17th Century Premarital Sex

While some like to think that sex was invented in the 1960’s, these stories prove otherwise.

They probably didn’t have such fancy shoes in America, but you get the idea

Stephen BACHILER (c.1561 – 1656) (Wikipedia)

As an epilogue to his life story, when he was 90 , his last wife had an affair with another man.  She was sentenced, after her approaching delivery, to be whipped and branded with the letter “A,” the “Scarlet Letter”of Hawthorne’s romance.

Not only was our Stephen fined £10 for not publishing his marriage according to law. (He had performed his last wedding ceremony himself.) but the court ordered “Mr. Batchelor and his wife shall live together as man and wife, as in this court they have publicly professed to do; and if either desert one another, then hereby the court doth order that the marshall shall apprehend both the said Mr. Batchelor and Mary, his wife, and bring them forthwith to Boston.

In April, 1647, Bachiler gave to the four grandchildren he had brought to New England what remained of his Hampton property. He petitioned the General Court in 1645 for some allowance for his six years’ pastorate at Hampton, but was referred to the district court. While his case was pending he wrote from Strawberry Bank to Winthrop in May, 1647:

“I can shew a letter of your Worship’s occasioned by some letters of mine, craving some help from you in some cases of oppression under which I lay,–and still do,– wherein also you were pleased to take notice of those oppressions and wrongs; that in case the Lord should give, or open a door of opportunity, you would be ready to do me all the lawful right and Christian service that any cause of mine might require. Which time being, in my conceit, near at hand, all that I would humbly crave is this,–to read this inclosed letter to my two beloved and reverend brothers, your Elders (Cotton and Wilson), and in them to the whole Synod. Wherein you shall fully know my distressed case and condition; and so, as you shall see cause, to join with them in counsel, what best to do for my relief.

While there, he married in 1648 (as fourth wife) a young widow, Mary Beedle of Kittery, Maine. In 1651, she was indicted and sentenced for adultery with a neighbor.

Bachiler wrote:

“It is no news to certify you that God hath taken from me my dear helper and yokefellow. And whereas, by approbation of the whole plantation of Strawberry Bank, they have assigned an honest neighbor, (a widow) to have some eye and care towards my family, for washing, baking, and other such common services,–it is a world of woes to think what rumors detracting spirits raise up, that I am married to her, or certainly shall be; and cast on her such aspersions without ground or proof, that I see not how possibly I shall subsist in the place, to do them that service from which otherwise they cannot endure to hear I shall depart. The Lord direct and guide us jointly and singularly in all things, to his glory and our rejoicing in the day and at the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ! And so, with my humble service to your worship, your blessed and beloved yokefellow, (mine ancient true friend) with blessing on you both, yours and all the people of God with you, I end and rest your Worship’s in the Lord to commend.”

He married this “honest neighbor “Mary surnamed Magdalene,” the widow of an obscure seaman named Beetle, whose adultery with a local rascal, George Rogers, was soon detected. Rogers was a renegade seaman or servant of Trelawny, who had settled at Kittery, across the river from Strawberry Bank.  His affair with Mary Bachiler was punished in March, 1651/52, by the Court at York, which sentenced Rogers to be flogged, and the erring wife, after her approaching delivery, to be whipped and branded with the letter “A,” the “Scarlet Letter”of Hawthorne’s romance.

But before the York court had passed its sentence Bachiler had doubtless discovered his last wife’s true nature and probably left her and returned to Hampton, applying for a divorce. The district court at Salisbury on April 9, 1650, gave him a judgment against the town of Hampton for £40, “wage detained,” and at the same session fined him £10 for not publishing his marriage according to law. It then entered the following atrocious order:

“That Mr. Batchelor and his wife shall live together as man and wife, as in this court they have publicly professed to do; and if either desert one another, then hereby the court doth order that the marshall shall apprehend both the said Mr. Batchelor and Mary, his wife, and bring them forthwith to Boston, there to be kept till the next Quarter Court of Assistants, that farther consideration thereof may be had, both of them moving for a divorce: Provided, notwithstanding, that if they put in 50 pounds each of them, for their appearance, that then they shall be under their bail to appear at the next court; and in case Mary Batchellor shall live out of the jurisdiction, without mutual consent for a time, then the clerk shall give notice to the magistrate at Boston of her absence, that further order may be taken therein.”

By October, 1650, (the next term of court) when the Maine court presented Rogers and Mary Batchellor for adultery, the local justices had probably learned the actual offence and remitted half the fine imposed in April.  Perhaps they ignored the incomprehensible order referred to, for we hear no more of it; but life in New England had become impossible for the venerable Puritan. Old England seemed a sure haven. There Cromwell and the Parliament had overthrown his ancient foes, the bishops, and there he had grandchildren living in comfort. Sometime in 1654, accompanied by one grandson and his family, he sailed from New England, the Arcadia of his hopes, to England, the land of his earliest struggles. His last act on leaving America was to turn over what remained of his property to Christopher Hussey and his wife ” in consideration that the said Hussey had little or nothing from him with his daughter as also that the said son Hussey and his wife had been helpful unto him both formerly and in fitting him for his voyage.” This kindly act is the last that we have of authentic record concerning Bachiler, who it may be hoped returned to prosperous and friendly kindred in old England to linger out his last years.

The graceless Mary Bachiler was sentenced by the Maine courts for sexual irregularities in 1651, 1652, and 1654, and lived to cast one more slander at her aged and deceived victim.  She claimed Bachiler married a new wife while still legally married to her. She petitioned the Massachusetts General Court in 1656, stating:

“Whereas, your petitioner having formerly lived with Mr. Stephen Bachiler in this Colony as his lawful wife (and not unknown to divers of you, as I conceive), and the said Mr. Bachiler, upon some pretended ends of his own, has transported himself into old England, for many years since, and betaken himself to another wife, as your petitioner hath often been credibly informed, and there continues; whereby your petitioner is left destitute not only of a guide to herself and her children, but also made incapable of disposing herself in the way of marriage to any other without a lawful permission. . . . And were she free of her engagement to Mr. Bachiler, might probably so dispose of herself as that she might obtain a meet helper to assist her to procure such means for her livelihood, and the recovery of her children’s health, as might keep them from perishing,– which your petitioner, to her great grief, is much afraid of, if not timely prevented.”

This allegation rests on her unsupported and discredited statement, and may be taken as an utter falsehood. A Dover court record of March 26, 1673, seems to indicate that the daughter of Mary Bachiler (born in coverture and therefore legally Stephen Bachiler’s daughter, though undoubtedly disowned by him) attempted to secure some part of Bachiler’s estate. Her husband, William Richards, was given power of administration to the estate of ” Mr. Steven Batchelor dec’d,” being also prudently enjoined to bring in an inventory thereof to the next court, and to put up ” sufficient security to respond ye estate any yt may make better claim unto it.” As no further record exists of this matter, we may conclude this ” fishing expedition ” resulted in nothing. Tradition states that the ancient Hampshire parson died in England in 1660, having rounded out a century, and that the last six years of his life were spent in tranquility with prosperous descendants in England. Later research proved that the Rev. Bachiler was buried on 31 October 1656 in the Allhallows Staining Church cemetery, in London, England.

Denied a divorce by the Massachusetts Court, Bachiler finally returned to England about 1653. He died near London, and was buried at All Hallows Staining on October 31, 1656.

Stephen Bachiler – All Hallow’s Staining, London, England

George ALLEN the Elder (c. 1568 – 1648)

George’s daughter Joan Allen (1602-1639) got in trouble for being in the company of another man.   On 6 Mar, 1637/38, her husband Clement Briggs was bonded for £10 for his wife to appear in the next court for Arthur Warren being in her company. [Rec. of the Governor and Company of Mass. Bay Colony, 1:219, 233, & 244] There is no evidence that this was a moral charge against Joan Briggs. The records (Rec. Gov. Mass 1:219) are as follows:

“At a Quarter Court, held at Newetowne the 6th day of the first month (March) 1637-1638. Clement Briggs is bound in 5 pounds for his wifes appearance at the next Quarter Court. The presentment of Arthur Warren, for keeping company with Clement Briggs wife, was found to bee true.” 1.233 “At a Courte of Assistants, held at Cambridge, the 5th day of the 4th Mo. anno 1638, being a Qrter Courte. Clement Brigs his wife is enioyned not to come into the Company of Arthur Warren.”

Edmund HOBART (1575 – 1646) 

Edmund’s wife Sarah Oakley Lyford Hobart’s first husband the Reverend John Lyford (ca. 1580-1634) was a controversial figure during the early years of the Plymouth Colony. After receiving degrees from Oxford University (A.B. 1597, A.M. 1602), he became pastor at Leverlegkish, near Laughgaid, Armagh, Ireland. He was the first ordained minister to come to the Plymouth Colony. He arrived in 1624 aboard the Charity and pretended to be sympathetic to the Separatist movement there, while in reality he was allied with the Church of England.

In the months ahead, the leaders of the colony discovered that Lyford had been writing letters to England disparaging the Separatist movement at Plymouth. Governor William Bradford seized some of these letters before they were sent, opened them, and confronted Lyford about their contents. Lyford apologized, but later wrote another similar letter that was also intercepted. After the second incident, Lyford was sentenced to banishment.

Before he was banished, Lyford’s wife, Sarah, came forward with further charges. Lyford had fathered a child out of wedlock with another woman before his marriage, and after his marriage, he was constantly engaging in sexual relationships with his housemaids. In his famous history, Of Plymouth Plantation, Bradford wrote that Sarah Lyford came forward and explained

“… how he (Lyford) had wronged her, as first he had a bastard by another before they were married, and she having some inkling of some ill cariage that way, when he was a suitor to her, she tould him what she heard, and deneyd him; but she not certainly knowing the thing, other wise then by some darke and secrete muterings, he not only stifly denied it, but to satisfie her tooke a solemne oath ther was no shuch matter. Upon which she gave consente, and married with him; but afterwards it was found true, and the bastard brought home to them. She then charged him with his oath, but he prayed pardon, and said he should els not have had her. And yet afterwards she could keep no maids but he would be medling with them, and some time she hath taken him in the maner, as they lay at their beds feete, with shuch other circumstances as I am ashamed to relate.”

Later, the real reason why Lyford came to New England was revealed. While giving pre-marital counseling to a girl in his parish back in Ireland, Lyford raped her; and when she later told the matter to her husband, he and his friends hunted Lyford down, which resulted in Lyford’s departure to Plymouth Colony. Bradford’s account of the rape and what followed is rather vivid:

” … some time after marriage the woman was much troubled in mind, and afflicted in conscience, and did nothing but weepe and mourne, and long it was before her husband could get of her what was the cause. But at length she discovered the thing, and prayed him to forgive her, for Lyford had overcome her, and defiled her body before marriage, after he had commended him unto her for a husband, and she resolved to have him, when he came to her in that private way.

The circumstances I forbear, for they would offend chast ears to hear them related, (for though he satisfied his lust on her, yet he indeavored to hinder conception.) These things being thus discovered, the womans husband tooke some godly friends with him, to deale with Liford for this evill. At length he confest it, with a great deale of seeming sorrow and repentance, but was forst to leave Irland upon it, partly for shame, and partly for fear of further punishmente, for the godly withdrew them selves from him upon it; and so coming into England unhapily he was light upon and sente hither.”

