Dutch Republic to such heights was not as surprising as it might look at first glance. New England in general and Massachusetts in particular, had a bond with the Dutch since their conception. The Dutch and the British were neighbors in the early years of the British Colonies. Here, the Dutch were sometimes the target of British envy because of their successful trade. This success in trade was exactly what the early New Englanders envisioned for themselves.170 Furthermore, the Dutch had proven that a small Protestant country could accomplish almost anything by achieving its independence from the Spanish Empire. The Dutch struggle was a model in two ways. Firstly, the Republic’s governance made the history of the Dutch Republic interesting at the time. Motley’s main point was that these early republicans shared the American love for liberty and self-government.171 Motley also saw parallels between the tenuous union of the Seven United Provinces and the strained relation

168 Annette Stott gives a short list of painters and artists that depicted the Hudson Valley Dutch at the beginning of the 19th century. True to the books, the Dutch were portrayed as “portly, pipe-smoking, gin-swilling Dutchmen sleeping in the shade, measuring land by laying trousers end to end, and making absurd political pronouncements.” Stott, “Images of Dutchness in the United States.”, p. 239. 169 In this group, J.R. Brodhead deserves a special mention. A former secretary to the U.S. emissary in The Hague, Brodhead was tasked by State of New York to gather as much colonial archival records as possible for further study. His work, combined with the records that were available in Albany, was the basis for the later publications on New Netherland and New Amsterdam. See, Jaap Jacobs, Een zegenrijk gewest: Nieuw-Nederland in de zeventiende eeuw (Amsterdam: Prometheus/Bakker, 1999), 18. 170 For a more extensive version of Motley’s reasons, see Mark A. Peterson, “A Brahmin Goes Dutch: John Lothrop Motley and the Lessons of Dutch History in Nineteenth-Century Boston.,” in Going Dutch: The Dutch Presence in America, 16092009, ed. Joyce D Goodfriend, Benjamin Schmidt, and Annette Stott (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 109–31. 171 John Lothrop Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic: A History (London: Routledge, Warne, and Routledge, 1862)., preface, p. vi. Also, Annette Stott, Holland Mania: The Unknown Dutch Period in American Art & Culture, 1st ed (Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 1998)., p. 80.

between the Northern and Southern states. The United Provinces were a confederation and lacked a strong central government. This lack of a strong government, that could harness all the resources in all of the Seven Provinces, would prove fatal in the later wars with the English. In other words, a loose confederation is dangerous because it leads to internal strife. The tale of the rise and fall of the Dutch Republic was a warning against the Civil War that would break out soon after the publication of Motley’s first volume.172 Secondly, the Dutch were not the only immigrants coming to the United States in the 1840s. Because of the Potato Famine, large numbers of Irish also flooded America’s shores. The Irish were Catholic, which led to nativist sentiments in large parts of the United States.173 There were fears of Papal control of the United States mediated by Irish immigrants.174 The Dutch Republic provided a recipe for the defeat of the Catholic “hordes.”175 Motley put the inhabitants of the Dutch Republic on a pedestal. Later authors would transplant this elevation of the seventeenth century Dutch to the nineteenth century Dutch Americans. Two of the main examples of transplantation of values are the books of Mary Mapes Dodge and Douglass Campbell. Dodge’s book, The Silver Skates: a story of life in Holland, gave the world Hans Brinkers.176 Although the boy who stuck his finger in the dyke is actually not Hans Brinkers but a nameless character in one of his stories, the stories changed American perception of the Dutch. After The Silver Skates, the Dutch were a ‘noble and enterprising people’ instead of lazy and hen-pecked.177 Campbell’s book The Puritan in Holland, England, and America: An

introduction to American history was one of the first to emphasize the theory of the Dutch role

172 Peterson, “A Brahmin Goes Dutch: John Lothrop Motley and the Lessons of Dutch History in Nineteenth-Century Boston.”, pp. 122-125. 173 The nativists’ main claim was that The United States was a Protestant country, founded under God, peopled by the chosen people. In this view, there was no place for Catholics. For a visually stunning and historically only nominally correct depiction of the struggles between American nativists and Irish immigrants in New York, see Scorsese’s masterpiece. Martin Scorsese, Gangs of New York, Crime, Drama, History, (2002). 174 Donna R. Gabaccia, Foreign Relations: American Immigration in Global Perspective (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), p. 100. 175 Krabbendam has a more extensive summary of the events leading up to O’Callaghan’s and Motley’s publications. In addition to Peterson’s explanation on the Civil War, Krabbendam also adds the debate about Catholic immigrants to the mix. Hans Krabbendam, “Dutch-American Identity Politics: The Use of History by Dutch Immigrants,” Origins, Spring 2012. Much has been written on the “Catholic floods” threatening the United States in the 1800s. For the numbers in the 1850s, see Gabaccia, Foreign Relations: American Immigration in Global Perspective., p. 93. 176 Mary Mapes Dodge, The Silver Skates: A Story of Life in Holland (London: Sampson Low, son, and Marston, 1867). 177 Stott, “Images of Dutchness in the United States.”

in shaping the United States.178 Campbell’s main claim was that the Puritans all went to the United States through Holland. In Holland, the Puritans had seen a form of government they could copy. The combination of Puritans and the institutions of the colony of New Netherland had given the United States its particular government and morality.179 William Elliot Griffis, who popularized Campbell’s theories with his book Brave little Holland, and what she taught

us, furthered Campbell’s ideas.180 What made Griffis’ work more popular than Campbell’s was that he used the American Founding Fathers as references for his claims on the Dutch origins of the American Republic. He went even further than Campbell did by claiming that everything that was good about the United States originated with the Dutch.181 The enhancement of the Dutch and Dutch American reputation was not limited to the literary world. The heroic struggles of the Dutch Republic and its citizens also needed a visual depiction. Because, unlike with the stories of Irving, there were no American artists painting these rediscovered Dutch heroes. The American art audiences, hence, harked back to Dutch paintings. This quest for paintings leads to a ‘discovery’ of the Dutch Golden Age masters as Rembrandt, Vermeer, and Frans Hals, which culminated in the period of what is now called ‘Holland Mania’.182 The popularity of painting by those Dutch masters was such that Dutch experts feared that all of the Netherlands’ art treasures would be sold to collectors in the United States.183 The art craze of Holland Mania reinforced the new depiction of the Dutch that was in vogue after the publications of O’Callaghan, Motley, Campbell, and Griffis. Holland Mania also led to a reevaluation of the Dutch Americans living in the United States.184 Among the first to benefit

178 Douglas Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England, and America: An Introduction to American History (New York: Harper & Bros., 1898). 179 Stott, Holland Mania, pp. 81-85. 180 W. E. Griffis, Brave Little Holland, and What She Taught Us. (Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1894). 181 Stott, Holland Mania, p. 87. 182 Annette Stott, Hollandgekte: de onbekende Nederlandse periode in de Amerikaanse kunst en cultuur, trans. Bab Westerveld (Amsterdam: De Olifant Pers; Amsterdam, 1998). 183 Ibid, 21. The Dutch were even afraid that the crown jewels of the Golden Age art collection, the works in the possession of the Amsterdam Six family, would also be sold to the United States. To prevent this, the Dutch government came to an agreement with the Six family in order to keep the collection in the Netherlands where it remains until the present day in the same house of Rembrandt’s contemporary Jan Six I. “Collectie Six,” Collectie Six, n.d., http://www.collectiesix.nl/nl/welkombij-collectie-six. 184 An unexpected result of this new appreciation of Dutch art was the use of the Dutch dining room as a symbol of civilization. Annette Stott, “The Dutch Dining Room in Turn-of-the-Century America,” Winterthur Portfolio 37, no. 4 (2002): 219–238. Or, as she puts it on page 221: 'American stereotypes of the Netherlands as a civil, cultured land matched the perceived need to promote a civilizing influence in the United States during the last quarter of the nineteenth century.'

from this reevaluation were the descendants of those original Dutch colonists living in New York State. Because of Holland Mania and the new appreciation of the Dutch history of New York, the Hudson Valley Dutch could take pride in their ethnic heritage. In a way, the Dutch Americans were back to the exalted position they had shortly after the transfer of power in 1674. Being Dutch then meant retention of their existing rights and privileges. In 1885, that privilege turned into membership of an exclusive society with the establishment of the Holland Society of New York.185 Theodore Roosevelt, who was a member of this society, viewed his ancestors (the original Dutch colonists) as the ultimate Americans. After all, they were fully Americanized and, as such, were an example for the following immigrants at the turn of the nineteenth century.186 For Roosevelt, his Dutch ancestry was not only something to be proud of, but also a way to describe the road to Americanization and assimilation for the nonProtestant, East and South European immigrants. Holland Mania was not just rooted in a new interest in America’s Dutch heritage, but its function was also to set sharp standards for the newly arriving immigrants.187 Because of this cultural production, Dutch Americans had turned from dullards and lazy pipe-smokers into white, protestant role models.188

185 One of the requirements to join, was that you could trace your Dutch roots in the United States back to before 1674. Krabbendam, “Dutch-American Identity Politics.” 186 A prime example of how Roosevelt viewed the Dutch Americans as an example for all that came after them is this quote: “The history of our Dutch ancestors, and of the part they have played in America, is now of more than merely antiquarian interest. It has a direct bearing upon one if the greater questions of the present day, the assimilation of the masses of our foreign-born fellow citizens. The thoroughness with which the Hollander has become Americanized, and the way in which he has ceased being anything but an American, makes him invaluable as an object-lesson to some of the races who have followed him to America at an interval of about two centuries”. Theodore Roosevelt, “The Hollander as an American,” New Amsterdam Gazette, January 25, 1890, 6 edition, p. 3, Hathi Trust. Annette Stott came to a similar conclusion, see Stott, Hollandgekte, 95. 187 Roosevelt was not alone in his view that Dutch values were the only road to Americanization and assimilation by immigrants. Mrs. Abbe, the founder of the City History Club of New York is quoted in Annette Stott, Hollandgekte , 94, warning of the menace of the historically uneducated, non-protestant masses from Eastern and Southern Europe. Dutch immigrant Protestant values were an antidote for this “pollution”. 188Krabbendam briefly describes how Dutch immigrants hardly experienced discrimination or racism upon their arrival in the United States because they were “white” upon arrival. Hans Krabbendam, “‘But Tho We Love Old Holland Still, We Love Columbia More,’ the Formation of a Dutch-American Subculture in the United States, 1840-1920,” in Going Dutch: The Dutch Presence in America, 1609-2009, ed. Joyce D Goodfriend, Benjamin Schmidt, and Annette Stott (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 151-152. For more on the phenomenon of “whiteness” and immigration in the American context, for instance, why Italians and Irish immigrants had more difficulty adapting to the United States, see David R. Roediger, Working Toward Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Became White (New York: Basic Books, 2006).

4.3

Cultural production from the inside

What most of these nineteenth and early twentieth century representations of Dutch ‘identity’ and ‘culture’, have in common is that they were defined by outsiders. American need for role models to protect them from unwanted intrusion (Motley) or to prove American’s superiority (Roosevelt) determined the portrayal of Dutch American culture. The need of these outsiders, who had to contrast themselves against other groups, determined the discourse on the meaning of being Dutch or Dutch American. Of course, there were also Dutch Americans who contributed to the discourse on the perceived value of the Dutch for American history. One of the best-known Dutch Americans who was involved in the promotion of Dutch contributions to American history in the beginning of the twentieth century was Edward Bok. Bok was editor of the influential Ladies Home Journal from 1889 until 1919. Bok, an immigrant himself, had a different trajectory than most other Dutch immigrants. After having immigrated to the United States in 1870 at age 6, Bok lived most of his adult life on the East Coast. As he would write in his autobiography, The Americanization of Edward Bok: The Autobiography of a Dutch Boy

Fifty Years After,189 Bok believed that Americanization could only be achieved with a frontier spirit. Although he references to himself as ‘a Dutch Boy’, he claimed that the basis of his success was American attitudes and values. Furthermore, based on what he wrote in his autobiography, Bok considered himself to be the ultimate example for immigrants. Bok tried to show that successful immigrants succeeded because of Americanization and assimilation. Although his Dutch heritage was important to him, Bok did not think that it shaped him.190 However, this lack of belief in the formative powers of his Dutch heritage did not prevent him from publishing an editorial in Ladies Home Journal in 1903. In the editorial, he claimed that the Dutch Republic mothered some of the best institutions of the United States. According to

189 Edward William Bok, The Americanization of Edward Bok; the Autobiography of a Dutch Boy Fifty Years after. (New York, C. Scribner’s Sons, 1920). 190 In his dissertation, Hans Krabbendam gives a very detailed description of Bok’s life and influence. One of the reasons Bok identified less with the Dutch than other Dutch immigrants, is that he never lived in a homogenous Dutch immigrant community. Hans Krabbendam, The Model Man: A Life of Edward W. Bok, 1863-1930 (Sl: sn, 1995).

Bok, the free public school system, freedom of religious worship, freedom of the press, and freedom of suffrage by secret ballot all were imports from the Netherlands.191 Another Dutch immigrant who placed the Dutch at the basis of everything that was good in the United States was Henry van Coenen Torchiana. In 1915 he suggested that there was a direct link between Dutch colonial heritage and American institutions. In that year he published his book Holland The Birthplace of American Civic, Political and Religious

Freedom.192 Van Coenen Torchiana was a lawyer of Dutch descent who had lived in the Dutch East Indies and who became an American in 1895. In 1913, he was appointed as the consul for the Netherlands on the American West Coast including Alaska, during which time he wrote

Holland. Among his other books are a short history of the Netherlands’ colonial holdings in the Dutch East Indies and a history of his work with Hispanic migrants on a California farm.193 Where Bok represented the unbound immigrants on the East Coast, Van Coenen Torchiana was an example of the immigrants moving to the Western shores of the United States. These communities were less tightly knit than the ‘Kolonies’ in the Midwest and their focus was on trade relations with the Dutch East Indies. Both Bok and Van Coenen Torchiana were Dutch immigrants who stood outside of mainstream Dutch culture. Of course, cultural production was not limited to Dutch immigrants outside of the mainstream. The Dutch that lived in the ‘Kolonies’ had their additions as well. The Dutch language newspapers that were in wide circulation until the First World War are a good example of Bourdieu’s ‘restricted production’. In contrast with the English work of Bok and Van Coenen Torchiana, the Dutch language newspapers were, by definition, tailored for a small audience. The small size of the audience did not deter the Dutch language press. Between

191Edward W. Bok, “The Mother of America,” Ladies’ Home Journal, October 1903. Referenced in Stott, Holland Mania, p. 90. According to Van Hinte, Dutch immigrants saw Bok more as American than Dutch. This probably fit how Bok saw himself. Hinte, Netherlanders in America., pp. 957-958. Horace Kallen, whom I have mentioned in chapter 1, considered Bok to be artificially American, Ibid., p. 1015. 192H.A. van Coenen Torchiana, Holland The Birthplace of American Civic, Political and Religious Freedom (San Francisco: Paul Elder & Company, 1915). Almost a century later, Simon Middleton makes a similar albeit less far reaching claim. Simon Middleton, “The Waning of Dutch New York,” in Four Centuries of Durch-American Relations 1609-2009, ed. Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles Scott-Smith, Four Centuries of Dutch-American Relations 1609-2009 (Amsterdam: Boom, 2009)., pp. 108-119. 193 Van Coenen Torchiana was instrumental in establishing the Dutch colony of Merced, California. The colony was set up as a truck farming community. In that capacity, he got acquainted with Mexican guest workers. The Merced colony was one of the few Dutch settlements that failed. Jacob van Hinte, Netherlanders in America : A Study of Emigration and Settlement in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in the United States of America, ed. Robert P. Swierenga, trans. Adriaan de Wit (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1985), pp. 656-661.