Accordingly, Lyford was expelled from Plymouth Colony, went to Nantasket, then Cape Ann, and finally moved to Virginia, where he died. Because of his immoral behavior, Lyford is grouped with several other men that the Pilgrims considered detrimental to their project of settling a “godly” community in America.

Stephen HOPKINS (1580 – 1644) (wiki)

1638 – Stephen was fined for not dealing fairly with an apprentice-girl, Dorothy Temple. In the Temple case  he was “committed to ward for his contempt to the Court, and shall so remayne comitted untill hee shall either receive his servant Dorothy Temple, or els pvide for her elsewhere at his owne charge during the terme shee hath yet to serve him” (PCR 1:112).

Story of Dorothy Temple

Story of Dorothy Temple

Dorothy Temple 2

4 Feb 1638 – “Concerning Mr Steephen Hopkins and Dorothy Temple, his servant, the Court doth order, with one consent, that in regard by her couenant of indenture shee hath yet aboue two yeares to serue him, that the said Mr Hopkins shall keepe her and her child, or puide shee may be kept with food and rayment during the said terme ; and if he refuse so to doe, that then the collony pruide for her, & Mr Hopkins to pay it…

“Mr Steephen Hopkins is committed to ward for his contempt to the Court, and shall so remayne comitted vntill hee shall either receiue his servant Dorothy Temple, or else puide for her elsewhere at his owne charge during the terme shee hath yet to serue him …

8 Feb 1638 – “The viijt of Februar., 1638. Memorand : That whereas Dorothy Temple, a mayde servant dwelling with Mr Stephen Hopkins, was begotten with child in his service by Arthur Peach, who was executed for murther and roberry by the heigh way before the said child was borne, the said Steephen Hopkins hath concluded and agreed with Mr John Holmes, of Plymouth, for three pounds sterl., and other consideracons to him in hand payd, to discharge the said Steephen Hopkins and the colony of the said Dorothy Temple and her child foreuer ; and the said Dorothy is to serue all the residue to her tyme with the said John Holmes, according to her indenture.”

3 Dec 1639 – He was presented for selling a looking glass for sixteen pence which could be bought in the Bay Colony for nine pence, and he was also fined £3 for selling strong water without license” (PCR 1:137).

William WARRINER (1583? – 1676)

Family tradition says William Warriner eloped around 1600 from Lincolnshire, England with Alice, Lady Clifford, daughter of Admiral. Thomas Howard 3rd Duke of Suffolk.

Thomas Howard, 1st Earl of Suffolk

Admiral Thomas Howard, 1st Earl of Suffolk, KGPC (24 August 1561 – 28 May 1626) was a son of Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk by his second wife Margaret Audley, Duchess of Norfolk, the daughter and heiress of the 1st Baron Audley of Walden.  Check out Howard’s tumultuous career as a pirate and ultimate downfall as a rival of King James I protege Sir George Villiers,

I don’t see any Alice in the list of Howard’s 14 children, but let’s continue with the legend.  In the course of the elopement, William and the Lady (along with other family members who were “in on it”) escaped to Yorkshire, fleeing, of course, from the angered Admiral. While crossing a river a few of the family drowned, though Lady Alice, William and another Warriner survived. They settled in Yorkshire. That’s the tradition.

It is believed that Lady Alice died in 1619 and is buried at Canterbury Cathedral.

“The English parish records of that period mention several Warriners, one of whom in particular bears the name William. The parish records, copied in the foot-note, establish a strong probability that the William Warriner mentioned many times in the Canterbury Cathedral register, who had children christened in that church from 1601 to 1614, who buried several children in the Cantebury churchyard, whose wife, Alice was buried there in 1619, and of whom all recordsin the books of Canterbury Cathedral cease at that time, is the same William Warriner who eloped from Lincolnshire about 1600 with Lady (Alice) Clifford (?)

William BASSETT (c. 1600 – 1667)

William’s daughter Elizabeth divorced Thomas Burgess on 10 Jun 1661 after he was “brought to court for an act of uncleanliness with Lydia Gaunt” The Court allowed Elizabeth to keep small things “that are in William Basset’s hands” (PCR 3:221).The Court decree gave Elizabeth one third of Thomas’ property and 40s worth of bed and bedding “that are at William Bassetts. It was the first divorce in Plymouth Colony.

Thomas married 8 Nov 1662 in Sandwich, Barnstable, Mass to Lydia Gaunt (b. 2 Apr 1636 in Scituate, Plymouth, Mass. – d. 1684 in Newport, Newport, Rhode Island). He removed to Rhode Island and was a resident at Newport in 1671. Thomas died 26 Feb 1717 in Sandwich, Barnstable, Mass.

Elizabeth’s married her second husband William Hatch in 1661.  No record of children.

William’s daughter Sarah married Peregrine White, the famous (Wiki) first child to be born in New Engalnd.  He  was born  20 Nov  1620 aboard the Mayflower, docked at Provincetown Harbor, Provincetown, Mass.

Peregrine White’s Craddle — The cradle was likely of Dutch origin, and certainly in the Dutch style, and was not typical of the baby cradles and cribs of the early colonial period.

There are many published dates for Sarah and Peregrine’s marriage, the most popular choice being 24 Dec 1646 when Sarah was only 16 years old.  We do know they were married before 6 Mar 1648/49 when Peregrine White and his wife Sarah, both of Marshfield, were fined for fornication before marriage.  Their son Daniel was born in 1649.

The Bassetts certainly were a randy family because yet another daughter, Ruth got in trouble before marriage.  At the 6 Jun 1655 Court at Plymouth, John Sprague and Ruth Bassett, of Duxbury, were presented for fornication before they were married. They paid a fine.  Lt. John Sprague, their first child was born in 1656, so I don’t know how the authorities found out.

Thomas CLARK (1605 – 1697)

Thomas’ son James Clark (1636-1712)  brought suit in 1668 for defamation against Sarah Barlow and Mary Bartlett for reporting’that they saw him kisse his mayd on the Lord’s day.’ They were fined ten shillings each. “

Francis Jordan (1610 – 1678)

Francis’ daughter Sarah had a baby out of wedlock with an Indian named Nedacocket, sometimes written Ned Acocket.  Her reputation couldn’t have been completely destroyed because she married James George the next year, 1658.

Sarah Jordan was in court on 19 Nov  1657 “Sarah Jordon [is] to be severely whipped for misdemeanors” [EQC 2:58]. This immediately followed an entry in which “Ned Acockett [is] to be severely whipped, and returned to the house of correction until he give bond of good behavior, and to keep the child” [EQC 2:58]. On 24 Dec 1657, Bennoy, son of Sarah Jordon, was born at Ipswich; on 23 Feb 1657/58, Benoy, son of Sarah Jordon, died at Ipswich. On 6 May 1658, “Frances Jordon and Jerimiah Belchar, in behalf of Nedacockett, agreed that Francis Jordon pay twenty shillings to Jerimiah Bellchar in Nedacocket’s behalf” [EQC 2:70]. (The child’s name, “Bennoy” or “Benoy,” may be meant for Benoni, which means “son of my sorrows.”). As of before 1659, her married name was George.

19 Nov 1657 – Ned Acockett, an Indian, acknowledged  judgment to Jeremiah Belchar, Ned Acocket acknowledged judgment  to Zacheous Gould.

3 Dec 1657 – Humphrey Ned’s brother John, Old William’s son and Jeremy Netecot bound to good behavior of Ned and to pay six pounds yearly towards the keeping of the child as long as the court sees meet. To be continued.

28 Mar 1659 – Another old deed has reference to a portion of the town of Dracut. Nedacocket, an Indian, for a debt which he owed to Jeremiah Belcher amounting to 26 pounds sold “All my right of that land of mine which lyeth on the other side of Merrimac River Butting against Panteukit and so running along to Haverhillward as far as to old Williams Wigwam and so up the country to a hill called Jeremys Hill with all the meadows. ‘ ‘ Old Will is mentioned on the records of Haverhill as having a “planting ground” not far from Spicket River. As Jeremys hill is in the west part of Pelham above Gumpus’ a line drawn from a point “Haverhillward” to Jeremy’s Hill and “Butting against Panteuket” would include the greater part of Dracut. But this would be done to satisfy the Indian, who supposed he had certain rights to the land. Jeremy, who is supposed to have dwelt near the hill in Pelham, which still bears his name, was a signer to this deed with Nedacockett. In 1710 Belcher’s son, Jeremiah Belcher, Jr., petitioned the General Court for a grant of land on the right of his father, and the Court ordered the town of Dracut to lay out a tract of three hundred acres. This tract was an oblong 200 by 240 rods between Island and North ponds bounded on the northeast by the latter pond, and on the east by the line of the town. This would include Poplar hill which now lies at the northeastern corner of the town.

Nedacockett, and a mark and a seal.
Jeremy, and a mark.
Signed and delivered in the presence of us,
John Dennison,
Lidia Jordon. (Sarah’s sister)
Recorded Feb’y 27th, 1679.

This writing was Acknowledged by the Subscriber the Day
and Year above written ; before me,
Daniel Dennison, Assis’t..

William HEDGE (1612 – 1670)

He married his second wife, Blanche Hull, widow of Tristam Hull.   According to his will, his wife Blanch “had dealt falsely with him in the covenant of marriage, and departed from him.”

Other criminal behavior 6 Mar 1648/49  – “Mr. William Hedge, of the town of Yarmouth,” was presented for “letting an Indian have a gun, and powder, and shot,” and “the wife of Mr. Hedge, of Yarmouth,” was presented “for receiving of stolen goods”

5 Oct 1652 – “William Hedge, of Yarmouth,” was presented “for selling wine and strong waters without license”.

2 Oct 1658  – “Mr. William Hedge being presented for threatening to have the blood of Edward Sturgis, upon some small difference betwixt them, the Court do censure him to pay to the country’s use the sum of ten shillings”

……… to “my beloved daughter Mary Sturgis” £40; to “my beloved daughter Marcye” £50; “to my beloved sister Brookes £30 that is of mine in Virginia that is due to me from Brother Brookes, deceased, likewise it is my mind and will that my sister Brookes shall have her livelihood amongst my children so long as she continues a widow”; “my beloved son Elisha” sole executor; “my beloved friends Mr. Thomas Thornton, Mr. Edmond Hawes and Richard Tayler” overseers; “whereas Blanch, my wife, hath dealt falsely with me in the covenant of marriage in departing from me, therefore I do in this my last will … give her 12d. and also what I have received of hers my will is shall be returned to her again”

Lt. John TOMSON (1616 – 1696)

His first son Adam Tomson was born in 1646 in Plymouth, less than nine months after his parents marriage, for which they were fined.

George CORLISS (1616 – 1696)

George’s son-in-law  Samuel Ladd was killed in Indians 22 Feb 1698 in Haverhill, Essex, Mass.   According to his son, the Indians didn’t take him captive because “‘he so sour’.”  Little did they know the poetic justice of Ladd’s demise and the immoral crimes he had inflicted on Elizabeth Emerson.