1849 and 1979, approximately 105 Dutch language newspaper titles were published. However, by 1979, only 16 of them remained in more or less their original state.194 Nevertheless, the fact that so many Dutch language newspapers existed shows that they provided a much-needed service to the immigrant community. First and foremost, the newspapers let immigrants keep abreast with developments regarding their fellow Dutch immigrants elsewhere.195 In Imagined

Communities, Benedict Anderson also points to the importance of newspapers in forming a national identity.196 Although many of the newspapers started out as local publications, like the

Sheboygan Nieuwsbode in 1849, the newspapers started to reach out to readers outside the local community, obtaining a national audience.197 Serving the purpose of reaching a national audience were the Dutch language newspapers De Grondwet and De Volksvriend, published in Holland, Michigan, and Orange City, Iowa, respectively.198 With a growing audience, these Dutch newspapers now did more than informing their readers of the happenings in local Dutch communities. These newspapers also gave immigrants the opportunity to stay current with their language and keep in touch with news from the Netherlands.199 The newspapers also offered them the possibility to be part of a larger, cohesive Dutch community. As I have discussed in the previous chapters, religion was one of the most important markers of Dutch ethnicity in the United States. Therefore, another important function of the newspapers was to spread their Christian Reformed message. However, the newspapers themselves would eventually be replaced as the main medium for spreading the Christian Reformed message by the RCA and CRC. The mere fact that the oldest Dutch American periodicals still in existence are from RCA

194 Linda Pegman Doezeman, “The Dutc*h Press,” in The Ethnic Press in the United States, ed. Sally M. Miller (New York: Greenwood, 1987), p. 71. For an overview of all Dutch language publications published between 1648 and 1948, see Hendrik Edelman, The Dutch Language Press in America: Two Centuries of Printing, Publishing and Bookselling / Hendrik Edelman (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1986). 195 According to Lucas, this was their main function. Lucas, Netherlanders in America., p. 540. 196 Anderson, Imagined Communities., pp. 33-36. 197 This was not true for all newspapers. Some local newspapers made a conscious choice to stay local. Donald Sinnema, “Dutch American Newspapers and the Network of Early Dutch Immigrant Communities,” in Dutch Enterprise: Alive and

Well in North America. Proceedings of the 12th Biennial Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Dutch American Studies (presented at the Dutch Enterprise, Pella, IA: Central College, 1999), 43–56, http://www.aadas.nl/sites/default/files/proceedings/1999_5_Sinnema.pdf., p. 44. 198 In his chapter on the cultural life in the Dutch settlements, Van Hinte gives a small inventory and measure of importance of the Dutch newspapers that were still published at the time. Hinte, Netherlanders in America, pp. 914-942. 199 Sinnema, “Dutch American Newspapers and the Network of Early Dutch Immigrant Communities.”, p. 43. Krabbendam also notes the strong ties the original newspapers had with the Democratic and Republican Parties. Originally, the Dutch newspapers aligned with Democrats. At the end of the 19th century, the allegiance of most Dutch newspapers had switched to Republican. Unfortunately, I cannot go into further detail on this very interesting subject in this paper. Hans Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon: Dutch Immigration to America, 1840-1940 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 270-279.

or CRC serves as a measure of how important religion was in Dutch immigrant society.200 Even when it comes to cultural production from inside the own community, church bonds eventually trump all.201 4.4

Tulip Festivals

Art, literature, and newspapers all had their role in the formation of a Dutch American identity. Combining these factors with religion and location, sets the main outlines for a distinct Dutch ethnicity. However, a more noticeable form of cultural production would start after the First World War with the advent of the Tulip Festivals. At first glance, Tulip Festivals are just that: a festival to celebrate tulips. However, this would sell the role of these festivals short. The earliest Tulip Festival dates from 1928, when the City Council of Holland, Michigan decided to make their community more colorful. At the suggestion of a schoolteacher, the city planted 250,000 tulips. They primarily did this because tulips were colorful and secondarily because of the Dutch origin of the community. Nowhere did they say that they wanted to celebrate Dutch culture or achievement.202 However, these tulip fields were an instant success, as thousands of people from outside Holland, Michigan came to watch the spectacle. This prompted the city council to make it an annual event, the 1929 stock market crash, and ensuing Depression notwithstanding.203 Other Dutch settlements, like Pella and Orange City, Iowa, quickly followed Holland’s example and started their own festivals.204 Starting out as festival that showcased tulips to beautify the city and, as a bonus, attract visitors, the festival would soon include other activities as well. It would also become more

200The RCA periodical is currently called The Church Herald (formerly The Leader, first published in 1906), and the CRC periodical is called The Banner (first published in 1866) Pegman Doezeman, “The Dutch Press.”, p. 71. Also, Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon., p. 279. Lucas on the ties between church and newspapers, Lucas, Netherlanders in America, p. 540. 201 For a historiography of Dutch language newspapers, see Conrad Bult, “Dutch-American Newspapers: Their History and Role,” in The Dutch in America: Immigration, Settlement, and Cultural Change, ed. Robert P. Swierenga (New Brunswick, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), 273–90. 202For a more detailed description of the origins of Tulip Time in Holland, Michigan, see Terence Guy Schoone-Jongen, “Tulip Time U.S.A.: Staging Memory, Identity and Ethnicity in Dutch-American Community Festivals.” (Ohio State University, 2007), pp. 155-158. 203 Janet Sjaarda Sheeres, “Klompendancing through America,” in Proceedings of the 12th Biennial Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Dutch American Studies (presented at the Dutch enterprise: alive and wel in North America, Pella, IA: Central College, 1999), p. 2. 204 Ibid., for a helpful, chronological overview of the different tulip festivals in the United States, pp. 71-72.

‘ethnic’. Holland proved to be a trailbreaker again with the introduction of clog dancing and authentic Dutch costumes in the 1930 Tulip Time festival. Later additions included scrubbing and cleaning of streets, the sale of wooden shoes and tulips, and other ‘authentic’ Dutch memorabilia. The depiction of Dutch life was a mix between Irving’s New York, and the sanitized version of the Netherlands straight out of Holland Mania. In addition, 1930 saw the first major involvement with the festival of the Holland, Michigan Chamber of Commerce. They heavily promoted both Tulip Time and Michigan as prime touristic destinations.205 The takeover of the organization of Tulip Time by the Chamber of Commerce says a lot about the direction the Festival was going. No longer was it a beautification project, but it had moved beyond that. An idealized Dutch ethnicity was something that could be sold to their American neighbors.206 Dutch Americans could use their ethnic identity to promote tourism to their communities and in that way make money. Surprisingly enough, it was an Irish American who realized this and made Tulip Time more ethnic.207 In the end, Dutch entrepreneurial spirit was more powerful than the wish for authentic ethnic representation. It is no coincidence that Tulip Time started after World War I. Americanization became of paramount importance due to the press coverage on the supposed German atrocities during World War I.208 German langue newspapers were closed, German churches in the United States were in danger of being damaged, and English was the lingua franca. This Americanization drive and mistrust of everything that did not sound English, also took its toll on the Dutch American community. Many Americans, after all, could not distinguish between ‘Dutch’ and ‘Deutsch’.209 This resentment for everything German (or in the case of the Dutch, guilt by

205 Schoone-Jongen, “Tulip Time U.S.A.”, pp. 159-161. Also, 206 Michael Douma, “The Evolution of Dutch American Identities, 1847-Present” (Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations, The Florida State University, 2011), http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd/7128, p. 162. 207 Ibid., pp. 166-167. The Irish American in question, William Connoly, also was the driving force behind a first attempt to create a “Klein Holland” in Holland, Michigan. This attempt would ultimately fail, but planted the seed for what would later become “Dutch Village”. 208 Anti-German propaganda was a tool used by the British to garner American support prior. A major part of this propaganda was in the form of newspaper articles on supposed German atrocities. Mia L. McIver, “Review of «Huns» vs. «Corned Beef»: Representations of the Other in American and German Literature and Film on World War I by Thomas F. Schneider; Hans Wagener,” The German Quarterly 82, no. 2 (April 1, 2009): 280–81. 209 This is also the reason why the German “Pennsylvania Dutch,” are called “Dutch.” Nicoline Sijs Van Der, Cookies, Coleslaw, and Stoops : The Influence of Dutch on the North American Languages (Amsterdam University Press, 2009), p. 15. On the ban of preaching in a foreign language during WWI, see Hinte, Netherlanders in America, p. 998.

association) was not the only reason for quickened Americanization.210 Because of nativist sentiments and the general feeling that unwanted ‘non-white’ immigrants flooded the United States, 1921 and 1924 saw the introduction of severe immigration restrictions.211 Interestingly, these calls for restrictions, unlike the immigrants themselves, went from West to East.212 Because Dutch immigrants were white and Protestant, they could ignore calls for Americanization by people like Theodore Roosevelt.213 However, the combination of antiforeign sentiments after the outbreak of World War I, and the calls for immigration restriction made the Dutch immigrants also feel pressured to Americanize. This forced Americanization also led to a countermovement in the Dutch immigrant community. On the one hand, the Dutch wanted to prove to their American neighbors that they belonged in the United States. After all, their ancestors had a part in building the United States (or at least New York State). On the other hand, they also wanted to show that Dutch ethnicity was something you could celebrate. Tulip Festivals could satisfy both needs.214 4.5

Invented tradition and ethnicity

Tulip Festivals fall under Bourdieu’s definition of large-scale cultural production. Their aim is to reach the community at large, the people outside of their own ethnic community. Although the Dutch Americans do have a distinct ethnicity, as I have discussed in chapter 1, the ethnicity that is on display during Tulip Time is a mash of invented traditions. Eric Hobsbawm and Terrence Ranger define invented tradition as follows:

210 Not only did Dutch sound similar to “Deutsch,” the Dutch were depicted as war profiteers in the American press. Cornelis A. van Minnen, “Dutch Perceptions of American Culture and Promotion of Dutch Culture in the United States,” in Four Centuries of Durch-American Relations 1609-2009, ed. Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles ScottSmith (Amsterdam: Boom, 2009), p. 432. 211 The Dutch themselves sometimes also considered themselves better than their peers, like Dutch socialist N.A. de Vries. Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon, pp. 57-58. 212A brief overview of causes and effects of the restriction measures, see chapter 3 of Gabaccia, Foreign Relations: American Immigration in Global Perspective. For more on how Eastern and Southern European immigrants transitioned from in-between white to white, see Roediger, Working Toward Whiteness. Krabbendam and Gabaccia both point to the fact that restriction started on the West Coast and moved east from there. The first that were denied access were the Chinese. Krabbendam, Freedom on the Horizon, p.56. 213 In 1890, during a speech he gave to the Holland Society of New York Theodore Roosevelt used the Dutch Americans as prime examples of successful Americanization. However, his definition of Dutch Americans only included the East Coast descendants of the New Netherland Colony. Theodore Roosevelt, “The Hollander as an American.” 214 David Zwart, “Faithful Remembering: Constructing Dutch America in the Twentieth Century” (Western Michigan University, 2012), http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/23, pp. 107-108.

‘Invented tradition’ is taken to mean a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behavior by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past.215 The clog dancing and the sweeping and cleaning of the street that are a part of Tulip Time, are prime examples of these invented traditions. A first generation immigrant, Janet Sjaarda Sheeres mentioned that although she did wear clogs in the Netherlands, she had never seen anyone dance in them. That was until she went to her first Tulip Time festival.216 Both activities are an Americanized version of Dutch ethnicity and production. It is how Americans imagined the Dutch behaved, based on their experience of Holland Mania, and the stories of Mary Dodge, Campbell, and Griffis. This imagination was than translated into easily understood rituals. Dutch Americans themselves were aware of this invention.217 The Dutch American writer Arnold Mulder commented as much, when he stated that the Festivals were not so much about Dutchness, but instead ‘an effective American flair for community publicity’.218 Another aspect of invented traditions is that they are an effort to show continuity with the past.219 This continuity is an anchoring of some parts of social life and a way to keep the modern world at bay.220 In this way, Tulip Time as an invented tradition achieves the celebration of Dutch ethnicity and it confirmed that Dutch American belonged in the United States. Tulip Time was proof of assimilation of the Dutch Americans in the American mainstream, but also kept their claim on a distinct ethnicity intact.

215 Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge etc: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 1. 216 Sheeres, “Klompendancing through America.”, p. 71. 217 Some wanted to represent the Dutch Golden Age others wanted a representation of the Dutch culture of “Holland Mania.” What they all shared is the knowledge that it was just that, a representation. Douma, “The Evolution of Dutch American Identities, 1847-Present.”, p. 168. 218 Ibid., p. 158. 219 Keeping Dutch culture alive is something that the older Dutch American generation values in tulip festivals. Peter Ester, “Growing Up Dutch-American: Cultural Identity and the Formative Years of Older Dutch-Americans” (presented at the LECTURE SERIES OF THE VAN RAALTE INSTITUTE VISITING RESEARCH FELLOWS PROGRAM NO. 5, Holland, MI: Van Raalte Press, 2007), p.33. 220 Hobsbawm and Ranger, The Invention of Tradition, p.2.

As I have stated in chapter one, ethnicity is itself an invention.221 By acknowledging ethnicity, you also acknowledge certain commonalities. Tulip Time did not start as a celebration of Dutch culture and heritage, but evolved into that later. The discovery of Dutch ethnicity as a valuable marketing tool only came after the initial success of Tulip Time. Nevertheless, the Dutch Americans used wooden shoes, tulips, and windmills as Dutch symbols before the Dutch used them in marketing the Netherlands. That the Dutch Americans used large-scale symbolic production first did not mean that the country this was based on, did nothing. In the Netherlands, individual companies used pig-tailed blond girls in Volendammer dress to sell products from the late 1800s. The chocolate companies Bensdorp and Droste, for instance, both used Volendammer girls to sell their products at home and abroad.222 The Netherlands, however, did not actively promote itself yet. Although the Netherlands prides itself as a nation of commerce and export, this tradition of self-promotion was imported from the United States. Because of the success of Tulip Time, later organizers realized there was money in their Dutch ethnic heritage. By highlighting certain perceived ethnic traits, like clog dancing and a penchant for cleanliness, the festivals could tap into this potential. This is also the reason why tulip festivals have so many commonalities. First, they all use the invented traditions and cultural production of Holland, Michigan’s Tulip Time. Second, the time at which the Dutch American communities adapted Tulip Festivals also says something about the place and strength of the ties with Dutch American culture. After overcoming her surprise of seeing the clog dancing performance at her first Tulip Festival, Janet Sheeres assembled a scheme of all annual Dutch Festivals.223 If I look at Sheeres’ scheme, tulip festivals originated in the ‘Kolonies’, where the Dutch cultural continuity was strongest. Van Raalte’s Holland was the first to celebrate Tulip Time in 1929, followed shortly thereafter by Pella and Orange City, Iowa. The ‘early adaptors’ did not only have a strong identification with Dutch ethnicity, they also strived for a more

221 Sollors, The Invention of Ethnicity. 222 Sophie Elpers, Hollandser dan Kaas: De geschiedenis van Frau Antje (Amsterdam University Press, 2009)., pp. 37-48. Although her book focuses on “Frau Antje,” a girl invented by the Dutch Dairy Institute to promote Dutch dairy in Germany, Elpers also included an overview of the history of the use of Volendammer dress in advertising. According to Elpers, the reason why Volendam became one of the most potent “Dutch” symbols was two-fold: Volendam was close to Amsterdam and therefore easy to reach and it was the base of many American artists during Holland Mania, therefore popularizing its dress. 223 Sheeres, “Klompendancing through America.”, pp. 79-80.

authentic representation of this Dutch American ethnicity.224 The festivals that started after the 1930s feel more contrived. Other Dutch communities followed suit after World War II, with Albany, New York as one of the first communities. Although some of the other festivals also placed a premium on inviting high-profile Dutch guests, Albany has one big distinction. For its first Tulip Festival, Queen Wilhelmina designated a tulip, the bronzy orange shaded scarlet Orange Wonder, as the special tulip for Albany.225 Later, Princess Beatrix even visited one of the festivals.226 Furthermore, as one of the first Dutch settlements of New Netherlands, Albany incorporated a connection to this history. Since 1950, Albany has added a celebration of Pinkster to their Tulip Festival.227 The inclusion of Pinkster, an African-American holiday with its origins in the Dutch colonial rule in New Netherland, is one of the big exceptions Albany offers when compared to other Tulip Festivals.228 Albany started its festival in the same year as Edgerton, Minnesota did. Clymer, New York subsequently began its Tulip Festival a few years later. Clymer’s festival follows the traditional mold of Tulip Festivals. Street sweeping is part of the festivities, as are ‘klompendansen’, and the fabrication of wooden shoes.229 Later additions include Dutch festivals in California, Washington, Illinois, and Kansas. By and large, the later festivals also follow the later westward trek of Dutch immigrants. There seems to be a direct correlation between the year in which a Dutch festival is first organized, and the year that Dutch immigrants colonized a particular town. Two festivals seem to go against this trend: Little Chute, Wisconsin, (1982) and Hempstead, New York (1983). These festivals are also markedly different then the “traditional” Tulip Festivals. Little Chute is the only town with a Dutch festival that identifies with the Dutch Roman-Catholic immigrants of