Samuel  Ladd was responsible for crimes of his own.  He was the father of three children born out of wedlock to Elizabeth Emerson, the last two being twins.

i. Dorothy Emerson, b.  10 April 1686 in Haverhill
ii. Infant Emerson, b. 8 May 1691 in Haverhill, d.  10 May 1691
iii. Infant Emerson, b. 8 May 1691 in Haverhill, d. 10 May 1691

Elizabeth was subsequently hanged in the Boston Commons after having been convicted of killing her twins. There is no evidence that Samuel assumed any responsibility with respect to Elizabeth and the children. Elizabeth was the daughter of Michael Emerson and Hannah Webster. She was born 26 Jan 1665 in Haverhill,  and was hanged 8 Jun 1693 in The Boston Common. The Records of the Court of assistants of the Massachusetts Bay, Volume I, has an excellent account of the charges and related information regarding Elezabeth Emerson. The Diary of Cotton Mather also has an extended account.  [See George CORLISS’ page for the story in depth]

Peter TALLMAN (1623 – 1708)

Peter was  Solicitor General of Rhode Island in 1662 and records indicate he was volatile, stubborn, prone to dispute and lawsuits and had the first divorce in family history.

Peter divorced Anne in May 1665 in Portsmouth, RI. because  her most recent “child was none of his begetting, and that it was begotten by another man”.  All evidence all points to it being Tom Durfee’s eldest son Robert, whose birth date is given as 10 Mar 1665.    Peter married Joan Briggs in 1665 in Taunton, RI.  He married a third time to Esther [__?__] in  1686 in Rhode Island.  Peter died on 1 Apr 1708 in Portsmouth, RI.

Anne Hill was born around 1633 in Barbados.  Her parents were Philip HILL and Anne KINGE. The first settlement in Barbados was in 1627.   Anne’s parents were among the early British planters and would have likely cultivated tobacco and cotton, as the famous sugar plantations did not develop extensively until after 1642.  After were divorce, Anne married  married her lover Thomas Durfee (1643 – 1712) and had six more children.  Anne died before 1688 in Portsmouth, RI.

ca. 1660 – A young Thomas Durfee (around 17 years old) arrived in Rhode Island. It appears that he was initially an indentured servant in the Tallman household. He was first documented witnessing a land deed for Tallman in 1661, where Tallman purchased land from the famous Indian sachem Wamsutta.  They were both admitted as inhabitants of Portsmouth in 1662. Tallman launched legal proceedings against Tom starting 12 Jun 1664 for “breach of his bond”. This would likely be a breaking of the indenture, possibly by Tom’s leaving the household; Tom was found guilty by the Court. Records of 19 Oct 1664 document a “bill of indictment” by Tallman against Tom, with an apparent “discharge” of the “redemption” bond by Durfee paying £10 to Tallman.

In addition to the legal “breach”, the underlying cause of the falling out between the two were much deeper.  Tallman in the same month of Oct 1664 started legal proceedings against Tom for “disrespecting his wife” Ann.  Tom Durfee quite clearly was having an affair with his employer’s wife, who was about ten years his senior. We don’t know when the affair started, but by time of the legal suit it was public. Tallman’s petition emphasized Tom’s “insolent carriage” toward Ann. The court sent for Durfee and he was admonished for this behavior.

3 May 1665 – Tallman petitioned the court “to be released from his wife”, and the court asked the governor to issue a warrant to bring her in the next day by 8 a.m.   Peter brought a letter to court that Ann had written him that stated that their youngest child was not his and when this was read out in court Ann admitted to adultery.  She re-confirmed what she had apparently written her husband, that her most recent “child was none of his begetting, and that it was begotten by another man”. Circumstantial evidence all points to it being Tom Durfee’s eldest son Robert, whose birth date is given as 10 Mar 1665.

Ann requested mercy, and the Court asked whether she were willing to reconcile with her husband, “to which her answer was, that she would rather cast herselfe on the mercy of God if he take away her life, than to returne”. The Court declared her an adulteress and sentenced her to be whipped twice, first with 15 stripes in Portsmouth on 22 May, and 15 more lashes on 29 May in Newport. They also fined her £10, and granted the divorce to Peter Tallman. She was to remain in prison until punishment was rendered.

Tom Durfee was also brought in to the Court of Trials and found guilty by a jury on 8 May, sentenced to pay fines and receive 15 lashes.

While Tom presumably endured his punishment, Ann fled the colony before hers could be administered. While it was said she went to her brother in Virginia, other evidence indicates she went to nearby Plymouth Colony, at least initially, where a certain John Arthur was charged on 1 Aug 1665 with “entertaining the wife of one Talmon and the wife of William Tubbs.”

In any case, Ann remained away from Aquidneck for about two years. If she had remained in nearby Plymouth this whole time, certainly Durfee could have visited her. He could possibly have left the colony with her for all or part of that period, for we can find no documentation that Durfee was in Rhode Island for that period. On the other hand, the fact that no additional children were born until “around” 1667 might imply they were apart that entire time.

In 1667 Ann returned to Aquidneck and resumed the relationship with Tom at least by 1668 when they were again “apprehended” by the authorities for their relationship. (Or alternately they both returned together and the relationship was never interrupted).

Court records of 1 May 1667 stated that because Ann Tallman, late wife (i.e. “ex-wife”) of Peter Tallman, escaped her punishment in 1665 and had now returned to the colony, a warrant for her arrest was issued to Constable Anthony Emery. Because she had petitioned the Court for mercy (apparently knowing she had to face apprehension on return to Rhode Island), the punishment was halved to 15 stripes in Newport only, and the fine was remitted.  It isn’t known if the sentence was carried out.

A year later, however, Ann and Thomas were brought to court again. On 11 May 1668 he was charged with fornication and pleaded guilty, being sentenced to either be whipped with “15 stripes” in Portsmouth” or pay a fine of 40 shillings. Ann was charged with the same (not adultery since she was no longer married) and was found guilty although she did not appear in court. She was sentenced to be twice whipped or to pay a fine of £4.

It would appear that things “settled down” and somehow they were “tolerated” as a couple. As the guilty party in her divorce from Tallman, Ann would not have been allowed to re-marry, and thus their relationship was in essence a “common-law” marriage. While there is no direct evidence, Ann must have been the mother of his next four children, born between 1667 and 1679. Thomas was made a freeman of Portsmouth in 1673, implying possibly he had been “forgiven” as normally he would have been eligible at age 21.

Children of Anne and Thomas Dufree

i. Robert Durfee (10 Mar 1665-10 May 1718) (Born out of wedlock during Anne’s marriage to Peter Tallman)
ii. Richard Durfee (ca 1667-aft 10 Apr 1700)
iii. Thomas Durfee (28 Mar 1669-11 Feb 1729)
iv. William Durfee (ca 1673-ca 1727)
v. Ann Durfee (ca 1675/6-ca 1731)
vi. Benjamin Durfee (ca 1678/9-6 Jan 1754)

Phebe Page (1624 – 1694)

 Phoebe Page was born in 1624 Dedham, Essex, England;  Her parents were John Page and Phebe Payne.  Her grandparents were William PAYNE and Agnes NEVES.  She married about 1661 to James Cuttler.   Phebe died 17 May 1694 Watertown, Middlesex, Mass.

2 Apr 1650 – At the court in Watertown,  Phebe Page sued John Flemming and his wife for slanderously saying that she was with child. This case illustrated a family at odds with itself; with the depositions of over twenty neighbors, it seemed that the entire town was talking about them [Pulsifer 1:6-8].

Flemming defended himself and said that his words were based on “the common practice of Phebe Page, & the report of her own friends.” “John Spring being on the watch on Saturday night after midnight testified that he met John Poole & Phebe Page together, and he asking them why they were so late, she answered because she could dispatch her business no sooner & he said he went with her because he lived with her father.”

Anthony White also witnessed that “Phebe Page said she must either marry within a month or run the country or lose her wits,” and also that “Phebe Page said my mother I can love and respect, but my father I cannot love.”

William Parker deposed that, having “much discourse with Phebe’s mother, she wished her daughter had never seen Poole for she was afraid she was with child.”

White advised her to return to her father’s house again and “she answered no, before I will do so I will go into wilderness as far as I can & lie down and die.”

Perce witnessed that “Goodman Page coming to his house said thus that what with his wife and daughter, he was afraid they would kill him, and constantly affirmed the same.”

Goody Mixture testified that “old Page said if she knew as much as he, Phebe deserved to be hanged.”

Parker again testified “he living at Long Island & Phebe Page there also, she would not keep the house one night, but kept a young man company, and they were both whipped for it by the magistrates’ order there, also that she confessed” and both were censured.

Joseph Tainter said “he was informed by one that lived at Long Island that Phebe Page confessed herself she had carnal copulation with a young man at the Island.”

Phebe withdrew her action, and the Court granted the defendant costs £2 4s. 6d. John Page Senior confessed a judgment of the costs of Court against his daughter.

 

David Linnell (1627 – 1688)

David Linnell was born in 1627 in London, England; His parents were Robert Linnell and Peninnah Howse.  His grandparents were Rev. John HOWSE and Alice LLOYD.   He married  9 Mar 1653 in Barnstable to Hannah Shelley (1637 – 1709) Hannnah’s parents were Robert Shelley and Judith Garnett. David died in 1688 in Barnstable, Barnstable, Mass.

“David Linnell & Hannah Shelley beeing questioned by the church uppon apublique ffame toutching carnall & uncleane carriages betwixt them tow, beeing in ye congregation confessed by them, they were both by the sentence & joynt consent of the church, pronounced to bee cutt off from that relation wch they hadd formerlye to the church, by virtue of their parents covenaunt, acted & done by ye church, May 30, 1652.”

David and Hannah had violated the law enacted by the Pilgrim fathers,

“That if any shall make any motion of marriage to any man’s daughter, or maydeservant, not haveing first obtayned leave and consent of the parents or master so to doe, shall be punished either by fine of corporal punishment or both at the discretions of the bench.”

Under this law :

“They both were for their ffaults punished with Scourges [i.e., whips] here in Bernestable by the Sentence of Magestracye Jun. 8, 1652.”

David and Hannah were married a year later 9 Mar 1653 by Thomas Hinckley and went on to have  ten children born between 1655 and 1673.

David and Hannah were whipped because they had no friends to take an active interest in their welfare. Perhaps the punishment was retribution for Hannah’s mother Judith refusal to admit fault and subsequent excommunicatation in 1649. (See Amos Otis account below for the full story of this miscarriage of justice). Six years afterward, a similar complaint was made against our ancestors Barnabas LOTHROP Esq.and Susanna CLARKE, afterwards his wife. Mr. Lothrop had influential friends and was able to defend himself. The compliant was dismissed and no record made.

David delayed joining the church until Jul 1, 1688, just months before his death, and 36 years after his   whipping. Hannah never joined and died at 71 years and 7 months, never reconciling with the authorities or the church.

The Story of David and Hannah from Amos Otis’ Genealogical Notes of Barnstable Families 1888

David Linnel and Hannah Shelley were “children of the Barnstable Church.” In consequence of some miscarriages between them, the particulars whereof are stated in the church records, they were cut off from the privileges of that relation May 30, 1652, and for the same offence, by order of the Conrt at Plymouth, both were “punished with scourges here in Barnstable June 8, 1062.” The town had then been settled thirteen years, and this was only the fourth case that had required the interposition of the authority of the magistrates. All of them were offences against good morals, but no magistrate at the present day would feel called upon to interpose his authority in similar cases. To judge rightly we must bear in mind that our ancestors allowed nothing that had the appearance of evil to pass unnoticed and unrebuked.