224 Terrence Schoone-Jongen recollects from personal experience about the efforts to be as authentic as possible. SchooneJongen, “Tulip Time U.S.A.”, p. 4 and chapter 5. 225 Albany Tulip Queen, “The Albany Tulip Festival: 65 Years of History,” The Albany Tulip Festival, accessed June 16, 2014, http://www.albanytulipqueen.com/history/. 226 Ibid. On the visit of Princess Beatrix, Sheeres, “Klompendancing through America.”, p. 80. 227 Albany Tulip Queen, “The Albany Tulip Festival: 65 Years of History.” 228 For more on the origins of the word Pinkster, see Sijs Van Der, Cookies, Coleslaw, and Stoops, pp. 224-225. For an indepth analysis of the background of Pinkster and its meaning for the African-American community, see Jeroen Dewulf, “Pinkster: An Atlantic Creole Festival in a Dutch-American Context,” Journal of American Folklore 126, no. 501 (2013): 245–71. 229 Sheeres, “Klompendancing through America.”, pp. 73 & 79. Clymer Area Historical Society, “Town of Clymer Triquasquincentennial Booklet 1996” (Westley Associates, 1996), Roosevelt Study Center, Middelburg, p. 27.

the nineteenth century.230 Hempstead’s festival, unlike the other festivals that have a town or its Chamber of Commerce as organizers, is organized by Hofstra University.231 Its connection to Dutch heritage is not through the inhabitants of Hempstead. Instead, the festival is rooted in the Dutch descent of the university’s benefactor on whose land the original campus was built in 1935.232 Although they have many similarities with other festivals, the festivals of Little Chute and Hempstead are not representative for Tulip Festivals in the United States. Not all Dutch communities in the United States have a Tulip Festival or other types of Dutch heritage festivals. When looking at the numbers, most of the festivals take place in the Midwest and the West of the United States. New York, the state were Dutch presence is established the longest, and Michigan appear to be underrepresented especially in regards to their Dutch ethnic history and population. Maybe this underrepresentation does say something about the ties that current inhabitants still feel with the Dutch origins of their heritage. The older inhabitants of Holland, Michigan seem to think so. 4.6

Production, invention and tradition

Dutch ethnicity in the United States is for a large part defined by the religion of the original immigrants. As we have seen in previous chapters, the majority of Dutch immigrants were Dutch Reformed, which makes their Calvinism their main ethnic marker. However, Dutch American ethnicity was not solely determined by their internal perceptions of what it means to be Dutch American. In a large part, perceptions from the outside the group also formed their ethnicity. To get a measure of what these perceptions were, from both inside and outside, one can look at cultural production. This production comes in many forms, of which large-scale production is open to the masses, while small-scale production is only accessible to the producers themselves. Dutch language church services and Dutch language newspapers are

230 The 2014 Kermis Dutch Festival is also the last one to be organized. After 2014, the town itself will no longer host this festival. I have been unable to find out if this is due to lack of money or lack of interest. Village of Little Chute, “Village of Little Chute Newsletter,” accessed June 18, 2014, http://www.littlechutewi.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1885. 231 Hofstra University, “31st Annual Dutch Festival,” accessed June 18, 2014, http://www.hofstra.edu/Community/Fest/Fest_dutch.html. 232 Geri Solomon and The Hofstra University Museum, “The Hofstra Family at 65,” accessed June 18, 2014, http://www.hofstra.edu/Community/museum/museum_exhibition_hofstra65.html.

types of small-scale production. On the other side of the spectrum are things like the books by Irving, Campbell, Griffis, and Dodge. Other examples include the artifacts of Holland Mania and later Dutch ethnic festivals. The festivalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s origins had nothing to do with Dutch heritage, but were turned into events celebrating Dutch cultural heritage. However, an Americanized version of Dutchness proved effective in attracting American visitors. Furthermore, it also helped Dutch Americans assimilate and become part of the American fabric. What all these forms of production have in common is that they are based on invention of ethnicity and the invention of tradition. In short, without invention and adaptation of their ethnicity to the American context, Dutch Americans would not have achieved their distinct flavor within the American melting pot.

Dutch ethnic identity in the American context is a matter of invention. As I have shown in the last chapter, the ethnic identity of Dutch Americans is not just shaped by their religion. Although religion does play a big part in the self-identification with Dutch American ethnicity, outsiders also determine part of ethnicity. The most visible form of outsiders shaping ethnic identity is large-scale cultural production. By and large, the books and artwork of nineteenth century Holland Mania shaped American perceptions of Dutch ethnic identity. Dutch Americans then used this invented identity in Tulip Festivals. With this use, Dutch Americans strengthened ethnic stereotypes, while at the same time showing that they were part of the American landscape. The Dutch American identity is the Americanized version of Dutchness. When considering motivations of the nineteenth century immigrant leaders, one can only conclude that they would not have approved of the transformation of Dutch ethnicity in the American melting pot. Although the ‘true faith’ is still an integral part of Dutch American identification, their religion is only a small-scale cultural production. The development of this ethnic identity has a long history. The history of Dutch Americans stretches back to the seventeenth century with the founding of the colony of New Netherlands. Currently, over 4 million Americans identify as Dutch Americans. That the colony was called New Netherlands is, in a way, ironic. The Dutch were a minority in their own colony, where they lived side-by-side with Walloons, English Puritans, and Jews. In this light, it is unlikely that a clear Dutch ethnicity existed in New Netherlands under Dutch rule. Nevertheless, after the British takeover in 1674, the original colonists used a Dutch ethnicity to protect certain rights and privileges they enjoyed during the Dutch colonial rule. Their ‘Dutchness’ became a badge with which these colonists could distinguish themselves from their British neighbors. ‘Dutchness’ was therefore an invention meant to signify an ‘otherness’. This ‘othering’ is one of the main components of ethnicity. Take for example the Dutch Americans in the Hudson Valley, the moment they became part of the American melting pot, their need for a distinct ‘Dutchness’ evaporated. ‘Dutch’ became folklore, especially after Irving 69

published his books about Dutch New York. The only visible reminders of Dutch history were the Dutch Reformed churches that dotted the New York and New Jersey landscapes. At the middle of the nineteenth century, this would all change once again. Because of a combination of failed harvests and religious discontent, the 1840s saw a rise in Dutch immigration to the United States. Although only a minority of the immigrants migrated because of religious persecution, these Seceders would majorly influence the course of Dutch immigration. The immigration wave of the 1840s had a clear intent: the establishment of Dutch colonies in the United States. In these colonies, the Dutch immigrants could freely practice their religion away from what they saw as the decay of Europe. An added bonus was that the American school system offered the possibility to found Christian schools. Another reason for the fact that several different Dutch colonies mushroomed, is that immigration was a muchlocalized affair. Fifty percent of the immigrants came from just five percent of the municipalities in the Netherlands.233 A result of the combination of local immigration and a tendency to stay together also led to the formation of transplanted communities in the Midwest. However, this clustered scattering did not stand in the way of forming a national Dutch American ethnicity. The cement of this formation was the Calvinism of the Dutch Reformed Church. Through its Dutch language services, Christian education, and newspapers the church formed the cornerstone of these Dutch communities. In 1857, this cornerstone would crack. That year saw a new Secession within the Dutch Reformed Church, which was largely a result of differences that already existed in the Netherlands. However, what was unique for the American setting was the Freemason controversy. This controversy was the straw that broke the camelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s back for some of the more orthodox immigrants. In the end, the Freemason controversy was mainly a discussion about the rate with which Dutch immigrants should Americanize. The already Americanized RCA was in favor of further Americanization, while the CRC was opposed. Although this denominational split led to a weakened RCA, it simultaneously led to a further strengthening of Dutch ethnic identity. In their battle for the souls of Dutch immigrants, both denominations were involved in

233 Swierenga, Faith and Family., p. 76.

Christian schooling, Dutch language newspapers, church periodicals, and many other activities. All these factors helped in establishing a firmer Dutch identity, based on religion. The third factor of shaping a Dutch American identity is the locations immigrants chose to migrate to. Although the majority of nineteenth century immigrants did move to the ‘Kolonies’, not all immigrants did. Immigrants from the Achterhoek and Zeeuws-Vlaanderen regions preceded the main wave of 1847 and settled areas of upstate New York and Wisconsin. Their choice for these regions, outside of the ‘standard’ Dutch areas in the Midwest and the Hudson Valley, is in large part determined by their origins. Zeeuws-Vlaanderen and the Achterhoek were culturally pluralistic regions, where different religious groups lived in close proximity. This led to pragmatism when it came to religious orthodoxy. The ‘Kolonies’ would probably have been too strict, while the Hudson Valley was already populated. Instead, the Achterhoekers and Zeeuws-Vlamingen clustered together in other available areas while maintaining a Dutch identity. As I have shown in chapter three, they were part of the Dutch American immigrant network. However, their location and pragmatism mark them as a distinct group within the Dutch American community. This brings me back to the book that started all this: Russel Shorto’s The Island at the

Center of the World. The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the forgotten Colony that shaped America. In the book, which is based on the research of Dr. Charles Gehrig of the New Netherlands Institute, New Amsterdam gains primacy. It is Shorto’s theory that the Dutch, through the colony of New Netherland, are at the root of New York’s identity. Because New York is such an important city in the United States, the Dutch have indirectly influenced the United States.234 As a Dutchman, I could be nothing but impressed. After all, according to Shorto, we helped shape the mightiest country in the world. Alas, proving or disproving actual cultural influence is impossible. However, what this research has pointed out is that Dutch immigrants to the United States have made an impression on the Americans that surrounded them. Originally, this impression was based on religion, but at the beginning of the twentieth century, this had changed. Dutch Americans and Americans alike had added windmills, wooden

234 Along those lines is the essay of Frijhoff and Jacobs. However, they also caution for giving to much weight to “Dutch influence” on the United States. Willem Frijhoff and Jaap Jacobs, “The Dutch, New Netherland, and Thereafter (16091780s),” in Four Centuries of Dutch-American Relations 1609-2009, ed. Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles Scott-Smith (Amsterdam: Boom, 2009), p.33.

shoes, and tulips to the ethnic mix. Although the Dutch in Iowa, Michigan, upstate New York, and Wisconsin all have their small ethnic distinction, these symbols join them all. Four hundred years after the first Dutch colonists crossed the Atlantic, the cultural invention of tulips and wooden shoes again ties old and new Netherlands together.

Albany Tulip Queen. “The Albany Tulip Festival: 65 Years of History.” The Albany Tulip Festival. Accessed June 16, 2014. http://www.albanytulipqueen.com/history/. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Rev. ed. London etc: Verso, 1991. Anderson, Charles H. White Protestant Americans: From National Origins to Religious Group. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970. Beets, Henry. De Chr. geref. kerk in N. A.; zestig jaren van strijd en zegen. Grand Rapids, Mich., Grand Rapids printing company, 1918. http://archive.org/details/dechrgerefkerkin00beet. Beij, B. de. Stemmen Uit de Hollandsch-Gereformeerde Kerk in de Vereenigde Staten van Amerika,. Groningen,, 1871. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/nyp.33433069131211. Bok, Edward W. The Americanization of Edward Bok; the Autobiography of a Dutch Boy Fifty Years after .. New York, C. Scribner’s Sons, 1920. ———. “The Mother of America.” Ladies’ Home Journal, October 1903. Bourdieu, Pierre. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Edited by Randal Johnson. Cambridge etc: Polity Press, 1993. Boyden, Michael, Hans Krabbendam, and Liselotte Vandenbussche, eds. Tales of Transit Narrative Migrant Spaces in Atlantic Perspective, 1850-1950. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013. Bratt, James D. Dutch Calvinism in Modern America: A History of a Conservative Subculture. Grand Rapids, Mich: WBEerdmans PubCo, 1984. Brinks, Herbert, J. “Religious Continuities in Europe and the New World.” In The Dutch in America: Immigration, Settlement, and Cultural Change, edited by Robert P. Swierenga, 209–23. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1985. Bruins, Elton J. “Albertus C. Van Raalte: Leader of the Dutch Emigration to the United States, 1847-1867. Origins 19, No. 2 (2001): 4-11. (Elton J. Bruins).” Origins, Fall 2001. ———. “Americanization in Reformed Religious Life.” In The Dutch in America: Immigration, Settlement, and Cultural Change, edited by Robert P. Swierenga, 175–90. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1985. 73

Brummelkamp, Anthony. Stemmen Uit Noord-Amerika: Met Een Begeleidend Woord. Amsterdam: Hoogkamer, 1847. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015071201936. Brummelkamp, Anthony, and Albertus C. van Raalte. Landverhuizing, of Waarom Bevorderen Wij de Volksverhuizing En Wel Naar Noord-Amerika En Niet Naar Java? 2. druk. Amsterdam,, 1846. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015071202058. Bult, Conrad. “Dutch-American Newspapers: Their History and Role.” In The Dutch in America: Immigration, Settlement, and Cultural Change, edited by Robert P. Swierenga, 273–90. New Brunswick, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985. Bureau, U. S. Census. “Dutch Heritage in the United States.” Accessed March 13, 2014. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS _12_1YR_S0201&prodType=table. BV, DE REE Archiefsystemen. “Daane, Pieter (emigrant).” Accessed May 9, 2014. http://www.zeeuwengezocht.nl/nl/zoeken?mivast=1539&miadt=239&mizig=862&mivi ew=tbl&milang=nl&micols=1&mires=0&mip3=daane&mip1=pieter&mip5=Westkapell e&mibj=1835&miej=1840. Campbell, Douglas. The Puritan in Holland, England, and America: An Introduction to American History. New York: Harper & Bros., 1898. Carney, Thomas E. “A Tradition to Live By: New York Religious History, 1624–1740.” New York History 85, no. 4 (October 1, 2004): 301–30. Clymer Area Historical Society. “History of Clymer, New York,” 1972. Roosevelt Study Center, Middelburg. ———. “Town of Clymer Triquasquincentennial Booklet 1996.” Westley Associates, 1996. Roosevelt Study Center, Middelburg. Coenen Torchiana, H.A. van. Holland The Birthplace of American Civic, Political and Religious Freedom. San Francisco: Paul Elder & Company, 1915. Cohn, Raymond L. Mass Migration under Sail: European Immigration to the Antebellum United States. 1 edition. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. “Collectie Six.” Collectie Six, n.d. http://www.collectiesix.nl/nl/welkom-bij-collectie-six.

Community of the Lord at East Williamson. “East Williamson New York Reformed Church Membership Lists Part I,” n.d. Roosevelt Study Center, Middelburg. Accessed February 17, 2014. ———. “The Register of the Actions of the Consistory of the Community of the Lord at East Williamson,” 1884 1847. Roosevelt Study Center, Middelburg. De Jong, Gerald Francis. The Dutch in America, 1609-1974. Boston, Mass: Twayne Publishers, 1975. DeHaan, Kathleen Anne. “‘He Looks like a Yankee in His New Suit.’ Immigrant Rhetoric: Dutch Immigrant Letters as Forums for Shifting Immigrant Identities.” Northwestern University, 1998. “Descent, N.” OED Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed April 18, 2014. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/50722. Dewulf, Jeroen. “Pinkster: An Atlantic Creole Festival in a Dutch-American Context.” Journal of American Folklore 126, no. 501 (2013): 245–71. Dodge, Mary Mapes. The Silver Skates: A Story of Life in Holland. London: Sampson Low, son, and Marston, 1867. Douma, Michael. “The Evolution of Dutch American Identities, 1847-Present.” Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations, The Florida State University, 2011. http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd/7128. Downs, John Phillips, and Fenwick Hedley. History of Chautauqua County, New York, and Its People. Boston, New York [etc.]: American historical society, inc., 1921. http://archive.org/details/historyofchautau02downs. Dutch Genealogy. “Wander Willink Genealogy.” Accessed June 2, 2014. http://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/tng/getperson.php?personID=I12681&tree=bredevoort. Edelman, Hendrik. The Dutch Language Press in America: Two Centuries of Printing, Publishing and Bookselling / Hendrik Edelman. Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1986. Elpers, Sophie. Hollandser dan Kaas: De geschiedenis van Frau Antje. Amsterdam University Press, 2009. 75

Ester, Peter. “Growing Up Dutch-American: Cultural Identity and the Formative Years of Older Dutch-Americans,” 43. Holland, MI: Van Raalte Press, 2007. “Etymology of ‘Yankee’.” Oxford English Dictionary, March 18, 2014. http://www.oed.com.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/view/Entry/231174?result=1&rskey=Xxvo Gc&. Evans, Paul Demund. The Holland Land Company. New York: Buffalo Historical Society, 1924. Fischer, David Hackett. Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America. New York etc: Oxford University Press, 1989. Frijhoff, Willem. “Dutchness in Fact and Fiction.” In Going Dutch: The Dutch Presence in America, 1609-2009, edited by Joyce D. Goodfriend, Benjamin Schmidt, and Annette Stott, 327–58. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Frijhoff, Willem, and Jaap Jacobs. “The Dutch, New Netherland, and Thereafter (1609-1780s).” In Four Centuries of Dutch-American Relations 1609-2009, edited by Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles Scott-Smith, 31–47. Amsterdam: Boom, 2009. Gabaccia, Donna R. Foreign Relations: American Immigration in Global Perspective. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Garrett, Hilary P. “Dutch Immigration to Sodus & Williamson.” n.a., 1979. Roosevelt Study Center, Middelburg. Gasero, Russell L. Historical Directory of the Reformed Church in America. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992. ———. Historical Directory of the Reformed Church in America, 1628-1992. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001. Gaustad, Edwin S. Historical Atlas of Religion in America. [1st ed.]. New York etc: Harper & Row, 1962. Goodfriend, Joyce D. “Foreigners in a Dutch Colonial City.” New York History 90, no. 4 (October 1, 2009): 241–69.