Mr. Robert Linnel was aged and had taken a second wife that “knew not David,” and cared little for his well-being. Robert Shelley was an easy, good-natured man, and cared little how the world moved. He was however an honest man, a good neighbor, and a sincere christian. His wife Judith Garnet was, before her marriage, a Boston woman — a member of the church there, proud, tenacious of her own opinions, and had very little control over her tongue, which ran like a whip-saw, cutting everything it came in contact with.

In 1648 some of the sisters of the church held a private meeting. Mrs. Judith was not called — she took umbrage, and vented her spite in slandering the members of the church. She said “Mrs. Dimmock was proud, and went about telling lies ;” that Mrs. Wells had done the same, that Mr. Lothrop and Elder Cobb “did talk of her” on a day when they went to visit Mr. Huckins, who was then sick at Mrs. Well’s house. She continued to affirm these things “as confidently as if she had a spirit of Revelation.” Mr. Lothrop in his record adds, “Wee had long patience towards her, and used all courteous intreatyes and persuations ; but the longer wee waited, the worse she was.”

Nothing like it had before happened in the settlement. The story was soon known to the old and the young — it was discussed in every circle — it was the standing topic of conversation for six months. The messengers of the church waited on Mrs. Judith — they could not persuade her to acknowledge her fault — she denounced Mr. Lothrop and all who were sent to her, in the most severe terms of abuse. She could find no one to sustain her — never could prove anything, and Mr. Lothrop adds, “was wondrous perremtorye in all her carriages.” She was excommunicated June 4, 1649.

Hannah was then only twelve years of age, a time of life when the sayings of the mother make a deep impression on the mind. She had heard her mother in a loud and peremptory tone of voice slander the best men and women in the settlement. The father was a good natured, easy man, and did not reprove his wife for speaking ill of her neighbors. Brought up under such influences, is it surprising that the daughter should sometimes speak inconsiderately, loosely, lasciviously? I think not. I think the mother more blameworthy, better meriting the scourges than the daughter.

David and Hannah were summoned to appear at a meeting of the church. They attended May 30, 1652, and there in the presence of the whole congregation confessed their fault. “They were both, by the sentence and joint consent of the church, pronounced to be cutt off from that relation which they hadd formerlye to the church by virtue of their parents covenaunt.” The action of the church was not objectionable ; but mark the date. May 30, 1652.

The Court was held in Plymouth June 3, 1652, only four days afterwards. Mr. Thomas DEXTER Sr.. and John CHIPMAN were the grand jurors from Barnstable, and it was their duty’ to complain of every violation of law or of good morals that came to their knowledge. The facts were notorious for it is called “a publique fame” on the church records. They were probably present when the confession was made. There were also several others beside the jurors who knew the facts. Thus far the proceedings were in accordance with the customs of the times.

In the list of presentments made by the “Grand Enquest” dated June 2, 1652, neither David Linnel nor Hannah Shelley are indicted ; yet, on the next day, June 3, 1652, the Court condemn “both of them to be publicly whipt at Barnstable, where they live,” and the sentence was executed at Barnstable five days afterwards, that is on the 8th day of Juue, 1652.

These proceedings were in violation of the form of law ; the accused were not indicted by the grand jury — they were not heard in their defense, do not appear to have been at Court, and were condemned and punished for a crime of which they had not confessed themselves guilty.

The conduct of John Alden and Priscilla Mullins technically was not in violation of the law ; but it was a violation of its spirit and meaning. That they should be glorified and their praises sung by the poet, and that David and Hannah should be whipped at the post, seems not to be meting out equal and even handed justice to all. If the Court had ordered Mrs. Judith to have been scourged in public she would have enlisted but little sympathy in her behalf.

Henry BENNETT (1629 – 1707)

Henry’s son Henry Jr (1664 – 1739)  married his step-sister. Henry’s wife Frances Burr was born c. 1669 in Ipswich, Essex, Mass. Her parents were Robert Linnell and P John Burr and Mary SMITH. Frances died 12 Jan 1708in Ipswich, Mass

Frances was 10 years old and Henry 15 when their parents married  on 18 Feb 1679 in Ipswich, Mass.  Frances and Henry married six years 20 May 1685 when Frances was only 16 years old.

Only one child is recorded for Henry and Frances; Mary Bennett born 3 Mar 1685 Ipswich, Mass. It is interesting to note that Mary was born two months before her parents marriage date.  Given Frances young age, the questionable marriage of step-children and the conflicting birth and marriage dates, I can only conclude that Henry got Frances pregnant.  (Greg and Marcia Brady?)  Mary went on to marry 29 Apr 1703 in Ipswich, Essex, Mass to Nathaniel Knowlton and died 1716 in Ipswich, Mass.

Cornelius Brown Sr. (1632 – 1701)

Cornelius’ second wife Sarah Burnap  first married 3 Feb 1669 in Salem, Essex, Massachusetts. to John Southwick (b. 1620 in England – d.  25 Oct 1672)  She second married 12 Jun 1674 in Salem  to Thomas Cooper (b. 1645 in Salem –  d. 6 Jan 1712 in Providence, Rhode Island).   In Nov 1680 Abigail Sibley “for fornication with Thomas Cooper, was sentenced to be severely whipped or pay a fine.”  Sarah divorced Thomas Cooper for adultery and abandonment, 2 Sep 1684.  Thomas had already married again in Jun 1684 in Newport, Rhode Island to Abigail Sibley (b: 3 Jul 1659 in Salem, Essex, Mass).   Sarah married a few months later 20 Nov 1684 to Cornelius Brown. Sarah died bef 1698.

12 Jul 1683 –  Abigail Sibley, with her child, was ordered out of Providence, Rhode Island. Thomas Cooper published his intention of marriage with Abigail, which was forbidden, because he had ” manifested himself a person infamous in that he hath forsaken a sober woman, who is his wife.” Mistress Abigail, with her child, appears again, Dec. 13, ” entertained by Thomas Cooper.” Her time of removal was extended to the first Monday in March, ” not to live with Thomas Cooper” meanwhile.

See Cornelius’ page for the Providence town meeting  records about Thomas Cooper and Abigail Sibley.  They deliberated whether to allow the couple to remain in the  community many times from Nov  1680 to Jan 1684.

Elizabeth Howland LOW (1634 – 1725)

On June 3, 1673, Joseph Rose of Marshfield, “being groundedly suspected to have much familiarity with the wife of John Low in a dishonest way”  He was put to a bond of £20 to refain from her company.

Elizabeth’s husband John Low was killed 26 Mar 1676  at Nine Men’s Misery  a site in current day Cumberland, Rhode Island where nine colonists were tortured by the Narragansett Indian tribe during King Philip’s War. .

Elizabeth Low “singlewoman” was convicted of whoredom on 5 June 1678, on which date Elizabeth Low, widow, accused Philip Leonard of Marshfield of getting her with child. She was sentenced by the court to be whipped.

Note: assuming Elizabeth’s 1634 birth is correct, she would have been 44 years old when she became pregnant with an illegitimate child.  Quite a shock I’m sure!

Daniel Low (Illegitimate) was born before 5 Jun 1678 in Marshfield. He and his brother Job, also possibly illegitimate left Marshfield along with several Roses before 1699 and purchased land in York, Maine. He married Mary Ingersoll 1 Oct 1707 in Wells, Maine. Daniel was killed by Indians 11 May 1723 in Marymount, Wells, Maine.

John PECK (1634 – 1667)

When John was 21 years old, he was fined fifty shillings for making continuous sexual advances toward his family’s maid.  March 6, 1654/55 (GC Presentments by the Grand Inquest, PCR 3:75):

wee present John Pecke, of Rehobeth, for laciviouse carriages and vnchast in attempting the chastitie of his fathers maide seruant, to satisby his fleshly, beastly lust, and that many times for some yeares space, without any intent to marry her, but was alwaies resisted by the mayde, as he confesseth. [Fined fifty shillings.]

David O’KELLY (Est 1636 – 1697 )

David O’Kelly was born c. 1636 in Gallagh, County Galway, Ireland.  His  parents wereTeige O’KILLIA and Ann DALY. Details regarding David’s voyage from Ireland to the colonies are not known, however the English subjugation of Ireland had taken place between 1641-1654 and many Irishmen had been captured in the process and sent to the colonies to be indentured servants.  The earliest know record of David in the colonies appears in Plymouth Colony Records, October 4 , 1655 when he is called “David Ogillior an Irishman”. In that record David was implicated in charges of fornication with his future wife Jane POWELL, of Sandwich, a Welsh servant of one William Swift. David is shown as the servant of Edward STURGIS [another of our ancestors] He married Jane POWELL in 1670 in Yarmouth, Mass.

Jane Powell was born c. 1638 in Wales.  On 4 Oct 1655 Jane Powell, servant to William Swift, of Sandwidge, appeared at court,

“haueing been presented for fornication, whoe, being examined, saith that it was committed with one David Ogillior [O’Kelley, spelling was in its infancy in those days], an Irish man, seruant to Edward STURGIS ; shee saith shee was alured thervnto by him goeing for water one euening, hopeing to haue married him, beeing shee was in a sadd and miserable condition by hard seruice, wanting clothes and liuing discontentedly; and expressing great sorrow for her euell, shee was cleared for the present, and ordered to goe home againe. “

Jane was only about 17 and David about 19 in 1655.  She and David wouldn’t be married for fifteen more years.  Jane died in 17 October 1711 in Yarmouth.

Thomas CUSHMAN Jr. (1637 – 1766)

He first married Ruth Howland on 17 Nov 1664.  Ruth Howland was born 16 Sep 1637 in Scituate, Mass.  Her parents were Mayflower passengers John HOWLAND and Elizabeth TILLEY.  John and Elizabeth were our ancestors through their daughter Desire.  Ruth died in 1679 in Rehoboth, Mass.

Thomas Cushman, the first son of Plymouth’s Ruling Elder Thomas Cushman Sr. and Mary ALLERTON, a Mayflower passenger. Little is known of his growing years. Some time in the early 1660’s, Thomas Jr. began courting Ruth Howland. The Howlands were  very near neighbors to the Cushman Family.  On 7 Mar 1665 Thomas Jr. was fined five pounds by the Court for committing “‘carnal copulation with his now wife before marriage, but after contract.”

John Howland was Deputy to the General Court for Plymouth and not involved personally in sentencing. Twenty-five years earlier punishment could have been severe, e.g. excommunication, fines, stocks for women and whipping for men. However, in 1664 harsh physical sentencing had been relaxed, and the social meeting of the parties became a factor in sentencing.

The common practice in vogue then of “courting ” by young men and maidens, and the uniform fashion ” of keeping company till the small hours of the night,” was one that did not tend to promote a high degree of virtuous intercourse.

Thomas did not suffer much materially in his reputation by an error which he soon remedied by marriage and was, during a long life, a worthy member of the Congregational Church at Plympton, of which his brother Isaac was the Pastor. However, Thomas Cushman, Jr. squandered the opportunity to be considered to succeed his father as Ruling Elder. In 1694, Thomas’ younger brother Isaac was chosen to succeed his father as Ruling Elder.

William DANFORTH (1641 – 1721)

30 Jun 1660 – (Age 19) William accompanied another young man, Daniel Black, to the neighboring town of Rowley and carrying a message from Black to the daughter of Edmund Bridges.  The girl came to a neighbor’s house where Black tried to persuade her to become his wife, or, as the father phrased it, “made love to her.”  The General Court had passed stringent laws to cover such cases; so Mr. Bridges prosecuted the bold suitor for seeking his daughter’s hand without his permission; and the magistrates compelled Black to pay a fine of five pounds for his conduct.  William had to pay a fine of ten shillings for helping his friend.