Griffis, W. E. Brave Little Holland, and What She Taught Us. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1894. Harinck, George, and Hans Krabbendam, eds. Morsels in the Melting Pot: The Persistence of Dutch Immigrant Communities in North America. Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2006. Harms, Richard H. “Forging a Religious Identity: The Christian Reformed Church in the Nineteenth-Century Dutch Immigrant Community.” In The Dutch-American Experience: Essays in Honor of Robert P. Swierenga, edited by Hans Krabbendam and Larry J. Wagenaar, 189–208. Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2000. Hesmondhalgh, David. “Bourdieu, the Media and Cultural Production.” Media, Culture & Society 28, no. 2 (March 1, 2006): 211–31. doi:10.1177/0163443706061682. Hinte, Jacob van. Netherlanders in America: A Study of Emigration and Settlement in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in the United States of America. Edited by Robert P. Swierenga. Translated by Adriaan de Wit. Grand Rapids Mich: Baker Book House, 1985. “History of the Village | Sleepy Hollow NY,” November 13, 2013. http://www.sleepyhollowny.gov/home/pages/history-of-the-village. Hobsbawm, Eric, and Terence Ranger, eds. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge etc: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Hofstra University. “31st Annual Dutch Festival.” Accessed http://www.hofstra.edu/Community/Fest/Fest_dutch.html.

June

18,

2014.

Irving, Washington. A History of New York, from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty ... New York: M. Thomas, 1819. ———. The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent. 5th ed. London: John Murray, 1821. Jacobs, Jaap. Een zegenrijk gewest: Nieuw-Nederland in de zeventiende eeuw. Amsterdam: Prometheus/Bakker, 1999.

———. “‘To Favor This New and Growing City of New Amsterdam with a Court of Justice.’ The Relations between Rulers and Ruled in New Amsterdam.” In Amsterdam-New York: Transatlantic Relations and Urban Identities Since 1653, edited by George Harinck and Hans Krabbendam, 17–29. Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij, 2005. Knippenberg, Hans, and B. C. de Pater. De eenwording van Nederland: schaalvergroting en integratie sinds 1800. Nijmegen: SUN, 1988. Krabbendam, Hans. “‘But Tho We Love Old Holland Still, We Love Columbia More,’ the Formation of a Dutch-American Subculture in the United States, 1840-1920.” In Going Dutch: The Dutch Presence in America, 1609-2009, edited by Joyce D Goodfriend, Benjamin Schmidt, and Annette Stott, 135–56. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ———. “Dutch-American Identity Politics: The Use of History by Dutch Immigrants.” Origins, Spring 2012. ———. Freedom on the Horizon: Dutch Immigration to America, 1840-1940. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. ———. The Model Man: A Life of Edward W. Bok, 1863-1930. Sl: sn, 1995. ———. Vrijheid in het verschiet: Nederlandse emigratie naar Amerika 1840-1940. Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verloren, 2006. Krabbendam, Hans, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles Scott-Smith. Four Centuries of DutchAmerican Relations 1609-2009. Amsterdam: Boom, 2009. Krabbendam, Hans, and Larry J. Wagenaar, eds. The Dutch-American Experience: Essays in Honor of Robert P. Swierenga. Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij, 2000. Lammers, B.W. “Correspondentie uit Sodus, N.Y.” De Volksvriend. March 1, 1923, Dag edition. Delpher, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag. Ligterink, G. H. De landverhuizers: emigratie naar Noord-Amerika uit het Gelders-Westfaalse grensgebied tussen de jaren 1830-1850. Zutphen: Walburg pers, 1981. Lucas, Henry S. Netherlanders in America: Dutch Immigration to the United States and Canada, 1789-1950. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; London, 1955.

Luidens, Donald A., and Roger J. Nemeth. “Dutch Immigration and Membership Growth in the Reformed Church in America: 1830-1920.” In The Dutch-American Experience: Essays in Honor of Robert P. Swierenga, edited by Hans Krabbendam and Larry J. Wagenaar, 169–88. Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij, 2000. Lutters, Wayne G., and Mark S. Ackerman. “An Introduction to the Chicago School of Sociology,” Vol. 1996. Irvine, Cal., 1996. “Martin Van Buren | The White House.” Accessed June 12, 2014. http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/martinvanburen. Mason, Bernard. “Aspects of the New York Revolt of 1689.” New York History 30, no. 2 (April 1, 1949): 165–80. McIver, Mia L. “Review of «Huns» vs. «Corned Beef»: Representations of the Other in American and German Literature and Film on World War I by Thomas F. Schneider; Hans Wagener.” The German Quarterly 82, no. 2 (April 1, 2009): 280–81. Middleton, Simon. “The Idea of ‘Amsterdam’ in New Amsterdam and Early New York.” edited by George Harinck and Hans Krabbendam, 45–54. Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij, 2005. ———. “The Waning of Dutch New York.” In Four Centuries of Dutch-American Relations 1609-2009, edited by Hans Krabbendam and Giles Scott-Smith, 2009. Minnen, Cornelis A. van. “Dutch Perceptions of American Culture and Promotion of Dutch Culture in the United States.” In Four Centuries of Durch-American Relations 16092009, edited by Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles Scott-Smith, 431–41. Amsterdam: Boom, 2009. “Minutes of the Highest Assembly of the Christian Reformed Church, General Assembly 1875.” Christian Reformed Church in America, June 2, 1875. http://library.calvin.edu/content/downloads/4915. Motley, John Lothrop. The Rise of the Dutch Republic. New York: Harper & brothers, 1898. ———. The Rise of the Dutch Republic: A History. London: Routledge, Warne, and Routledge, 1862. Mulder, Arnold. Americans from Holland. Philadelphia, PA etc: Lippincott, 1947. 79

Nemeth, Roger J., and Donald A. Luidens. “The Persistence of Ethnic Descent: Dutch Clergy in the Reformed Church in America.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 34, no. 2 (June 1, 1995): 200–213. doi:10.2307/1386765. “New York State Census 1845. Chautauque County,” 1845. http://128.121.13.244/awweb/main.jsp?flag=browse&smd=1&awdid=21. “New York State Census 1875.,” 1875. http://128.121.13.244/awweb/main.jsp?flag=browse&smd=1&awdid=1. O’Callaghan, E. B. (Edmund Bailey). History of New Netherland; Or, New York under the Dutch. New York: D. Appleton & co., 1848. Paling Funk, Elisabeth. “Knickerbocker’s New Netherland: Washington Irving’s Representation of Dutch Life on the Hudson.” In Amsterdam-New York: Transatlantic Relations and Urban Identities Since 1653, edited by Hans Krabbendam and George Harinck. Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2005. Pegman Doezeman, Linda. “The Dutch Press.” In The Ethnic Press in the United States, edited by Sally M. Miller, 71–84. New York: Greenwood, 1987. Peterson, Mark A. “A Brahmin Goes Dutch: John Lothrop Motley and the Lessons of Dutch History in Nineteenth-Century Boston.” In Going Dutch: The Dutch Presence in America, 1609-2009, edited by Joyce D Goodfriend, Benjamin Schmidt, and Annette Stott, 109–31. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Portrait and Biographical Record of Sheboygan County, Wisconsin: Containing Biographical Sketches of Prominent and Representative Citizens of the County, Together with Biographies and Portraits of All the Presidents of the United States and the Governors of the State of Wisconsin. Chicago: Excelsior Publishing Company, 1894. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/WI/WI idx?type=header&id=WI.PortBioRed&isize=M. Prak, Maarten. “The Dutch Republic as a Bourgeois Society.” BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review 125, no. 2–3 (January 1, 2010): 107–39. Rederus, Sipko F. “The Dutch Settlements of Sheboygan County.” The Wisconsin Magazine of History 1, no. 3 (March 1, 1918): 256–65.