Jabez SNOW (1642– 1690)

Jabez was fined 10 pounds by the Eastham church for having relations with his wife before the contract of marriage.  His first son Jabez was born 6 Sep 1670 Eastham, Barnstable, Mass, about the time of his marriage.

Peter LEWIS (1644 – 1716)

Peter’s son Morgan Lewis (1681-1713) was a defendant on a charge of Fornication in 1706.  He married Abigail Ingersoll about that same time. After Morgan died, wife Abigail married a second time to Joseph Judkins, she married a third time to  Ebenezer Blaisdell.

Peter’s youngest daughter Grace (1676 – ) was seduced by Philip Follett in 1698 and had an illegitimate child in Oct. 1701.  She was still unmarried in 1713.   Finally, on 28 Oct 1718 in Portsmouth, NH she married John Bly.  Grace Lewis, presumably the same who m2.  Nathaniel Boulter and m3. in Scarborough. 17 Sep 1744 to Henry Dresser.

Mary Ball Munroe (1650 – 1692)

Mary is only a granddaughter of our direct ancestor, but she was sent to live with her grandparents when her mother went insane and her melodramatic story deserves to be told her.  See John PEARCE’s page for more about her parents troubles and the demise of her father, step-mother and step-brothers in the Lancaster Massacre.

Mary Ball was born in 1650 Watertown, Mass.   She married. 1672 William Munroe (1625, Scotland – 27 Jan 1717 Lexington, Middlesex, Mass.)  Mary died Aug 1691 Cambridge, Mass.

I was curious why William Munroe was so sympathetic to the disgraced Mary.  Here’s his story.  William Munroe, son of Robert of Aldie, is the 18th in direct descent from that first Donald who, in the eleventh century, founded the Clan Munro. William and his brothers Robert, George and Benedict all fought at the Battle of Worcester.   Charles II escaped after many adventures, including one famous incident where he hid from a Parliamentarian patrol in an oak tree in the grounds of Boscobel House. Around 8,000 Scottish prisoners were deported to New England, Bermuda, and the West Indies to work for landowners as indentured labourers.

Battle of Worchester Reenactors

William was sent to the American colonies as a prisoner of war. They were listed on 13 May 1652 on a list of the banished as Munroes: Robert, Hugh, John and a name obliterated by time, supposedly William. They were shipped to London on 11 Nov 1651 by Je. Rex, Robert Rich and William Green in the “John and Sarah.”

If William was an apprentice, it was for a short time. He was on his own by 1657. He is first referred to in the Cambridge, Massachusetts records of 1657 when he and Thomas Rose were fined for not having rings in the noses of their pigs. In 1660 he settled in Cambridge Farms, now known as Lexington, near the Woburn line. This part of town became known as “Scotland.” He was a freeman in 1690 and in 1699 received communion into the church. [almost 50 years after his arrival I would note.]

Back to Mary’s  — Five-year-old Mary ended up in the Watertown home of John and Elizabeth PIERCE, parents of her crazy mother.

Evidence suggests that Mary’s mother may have inherited some of her instability from her own mother, but no record that I’ve seen gives any insight on the eleven years that Mary spent in the grandparental household. Except that John Pierce died in 1661, half-way through those years, leaving Elizabeth Pierce alone to care for young Mary and her older brother John. By the time Widow Grandma Elizabeth died in 1667, Mary had sprouted into an apparently-attractive 16-year-old, and John was just attaining his majority. Under the circumstances, the Selectmen, apparently with at least the concurrence of the absent father, John Ball, thought it best to place unattached teenager Mary as a servant in the household of the prominent Bacon family of neighboring Woburn.

Michael Bacon (1639-1707 is the principal villain in this piece. He married Sarah Richardson (another prominent Woburn name) in 1661, about age 20. Abigail, their third daughter, arrived in the household in the same year that Mary became a servant there.

In 1670, after a miserable and painful childhood, nineteen-year-old Mary Ball found herself pregnant by her beloved master, Woburn householder Michael Bacon, who abandoned her and sent her away to Rhode Island. Mary’s father complained to the court. Arrested, Bacon broke jail and was recaptured in a classic hue-and-cry operation.

Having received a heartbreaking letter from Mary, begging for clemency for herself and Bacon, the court forced Bacon to promise to raise the child. Meanwhile, Mary’s home town, Watertown, sent two Selectmen to warn her “to depart the Town forthwith.” Neighbors, kinsfolk and friends who had harbored Mary during pregnancy and delivery started submitting bills to the Court. As her precarious support network crumbled around her, Mary wrote a second letter, this time to Bacon, urging him to act like a man.

Which, on the evidence, he made no effort to do. In concert with the sanctimonious society of Puritan Massachusetts, Michael Bacon and his cronies seem to have taken every opportunity to leave Mary twisting in the proverbial wind. It remained to neighbors William and Martha Munroe to breast the current of public opinion, official and otherwise, and to offer Mary her first secure home. For which I honor their memory and invite you, dear reader, to join me.

The next year, Martha Munroe died, leaving William with four small children (kinfolk, incidentally, of the Lexington Militia who earned our reverence by facing the Redcoats on the 19th of April, 1775). Grandpa William did not languish in his widowhood: within the year, Mary Ball, half his age, had become the second Mrs William Munroe. Over the next twenty years, she presented William with a child every other year, dying at age 41, apparently in or near childbirth with the last little Munroe. William married once more and lived to 92, serving as a Selectman of Cambridge and otherwise transcending his humble beginnings and exemplifying solid citizenship. He had no children with Elizabeth: maybe 14 (with 13 reaching maturity) was a large enough family to suit him.

That’s a triumphant-enough ending, but I suppose I should mention that Michael Bacon entered the picture yet again, before the year was out, in a pathetic story of barratry and bad-neighborliness. Seems he knocked on the Munroes’ door one snowy evening to complain that they had a pig of his. Having indeed a stray in their sty, they helped him separate his from theirs and saw him on his way. Soon, however, the stray returned, followed by a furious Bacon accusing them of stealing her. Bacon then led a mixed grill of his and theirs through three miles of snow to his house, losing a pregnant sow of theirs along the way. The consequent legal contention led to two hearings and a jury trial, each ending in a verdict in the Munroes’ favor.

William and Mary Munroe Headstones — Don’t they look like they’re cuddling together?

Adrianus Franciscusz De LANGET (1653 – 1699)

Adrianus’ wife Rachel Jansen PIER married a second time on to Allert Hendrickson Ploegh on 17 Apr 1699.   In the margin of their marriage entry is the following: –

In the presence of Ariaan Roos, Geesje Pier Maria Nucella and Mary Singer was Rachel Pier with her chemise over her clothes, married to Albert Hendricksen Ploeg, by me [Domine] Nucella.

There is also a footnote indicating that the bride’s strange attire was based on an erroneous belief that a widow, when married in this manner, relieved her new husband of all debts incurred by her previous spouse. The Kingston Court records indicate that Rachel’s first husband was often sued for non-payment so the ritual attire suggests he likely had significant outstanding debt(s) when he died.   Rachel was about 13 to 14 years older than her second spouse.

But you’re looking for the premarital sex story in this family.

Adrianus and Rachel’s daughter Willemtje planned to marry Hendrick Klaaz Schoonhoven after her first husband Teunis Kool died, but she never did.  Teunis’ parents were Barent Jacobsen KOOL and Marretje Leenderts DeGRAUW.  Bans were registered and withdrawn on the same day 4 Dec 1715.  Willempje had an illegitimate daughter Neeltjen baptized 19 Feb. 1715/16, no father named.

Samuel PERKINS (1655 –  1700)

Samuel married Hannah WEST in 1677.   He died intestate in 1700 when he was only forty-five years old. His widow, Hannah, was administratrix of his estate, and was also appointed guardian of his two minor children, John and Elizabeth.

Samuel Perkins and Hannah West Source: Daughters of Eve: pregnant brides and unwed mothers in seventeenth-century … By Else L. Hambleton

Samuel Perkins and Hannah West 2

That explains the 7 year gap between Elizabeth and John’s births.  I must be missing the fifth child.

Samuel WEBBER (1658 – 1716)

Samuel’s son Benjamin Webber (1690 – ) married Mehitable Allen on 1 Oct 1714 in York, Maine.  In the York County, Province of Maine Court of General Sessions on 3 Jan 1715,

“Wee present Benjamin Webber & Mehittable Allen now his wife both of york for fornication….they owing the fact. Its Considered by the Court that they recieve Seven Stripes apiece on their naked backs at the post & pay fees of Court 7 Shillings or pay a fine of Thirty Shillings apiece to his Majesty & fees of Court as aforesd & Stand Committed” (Province and Court Records of Maine, volume 5, p. 173).

[Compiler’s note: I can not determine if they took the seven lashes or paid the thirty shillings].

“Young married persons, whose courtship had been carried on under the convenient and comfortable New England `bundling’ device, and had anticipated events unwisely, found themselves in the hands of the law, when their first child appeared in advance of the physiological period of gestation. After labor was safely over both of them were hauled into Court and ordered to the whipping post to receive a dozen stripes each at the hands of the public executioner. It is probable that many cases of premature delivery were unjustly punished” (Charles Edward Banks. History of York, Maine, Volume II, page 239).

From an article “The Truth about Bundling,” Yankee Magazine, September 1991, page 12: “Bundling, an old custom permitting unmarried men and women to court, fully clothed, in bed. What is the use of sitting up all night and burning out fire and lights, when you could just as well get under cover and keep warm. It was respectable enough in the early history of New England when religion was an all-powerful influence on behavior. But in succeeding generations, the innocent practice was corrupted producing an amazing number of sturdy brats. About 1785, unmarried women blushed to read lines like these:

She’ll sometimes say when she lies down,
She can’t be cumbered with a gown,
And that the weather is so warm,
To take it off can be no harm…

The result was such a general storm of banter and ridicule that no girl had the courage to stand against it and as the ministers continued to thunder against bundling, the practice finally was killed off.

Benjamin Webber recorded marriage intentions for his second marriage at York, ME, 3 Feb 1738, “to satisfie such person as are dissatisfied and think he is not married”

Jannetje LOZIER (1660 -after 1700)

Jannetje’s father-in-law Alexander Ennis came to America as a Scotish prisoner of war after the Battle of Dunbar  After many adventures (See Jannetje’s page for details),  he became an indentured servant at the Saugus Iron Works and married and Irish refugee from Cromwell’s wars named Katheren Aines

The Irish Catherine and Scottish Alexander clashed with the Puritans of Taunton on at least one occasion. Saxbe writes, “‘an Irish woman named Katheren Aines’ was brought before the court at Plymouth in February, 1656/57, ‘vpon suspision of comiting adultery.’ The trial was the following month, and justice was swift and harsh:

‘Att this Court, William Paule, Scotchman, for his vnclean and filthy behauiour with the wife of Alexander Aines, is centanced by the Court to bee forthwith publickly whipt…which accordingly was p(er)formed…Katheren Aines, for her vnclean and laciuiouse behauior with the abouesaid William Paule, and for the blasphemos words that shee hath spoken, is centanced by the Court to bee forthwith publickly whipt heer att Plymouth, and afterwards att Taunton, on a publicke training day, and to were a Roman B cutt out of ridd cloth and sowed to her vper garment on her right arme [for blaspheme]; and if shee shalbee euer found without it soe worne whil shee is in the gou(vern)ment, to bee forthwith publickly whipt…Alexander Anis, for his leauing his family, and exposing his wife to such temptations, and being as baud to her therin, is centanced by the Court for the p(re)sent to sitt in the stockes the time the said Paule and Katheren Ainis are whipt, which was p(er)formed…’

Understandably, the Innes family moved sometime within the next few years. In 1659, Alexander is found in the records buying land in Portsmouth, Rhode Island, fifteen miles south of Taunton. . In 1664, Block Island became part of Rhode Island and a group of Scots settled there.

Sarah THURLOW DANFORTH (1663 – )

Sarah Thurlow was born 20 Jul 1663 in Newbury MA. Her parents were Francis THURLOW and Ann MORSE. At the time, the family name was spelled Thurloe or Thurla.

9 Jun  1677 – Samuel Ladd,  son-in-law of George CORLISS  “was fined for misdemeanors.”  See George’s page for more of his nefarious misadventures.

Frances Thurla, aged about forty-five years, and Ane Thurla, his wife, testified that in the evening after Mr. Longfelow’s vessel was launched, about nine or ten o’clock, and after he and his family were in bed, having shut the door and bolted it, Sameull Lad of Haverhill and Thomas Thurla’s man, Edward Baghott, came to their house. One or both of them went into the leanto where their daughter Sarah lay, and having awakened her urged her to rise and go to her aunt’s, telling her that she was very sick. Whereupon deponent arose and seeing one at the door reproved him for being there, and mistrusting that there was one with his daughter, as he went to light a candle, Samuell Lad leaped out of the house. Sworn in court.”

For this Samuel Ladd was found guilty of a misdemeanor. What was he doing at Frances Thurla’s house after all had retired to bed? Why had he tried to get Sarah to leave the house and go to her aunt’s? And if her aunt were, in fact, sick, why did he not tell Sarah’s parents, as the aunt presumably would have been sister to one of them? Was Samuel Ladd bent upon the seduction of young [age 14 at the time] Sarah Thurla ? At the time of the incident Samuel had been married for three years.  Sarah THURLOW would later William DANFORTH.

Jonas DeLANGE (1696 – 1739)

Jonas’ grand daughter Catherine DeLong first married John McAuley (1760-1785).  Catherine and John had one child, John McAuley was born 21 May 1783 in Dutchess Co, New York. After John died, Catherine then had a child out of wedlock with Peter Vanderburgh.  Peter was sued by Catherine for getting her pregnant and not marrying her (filed 16 Jan 1788 in Dutchess County).

Posted in Fun Stuff, Storied | Tagged | 6 Comments

Second Esopus War

Many of our Dutch ancestors lived in Ulster County, New York in and around what is now Kingston. In 1659 and 1663 they engaged in two conflicts with the local Esopus Indians. The first Esopus War was caused by an act of Dutch cruelty and murder. While New Netherlands had many fewer colonists than New England in many ways Dutch relations with the Native Americans was worse than did the English.

One of our ancestor’s kidnapped sons decided to remain among the Indians with his new Indian wife and child. Since the Lenape had a matrilineal culture, a Pocahontas in reverse story makes sense. Overall, though, it’s a sad story,  I’ll let the narrative speak for itself.

Navigate this Report
1. Overview
2. Background
3. The Lenape

4. First Esopus War

5. Second Esopus War
6. Aftermath

Map of New York highlighting Ulster County

Ulster County, New York

Second Esopus War

In the hope of making a treaty with the Esopus, Dutch emissaries contacted the tribe on June 5, 1663, and requested a meeting. The natives replied that it was their custom to conduct peace talks unarmed and in the open, so the gates of Wiltwijck were kept open.

Kingston Plan 1695 showing outline of the pallisade

The natives arrived on June 7 in great numbers, many claiming to be selling produce, thereby infiltrating deep into the town as scouts. By the time word arrived that Esopus warriors had completely destroyed the neighboring village of Nieu Dorp (modern day Hurley), the scouts were in place around the town and began their own attack. Well-armed and spread out, they took the Dutch by surprise and soon controlled much of the town, setting fire to houses and kidnapping women before they were driven out by a mob of settlers. The attackers escaped, and the Dutch repaired their fortifications. On June 16, Dutch soldiers’ transporting ammunition to the town were attacked on their way from Rondout Creek. The Esopus were again repelled.

Rondout Creek near mouth, Kingston,NY

Throughout July, Dutch forces reconnoitered the Esopus Kill. Unable to distinguish one tribe from another, they captured some traders from the Wappinger tribe, one of whom agreed to help the Dutch. He gave them information about various native forces and served as a guide in the field. In spite of his help, the Dutch were unable to make solid contact with the Esopus, who used guerilla tactics and could disappear easily into the woods. After several unproductive skirmishes, the Dutch managed to gain the help of the Mohawk, who served as guides, interpreters, and soldiers. By the end of July, the Dutch had received sufficient reinforcements to march for the Esopus stronghold in the mountains to the north. However, their ponderous equipment made progress slow, and the terrain was difficult. Realizing their disadvantage, rather than attacking the Esopus force, they burned the surrounding fields in the hope of starving them out.

For the next month, scouting parties went out to set fire to the Esopus fields, but found little other combat. In early September, another Dutch force tried to engage the Esopus on their territory, this time successfully. The battle ended with the death of the Esopus chief, Papequanaehen, as well as several other men, women, and children. The natives fled, and the Dutch, led by Captain Martin Cregier, pillaged their fort before retreating, taking supplies and prisoners. This effectively ended the war, although the peace was uneasy.

File:EsopusTreaty.jpg

Page 1 of the treaty between the British and the Esopus Indians. This page forbids hostility between the two groups, including harming livestock and buildings, and sets forth equal punishment for murder by both Europeans (“Christians”) and Natives (“Indyans”).

7 Jun 1663 – A band of two hundred Indians entered Wiltwyck and New Diep (now Kingston and Hurley) in the morning, from different points, and dispersed themselves among the dwellings in a friendly manner, having with them a little maize and a few beans; under pretense of selling these they went about from place to place to discover the strength of the men. After they had been in Kingston about a quarter of an hour, some people on horseback rushed through the mill-gate crying out-’ “The Indians have destroyed the New Village!”  And with these words the Indians immediately fired their guns, and made a general attack on the village from the rear, hewing down the whites with their axes and tomahawks. They seized what women and children they could and carried them prisoners outside the gates, plundered the houses, and set the village on fire to windward, it blowing at the time from the south. The remaining Indians commanded all the streets, firing from the corner houses which they occupied, and through the curtains outside along the highways, so that some of the inhabitants while on their way to their houses to get their arms were wounded and slain. When the flames had reached their height the wind veered to the west, otherwise the flames would have been much more destructive.  The attack was so rapid that those in different parts of the village were not aware of what was transpiring until they happened to meet the wounded in the streets. Few of the men were in the village, the rest being abroad at their field labors.

Kingston Stockade Today  — Kingston was burned by the British during the Revolution

Capt. Thomas Chambers, who was wounded on coming in from the fields, issued immediate orders to secure the gates, to clear the gun and drive off the Indians, which was accordingly done. After the few men in the village had been collected, and by degrees others arriving from different quarters, being attracted by the columns of smoke and the firing, they mustered in the evening sixty-nine efficient men. The burnt palisades were immediately replaced with new ones, and the people distributed, during the night, along the bastions and curtains to keep watch.

In this attack on the two villages fifteen men, four women and two children were killed. Most of the women and children killed were burned to death. Of the prisoners taken by the Indians at this outbreak there were thirteen women, thirty children, and one man. At Kingston twelve houses were burned, while the New Village was entirely destroyed.

Soldiers including PEER Jan Hendricks  were now sent up from New York, and the Indians were hunted from mountain to mountain.  The rescued children included Tjerck Claessen en de Witt’s oldest daughter. (Mathijs Jansen Van KEULEN’s future daughter-in-law) Peer Jan Hendrick married Mathijs’ daughter Annetje.

Peer was a Sargent in the Dutch West India Company’s troops sent to Esopus Jun 1663 under Capt. Martin Krieger in Colonel Cragier’s regiment.  He took part in the rescue of the women and children captured in the Esopus raid on Wiltwyck (Kingston), June, 1663.  Two months after the raid, the Indians were engaged at the Esopus and the captives freed, including Tjaatje and Jannetje DeWitt, and Jannaken Van Vliet.   Tjaatje Dewitt would be Peer’s future sister-in-law by later marrying Matthys Matthyssen,  Annetje’s brother and progenitor of the Van Keuren family.

An Account of the Burning of Wiltwyck

7 Jun 1663 as  Translated from the Original Dutch Manuscript and published in The Documentary History of the State of New York in 1849.  A letter from the residents of Wiltwyck to the governing Council of New Netherland describing the June 7th, 1663 Indian attack on the village, listing all the dead and wounded residents, and pleading for aid and assistance.

June 20,1663

The Court at Wiltwyck to the Council of New Netherland:

Right Honorable, most respected, wise, prudent and very discreet Lords.

We, your Honors’ faithful subjects have to report, pursuant to the order of the Right Honorable Heer Director General, in the form of a Journal, that in obedience to his Honor’s order, received on the 30th of May last, we caused the Indian Sachems to be notified on the 5th of June, to be prepared to expect the arrival of the Right Honorable Heer Director General, to receive the promised presents, and to renew the peace. This notification was communicated to them through Capt. Thomas Chambers, to which they answered: If peace were to be renewed with them, the Honorable HeerDirector General should, with some unarmed persons, sit with them in the open field, without the gate, as it was their own custom to meet unarmed when renewing peace or in other negotiations.

But they, unmindful of the preceding statement, surprised and attacked us between the hours of 11 and 12 o’clock in the forenoon on Thursday the 7th instant. Entering in bands through all the gates, they divided and scattered themselves among all the houses and dwellings in a friendly manner, having with them a little maize and some few beans to sell to our Inhabitants, by which means they kept them within their houses, and thus went from place to place as spies to discover our strength in men. And after they had been about a short quarter of an hour within this place, some people on horse back rushed through the Mill gate from the New Village, crying out: The Indians have destroyed the New Village !”

And with these words, the Indians here in this Village immediately fired a shot and made a general attack on our village from the rear, murdering our people in their houses with their axes and tomahawks, and firing on them with guns and pistols; they seized whatever women and children they could catch and carried them prisoners outside the gates, plundered the houses and set the village on fire to windward, it blowing at the time from the south. The remaining Indians commanded all the streets, firing from the corner houses which they occupied and through the curtains outside along the highways, so that some of our Inhabitants, on their way to their houses to get their arms, were wounded and slain. When the flames were at their height the wind changed to the west, were it not for which the fire would have been much more destructive.

So rapidly and silently did Murder do his work that those in different parts of the village were not aware of it until those who had been wounded happened to meet each other, in which way the most of the others also had warning. The greater portion of our men were abroad at their field labors, and but few in the village. Near the mill gate were Albert Gysbertsen with two servants, and Tjerck Claesen de Wit; at the Sheriff’s, himself with two carpenters, two clerks and one thresher; at Cornelius Barentsen Sleght’s, himself and his son; at the Domine’s, himself and two carpenters and one laboring man; at the guard house, a few soldiers; at the gate towards the river, Henderick Jochemsen and Jacob, the Brewer; but Hendrick Jochemsen was very severely wounded in his house by two shots at an early hour.