“Review of History of New Netherland; Or New York under the Dutch by E. B. O’Callaghan.” The North American Review 62, no. 131 (April 1, 1846): 447–64. “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity | The White House.” Accessed June 4, 2014. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_1997standards/. Richardson, Judith. “The Ghosting of the Hudson Valley Dutch.” In Going Dutch: The Dutch Presence in America, 1609-2009, edited by Joyce D Goodfriend, Benjamin Schmidt, and Annette Stott, 59–86. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Roediger, David R. Working Toward Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Became White. New York: Basic Books, 2006. Schoone-Jongen, Terence Guy. “Tulip Time U.S.A.: Staging Memory, Identity and Ethnicity in Dutch-American Community Festivals.” Ohio State University, 2007. Schreuder, Yda. “Ethnic Solidarity and Assimilation among Dutch Protestant and Dutch Catholic Immigrant Groups in the State of Wisconsin, 1850-1905.” In The Dutch in North-America, edited by Rob Kroes and Henk-Otto Neuschäfer, 195–218. European Contributions to American Studies, XX. Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1991. Scorsese, Martin. Gangs of New York. Crime, Drama, History, 2002. SE, Calvin College 3201 Burton, Gr, Rapids, and Michigan. “History - About.” Calvin College. Accessed April 24, 2014. http://www.calvin.edu/about/history/. Sheeres, Janet Sjaarda. “Klompendancing through America.” In Proceedings of the 12th

Biennial Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Dutch American Studies, 71–82. Pella, IA: Central College, 1999. Shorto, Russell. The Island at the Center of the World: The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony That Shaped America. New York etc: Doubleday, 2004. Sijs Van Der, Nicoline. Cookies, Coleslaw, and Stoops: The Influence of Dutch on the North American Languages. Amsterdam University Press, 2009.

Sinnema, Donald. “Dutch American Newspapers and the Network of Early Dutch Immigrant Communities.” In Dutch Enterprise: Alive and Well in North America. Proceedings of

the 12th Biennial Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Dutch American Studies, 43–56. Pella, IA: Central College, 1999. http://www.aadas.nl/sites/default/files/proceedings/1999_5_Sinnema.pdf. Sollors, Werner. Beyond Ethnicity: Consent and Descent in American Culture. New York etc: Oxford University Press, 1986. ———. , ed. The Invention of Ethnicity. New York etc: Oxford University Press, 1989. Solomon, Geri, and The Hofstra University Museum. “The Hofstra Family at 65.” Accessed June 18, 2014. http://www.hofstra.edu/Community/museum/museum_exhibition_hofstra65.html. Stadsarchief Amsterdam. “Amsterdamse Poorters,” n.d. http://stadsarchief.amsterdam.nl/presentaties/amsterdamse_schatten/amsterdammers/po orters/index.html. ———. “Archief van de Holland Land Company.” Accessed May 12, 2014. https://stadsarchief.amsterdam.nl/archieven/archiefbank/overzicht/333.nl.html. Stott, Annette. Holland Mania: The Unknown Dutch Period in American Art & Culture. 1st ed. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 1998. ———. Hollandgekte: de onbekende Nederlandse periode in de Amerikaanse kunst en cultuur. Translated by Bab Westerveld. Amsterdam: De Olifant Pers ; Amsterdam, 1998. ———. “Images of Dutchness in the United States.” In Four Centuries of Dutch-American Relations: NL-USA. Amsterdam, edited by Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles Scott-Smith. Amsterdam: Boom, 2005. ———. “Inventing Memory: Picturing New Netherland in the 19th Century.” In Revisiting New Netherlands: Perspectives on Early Dutch America, edited by Joyce D. Goodfriend. Leiden, the Netherlands; Boston: Brill, 2005. ———. “The Dutch Dining Room in Turn-of-the-Century America.” Winterthur Portfolio 37, no. 4 (2002): 219–38. doi:10.1086/381642.

Swierenga, Robert P. “Ethnocultural Political Analysis: A New Approach to American Ethnic Studies.” Journal of American Studies 5, no. 1 (April 1, 1971): 59–79. ———. “Exodus Netherlands, Promised Land America.” In A Bilateral Bicentennial: A History of Dutch-American Relations, 1782-1982, edited by J.W. Schulte Nordholt and Robert P. Swierenga, 127–47. Amsterdam: Octagon Books, 1982. ———. Faith and Family : Dutch Immigration and Settlement in the United States, 1820-1920. New York etc: Holmes & Meier, 2000. ———. “The Delayed Transition from Folk to Labor Migration: The Netherlands, 1880- 1920.” International Migration Review 27, no. 2 (July 1, 1993): 406–24. doi:10.2307/2547131. ———. “The Dutch in Urban America.” In The Dutch in Urban America, edited by Robert P. Swierenga, Donald Sinnema, and Hans Krabbendam. Holland, MI: Joint Archives of Holland, 2004. ———. “The Dutch Urban Experience.” In The Dutch in Urban America, edited by Robert P. Swierenga, Donald W. Sinnema, and Hans Krabbendam, 1–12. Holland, MI: Joint Archives of Holland, 2004. ———. “The New Immigration.” In Four Centuries of Durch-American Relations 1609-2009, edited by Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles Scott-Smith. Amsterdam: Boom, 2009. ———. “Walls or Bridges? Acculturation Processes in the Reformed and Christian Reformed Churches in North America.” In Morsels in the Melting Pot: The Persistence of Dutch Immigrant Communities in North America, edited by George Harinck and Hans Krabbendam, 33–54. Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2006. Swierenga, Robert P., and Hans Krabbendam. “Dutch Catholics and Protestants in Wisconsin: A Study in Contrasts and Similarities,” 39–64. Diverse Destinies: Dutch Kolonies in Wisconsin and the East. Holland, MI: Van Raalte Press, 2012. Te Brake, Wayne. “The Dutch Republic and the Creation of the United States.” In Four Centuries of Durch-American Relations 1609-2009, edited by Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles Scott-Smith, 204–15. Amsterdam: Boom, 2009. Theodore Roosevelt. “The Hollander as an American.” New Amsterdam Gazette. January 25, 1890, 6 edition. Hathi Trust. 83

Turner, Frederick Jackson. The Frontier in American History. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1921. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22994. United States. Department of Homeland Security. “Yearbook of Immigration Statitics: 2012.” United States Department of Homeland Security, 2013. http://www.dhs.gov/publication/yearbook-2012. Village of Little Chute. “Village of Little Chute Newsletter.” Accessed June 18, 2014. http://www.littlechutewi.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1885. Wabeke, Bertus Harry. Dutch Emigration to North America, 1624-1860. New York city, Netherlands information bureau, 1944. http://archive.org/details/DutchEmigrationToNorthAmerica1624-1860. Walaszek, Adam. “Central Eastern Europeans in the Euro-Atlantic Migration System Before the First World War.” In Tales of Transit Narrative Migrant Spaces in Atlantic Perspective, 1850-1950, edited by Michael Boyden, Hans Krabbendam, and Liselotte Vandenbussche, 29–44. Amsterdam University Press, 2013. Wertenbaker, Thomas J. The Founding of American Civilization: The Middle Colonies. New York etc: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1938. Zillier, Carl. Sheboygan County Wisconsin: Past and Present, Vol. 1. Chicago: S.J. Clarke Publishing Company, 1912. Zwaanstra, Henry. Reformed Thought and Experience in a New World: A Study of the Christian Reformed Church and Its American Environment, 1890-1918. Kampen: JHKok, 1973. Zwart, David. “Faithful Remembering: Constructing Dutch America in the Twentieth Century.” Western Michigan University, 2012. http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/23. Zwierlein, Frederick J. “New Netherland Intolerance.” The Catholic Historical Review 4, no. 2 (July 1, 1918): 186–216.

AUTEURSRECHT