By these aforesaid men, most of whom had neither guns nor side arms, were the Indians, through God’s mercy, chased and put to flight on the alarm being given by the Sheriff. Capt. Thomas Chambers [husband ofMargriet HENDRICKSEwas wounded on coming in from without, issued immediate orders (with the Sheriff and Commissaries) to secure the gates; to clear the gun and to drive out the Savages, who were still about half an hour in the village aiming at their persons, which was accordingly done. The burning of the houses, the murder and carrying off of women and children is here omitted, as these have been already communicated to your Honors on the 10th June. After these few men had been collected against the Barbarians, by degrees the others arrived who, it has been stated, were abroad at their field labors, and we found ourselves when mustered in the evening, including those from the new village who took refuge amongst us, in number 69 efficient men, both qualified and unqualified. The burnt palisades were immediately replaced by new ones, and the people distributed, during the night, along the bastions and curtains to keep watch.

On the 10th inst., 10 horseman were commanded to ride down to the Redoubt and to examine its condition. They returned with word that the soldiers at the Redoubt had not seen any Indians. They brought also with them the Sergeant, who had gone the preceding morning to the Redoubt, and as he heard on his return of the mischief committed by the Indians in the village, he went back to the Redoubt and staied there. In addition to the Sergeant they brought the men who had fled from the new village.

On the 16th, towards evening, Sergeant Christiaen Niessen went with a troop of soldiers, sent us by your Honors, being 42 men, and three wagons, to the Redoubt, with letters for the Manhatans, addressed to your Honors, and to bring up ammunition from the Redoubt. On their return, the Indians made an attempt, at the first hill, to take the ammunition from these troops. The Sergeant, having divided his men into separate bodies, evinced great courage against the Indians, skirmishing with them from the first, to past the second hill, and defending the wagons so well that they arrived in safety in the village. He had, however, one killed and six wounded. The dead man was brought in next morning, having been stripped naked, and having had his right hand cut off by the Indians. Some of the Indians were also killed, but the number of these is not known. This skirmishing having been heard in the village, a reinforcement of horse and foot was immediately ordered out, but before they arrived the Indians had been put to flight by the above named Sergeant.

This, Right Honorable Lords, is what we have deemed necessary to communicate to you in the form of a journal as to how and in what manner the Indians have acted towards us and we towards them in the preceding circumstances. And we humbly and respectfully request your Honors to be pleased to send us hither for the wounded by the earliest opportunity, some prunes and linen with some wine to strengthen them, and whatever else not obtainable here your Honors may think proper; also, carabines, cutlasses, and gun flints, and we request that the carabines may be Snaphaunce, as the peopIe here are but little conversant with the use of the arquebuse (vyer roer); also some spurs for the horsemen. In addition to this, also, some reinforcements in men inasmuch as harvest will commence in about 14 days from date. Herewith ending, we commend your Honors to God’s fatherly care and protection. Done, Wiltwyck this 20th June 1663.

ROELOF SWARTWOUT, (first sheriff of Esopus and son-in-law of Albert Andriessen BRADT )
the mark of ALBERT GYSBERTSEN TIERECK CLASSEN DE WITT,
THOMAS CHAMBERS,
GYSBERT VAN IMBROCH,
CHRISTIAEN NYSSEN,
HENDRICK JOCHEMSEN

List of Soldiers and settlers Killed at the June 7th raid on Wyltwyck:

MEN:
Barent Gerretsen, murdered in front of his house
Jan Albertse, killed in his house
Lichten Dirrick, killed at the farm
Willem Jansen Seba, killed before his door
Willem Jansen Hap, in Peter van Hael’s house
Jan de Smit, in his house
Hendrik Jansen Looman, on the farm
Thomas Chambers Negro, on the farm
Hey Olferts, in the gunners house

SOLDIERS:
Hendrik Martensen, on the farm
Dominicus, in Jan Albertse’s house
Christian Andriessen, in the street

WOMEN:
Lichten Dirricks wife burnt, with her fruit lost, behind Barent Gerritsen’s house
Mattys de Capito’s wife, Killed and burnt in the house
Jan Albertsen’s wife, big with child, killed in fron of her house
Pieter van Hael’s wife, shot and burnt in her house

CHILDREN:
Jan Albertse’s daughter, murdered with her mother
William Hap’s child, burnt alive in the house

TAKEN PRISONER:
Rachel de la Montagne, Gysbert van Imbroch’s wife
Hester Douwes
Sara, daughter of Hester Douwes
Grietje, Domine Laer’s wife
Femmentje, sister of Hilletje, being recently married to Joost Ariaens
Tjaatje, daughter of Tjerck Claussen de Witt (Future Daughter-in-law of Mathijs Jansen Van KEULEN and Hendrick’s future sister-in-law)
Domine Laer’schild
Ariaen Gerritsen van Vliet’s daughter
Two little boys of Mattys Roeloffsen

Killed in New Village (Hurley)

MEN:
Marten Hammensen, found dead and stripped naked behind the wagon
Jacques Tyssen, killed beside Barent’s house
Dirrick Ariaensen, shot on his horse
Pieter Jacobsen ( Femmetje Albertse PIETERSEN Westercamp‘s son-in-law)

PRISONERS:
Jan Gerritsen at Volkerts Bouwery

Women/Children taken prisoner: (name of husband father)
Louwis Dubois 1/3
Mattheu Blanchan 0/2
Antoni Crupel 1/1
Lambert Huybertsen (BRINK) 1/3
(rescued after about 3 months including our ancestor Cornelis Lambertsen BRINK).
Marten Hammensen 1/4
Jan Joosten 1/2
Barent Harmensen 1/1
Grietje Westercamp (daughter of Femmetje Albertse PIETERSEN Westercamp).1/3
Jan Barents 1/1
Michiel Ferre 0/2
Hendrick Jochems 0/1
Hendrik Martensen 0/1
Albert Heymans Roosa 0/2

Total taken prisoner: 8 women, 26 children

Houses Burnt in Wiltwyck

Of Michiel Ferre, 1
Of Hans Carolusen, 1
Of Willem Hap, 1
Of Pieter van Hael, 1
Of Mattys Roeloffsen, 1
Of Jacob boerhans, 2
Of Albert Gerretsen, 1
Of Barent Gerretsen, 2
Of Lichten Dirrick, 1
Of Mattys, 1

……… …Houses 12

The new village is entirely destroyed except a new uncovered barn, one rick and a little stack of reed.

Wounded in Wiltwyck

Thomas Chambers, shot in the woods
Henderick Jochemsen, shot in his house.
Michiel Ferre, shot in front of his house (died of his wounds on the 16th June.)
Albert Gerretsen, shot in front of his house.
Andries Barents, shot in front of his house.
Jan du parck, shot in the house of Aert Pietersen Tack
Henderick the Heer Director General’s Servant In the street in front of Aert JACOBSEN (Van Wagenen)
Paulus the Noorman in the street.

On the 26th of July a party of upwards of two hundred men, including forty-one Long Island Indians and seven negroes, left Kingston to attack the Indians at their fort about thirty miles distant, “mostly” in a southwest direction.  They had as a guide a woman who had been a prisoner of the Indians, and took with them two pieces of cannon and two wagons.  The cannon and wagons they were forced to abandon before reaching the fort.  They intended to surprise the Indians, but found the fort untenanted except by a solitary squaw.

The next day they sent a force to surprise the Indians on the mountain, but were unable to surprise any.  For two days and a half the whole party then employed themselves in destroying the growing crops and old maize of the Indians, the latter of which was stored in pits.  Over two hundred acres of corn, and more than one hundred pits of corn and beans, were rendered worthless by the invading forces.  The natives witnessed these proceedings from their lookout stations on the Shawangunk and neighboring mountains, but made no resistance.  Quinlan supposes this fort to have been on the headwaters of the Kerhonkson.

After this expedition the Indians proceeded to build a new fort thirty-six miles south-southwest of Kingston.  The site of this fort is on the right bank of the Shawangunk kill, near the village of Bruynswick.  Against this fort  Capt. Kregier marched the following September, with a force of fifty-five men and an Indian guide. Kregier says in his journal, in substance:

     It having rained all day the expedition must rest for the present.  Asked the Sheriff and commissaries whether they could not get some horses to accompany us, so that we may be able to place the wounded on them if we should happen to have any.  After great trouble obtained six horses, but received spiteful and insulting words from many of the inhabitants.  One said, let those furnish horses who commenced the war.  Another said, if they want anything they will have to take it by force.  The third said he must first have his horse valued and have security for it.

About one o’clock on the afternoon of the 3d we started from Fort Wiltwyck; marched about three miles to the creek and lay there that night, during which we had great rain.  The next morning we found such high water and swift current in the kill that it was impossible to ford it. Sent men on horseback to Fort Wiltwyck for axes and rope to cross the creek.  Crossed over about two o’clock in the afternoon and marched four miles further on, where we bivouacked for the night. Set out again at we discovered two squaws and a Dutch woman who had come from their new fort that morning to get corn.  But as the creek lay between us and the corn-field, though we would fain have the women, we could not ford the stream without being discovered; we therefore turned in through the wood so as not to be seen.

About two o’clock in the afternoon we arrived in sight of their fort, which we discovered situated on a lofty plain.  Divided our force in two, and proceeded in this disposition along the kill so as not to be seen and in order to come right under the fort.  But as it was somewhat level on the left of the fort, the soldiers were seen by a squaw who was piling wood there, who thereupon set up a terrible scream. This alarmed the Indians who were working upon the fort, so we instantly fell upon them. The Indians rushed through the fort towards their houses in order to secure their arms, and thus hastily picked up a few bows and arrows and some of their guns, but we were so close at their heels they were forced to leave some of them behind. We kept up a sharp fire on them and pursued them so closely that they leaped into the creek which ran in front of the lower part of their maize land. On reaching the opposite side of the kill they courageously returned our fire, so that we were obliged to send a party across to dislodge them.

In this attack the Indians lost their chief, fourteen other warriors, four women and three children, whom we saw lying on this and on the other side of the creek; but probably many others were wounded. We also took thirteen of them prisoners, besides an old man who accompanied us about half an hour, but would go no farther. We took him aside and gave him his Last meat.  We also recovered twenty-three Christian prisoners out of their hands. A captive Indian child died on the way, so that there remained eleven of them still our prisoners.

We next reviewed our men and found we had three killed, and one more wounded than we had horses. We then held a council of war; after deliberation it was determined to let the maize stand for the present. We however plundered the houses, wherein was considerable booty, such as bear and deer skins, blankets, elk hides, besides other smaller articles, many of which we were obliged to leave behind us, for we could well have filled a sloop.  We destroyed as much as we could; broke the kettles into pieces, took also twenty four guns, more than half of which we smashed, and threw the barrels here and there in the stream.  We found also several horns and bags of powder, and thirty-one belts and some strings of wampum.  We took the best of the booty along and resolved to set off.  We placed the wounded on horses and had one carried in a blanket on poles by two soldiers in turns.  The first day we marched two miles from the fort.

The Christian prisoners informed us that they were removed every night into the woods, each night to a different place, through fear of the Dutch, and brought back in the morning; but on the day before we attacked them, a Mohawk visited them, who remained with them during the night. When about to convey the Christian captives again into the woods the Mohawk said to the Esopus Indians-” What, do you carry the Christian prisoners every night into the woods?” To which they answered “Yes.” Hereupon the Mohawk said, “Let them remain at liberty here, for you live so far in the woods that the Dutch will not come hither, for they cannot come so far without being discovered before they reach you.” So they kept the prisoners by them that night. The Mohawk departed in the morning, leaving a new blanket and two pieces of cloth, which fell to us as a booty.

Early on the morning of the 6th we resumed our journey. The same day came just beyond the Esopus kill, where we remained that night. At this place the Indian child died, which we threw into the creek. Arrived at Wiltwyck about noon of the following day.

On the 22d a detachment was sent out from Wiltwyck to guard some plowmen while they labored in the fields. About midnight the party passed along the kill where some maize lay, about two hours march from the village. On arriving there they found only a small patch of maize, as it had all been plucked by some straggling Indians or bears. Our people carried off what remained. The Indian prisoners whom we held had first informed us, to-day, that a small spot of corn had been planted there principally to supply food to stragglers who went to and fro to injure the Christians. Should they come again they’ll not find any food.

About eleven o’clock on the following night, a party was sent about three miles in a northeasterly direction from Wiltwyck, having been informed there was some Indian maize at that place, to see if they could not remove it either by land or water. They returned about two o `clock in the afternoon of the next day and reported they had been on the Indians’ maize plantation, but saw no Indians, nor anything to indicate they had been there for a long time, for the maize had not been hoed, and therefore had not come to its full growth, and had been much injured by wild animals. One plantation however was good, having been hoed by the Indians, but that was likewise much injured by wild beasts. They said it was beautiful maize land, suitable for a number of bouweries, and for the immediate reception of the plow. On Sunday afternoon, September 30th, powder and ball were distributed to the soldiers and friendly Indians, in the proportion of one pound of powder, one pound of lead and three pounds of biscuit for each man, who was to accompany an expedition into the Indian country. On Monday marched from Wiltwyck with 108 men and 46 Marseping Indians. About two o’clock of the following day we came to the fort of the Esopus Indians that we had attacked on the 5th of September, and there found five large pits into which they had cast their dead. The wolves had rooted up and devoured some of them. Lower down on the kill were four other pits full of dead Indians and we found further on the bodies of three Indians, with a squaw and a child, that lay unburied and almost wholly devoured by the ravens and the wolves. We pulled up the Indian fort and threw the palisades, one on the other, in sundry heaps and set them on fire, together with the wigwams around the fort, and thus the fort and houses were destroyed and burnt. About 10 o’clock we marched thence down along the creek where lay divers maize plantations, which we also destroyed and cast the maize into the creek. Several large wigwams also stood there, which we burnt. Having destroyed everything we returned to Wiltwyck, reaching there in the evening of the next day.

About noon of Sunday, October 7th, a girl was brought up from the Redoubt [Rondout], who, the day before, had arrived on the opposite bank at that place, and was immediately conveyed across the stream. The girl said she had escaped from an Indian who had taken her prisoner, and who resided in the mountain on the other side of the creek about three miles from Wiltwyck, where he had a hut, and a small patch of corn which he had pulled, and had been there about three weeks to remove the corn. She had tried to escape before, but could not find her way out of the woods, and was forced to return to the hut. Forty men were at once sent out to try and catch the Indian. They reached the hut before sunset, which they surrounded with the intention of surprising the savage, but the hut was found to be empty. They found a lot of corn near the hut, and another lot at the kill, part of which they burned, and a part they brought back with them. They remained in the hut during the night and watched there. On the 10th of that month, Louis Du Bois, the Walloon, went to fetch his oxen which had gone back of Juriaen Westphaelen’s land. As he was about to drive home the oxen, three Indians, who lay in the bush with the intention of taking him prisoner, leaped forth. One of the savages shot at him with an arrow, slightly wounding him, whereupon Louis struck the Indian a heavy blow on the breast with a piece of palisade, and so escaped through the kill, and brought the news to the fort. Two detachments were instantly dispatched to attack them, but they had taken to flight and retreated into the woods.

The Indians were finally cowed. Their principal warriors had been slain, their fort and wigwams burned, and their food and peltries destroyed. A long hard winter was before them, and the ruthless white soldiers ready to swoop down upon them at any moment. Under these circumstances the Delawares sued for peace, and the truce was observed for a period of about ninety years, or until the breaking out of the French and Indian war.

When Capt. Kregier marched against the new fort his forces probably crossed the Shawangunk kill at Tuthilltown, and keeping along the high ground came in rear of the fort. A portion of the command marched down the hill directly on the fort, while the other detachment cut off their escape in the other direction. This fort stood on the brow of a hill overhanging the creek; in the side of this hill there is a living spring with the Indian path still leading to it. The old Wawarsing trail led from this fort, crossing the Shawangunk mountain near Sam’s Point.

.

Aftermath

After the second war, the Dutch settlers remained suspicious of all Indians with whom they came into contact. Reports made to the Dutch government in New Amsterdam cited misgivings about the intentions of the Wappingers and even the Mohawks, who had helped the Dutch defeat the Esopus.

Dutch prisoners taken captive by natives in the Second Esopus War were transported through regions no white man had yet seen. Upon their release, they described the land to the Dutch authorities, who set out to survey it. Some of this land was later sold to French Huguenot refugees, who established the village of New Paltz.

In September 1664, the Dutch ceded New Netherland to the English. They were said to take a more patient and fair stance toward the natives. The boundaries of Indian territory were carefully established, the land taken for the Crown was paid for, and the remainder of the Native American land could no longer be taken without full payment and mutual agreement. The new treaty established safe passage for natives for trading, declared “that all past Injuryes are buryed and forgotten on both sides,” promised equal punishment (execution) for settlers and Indians found guilty of murder, and paid traditional respects to the sachems and their people.  Over the course of the next two decades, Esopus lands were bought up and the natives were peacefully but inexorably driven out, eventually taking refuge with the Mohawks north of the Shawangunk mountains.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esopus_Wars  (I know you’re not supposed to use an encylopedia for a source, but it provides a great outline and I’m not doing this project for credit)

http://www.jwwerner.com/history/BURNINGACCOUNT.html

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ny/county/orange/legends/2esopus.htm

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ny/county/orange/legends/esopuspg7.htm

http://www.lenapelifeways.org/lenape1.htm

Posted in History, Storied, Violent Death | Tagged | 8 Comments

First Esopus War

Many of our Dutch ancestors lived in Ulster County, New York in and around what is now Kingston. In 1659 and 1663 they engaged in two conflicts with the local Esopus Indians. The first Esopus War was caused by an act of Dutch cruelty and murder. While New Netherlands had many fewer colonists than New England in many ways Dutch relations with the Native Americans was worse than did the English.

One of our ancestor’s kidnapped sons decided to remain among the Indians with his new Indian wife and child. Since the Lenape had a matrilineal culture, a Pocahontas in reverse story makes sense. Overall, though, it’s a sad story,  I’ll let the narrative speak for itself.

Navigate this Report
1. Overview
2. Background
3. The Lenape

4. First Esopus War

5. Second Esopus War
6. Aftermath

Map of New York highlighting Ulster County

Ulster County, New York

First Esopus War

The first Esopus War was a short-lived conflict between Dutch farmers and the Esopus, largely started by fear and misunderstanding on the part of the settlers. On September 20, 1659, several Esopus men were hired to do some farm work for the settlers. After they had finished and had received their pay in brandy, a drunken native fired a musket in celebration. Although no one was hurt, some the Dutch townsfolk suspected foul play. Although a group of soldiers investigated and found no bad intentions, a mob of farmers and soldiers attacked the offending natives. Most escaped, but one was killed. The next day they returned with hundreds of reinforcements, and Esopus forces destroyed crops, killed livestock, and burned Dutch buildings.

Completely outnumbered and outgunned, the Dutch had little hope of winning through force. But they managed to hold out and make some small attacks, including burning the natives’ fields to starve them out. They received decisive reinforcements from New Amsterdam. The war concluded July 15, 1660, when the natives agreed to trade land for peace and food. The peace, however, was tentative at best. Tensions remained between the Esopus and the settlers, eventually leading to the second war.

May 1658 – In a letter from Thomas Chambers to Governor Stuyvesant, he writes in substance:  ”I saw that the Indians had an anker (ten-gallon keg) of brandy lying under a tree.  I tasted myself and found it was pure brandy.  About dusk they fired at and killed Harmen Jacobsen, who was standing in a yacht in the river; and during the night  they set fire to the house of  Jacob Adrijansa, and the people were compelled to flee for their lives.  Once before we were driven away and expelled from our property; as long as we are under the jurisdiction of the West India Company we ask your assistance, as Esopus could feed the whole of New Netherland.  I have informed myself among the Indians who killed Harmen, and they have promised to deliver the guilty party in bonds.  Please do not begin the war too suddenly, and not until we have constructed a stronghold for defense.”

Oct 1658 – Eight Esopus Indians broke off corn ears for Thomas Chambers. When they finished work the Indians said, “Come give us brandy.” Chambers replied, ” When it is dark.” When evening was come he gave a large bottle with brandy to the Indians. They retired to a place at no great distance from the fort and sat down to drink. The eight Indians drank there until midnight; by that time they were drunk, and they began to yell. At length the brandy came to an end. One Indian said, “Buy more brandy; we still have wampum.” The Indian who was afterwards killed went to Chambers‘ house to get more brandy. Chambers said, ” I have given you all I had.”

Dutch and Indians 2

The Indian then went to where the soldiers were, taking with him the bottle which he hid under his cloak. “Have you any brandy?” said the Indian. “Yes, I have brandy,” answered a soldier. ” Here is wampum, give me brandy for it.” “What is wampum, and what can I do with it? where is your kettle?” said the soldier. “I have no kettle, but I have a bottle here under my cloak,” replied the Indian. The soldier filled the bottle, but would take nothing for the brandy.

The Indian came to his comrades who were lying about and crying, and asked them, “Why do you cry? I have brought brandy!” Whereupon they changed their cry, and asked if he had given all the wampum. “No, a soldier gave it to me.” They replied “that is very good,” and began to drink lustily from the bottle, because they had no goblet or ladle. When the bottle was passed around the Indians began to wrangle and fight. Two of them presently said to each other, “We have no cause to fight, let us go away;” so they went away, leaving six. After a little time one of the remaining Indians said, “Come let us go away; I feel that we shall be killed.” Said the other, “You are crazy; who should kill us? We would not kill the Dutch, and have nothing to fear from them or the other Indians.” “Yes,” replied he, “but I nevertheless am so heavy-hearted.”

The bottle was passed twice, and the Indian said again, “Come, let us go; my heart is full of fears.” He went off and hid his goods in the bushes at a little distance. Coming back once more they heard the bushes crackle as the Dutch came there, without knowing who it was. Then this Indian went away, saying “Come, let us go, for we all shall be killed;” and the rest laid down together, whereupon the Dutch came and all of them fired into the Indians, shooting one in the head and capturing another. One drunken Indian was continually moving about, whereupon the Dutch fired upon him repeatedly, nearly taking his dress from his body.

Ensign Smith knew what the consequences of this outbreak would be, and he sought to ascertain who ordered the firing contrary to his express instructions. The Dutch cast all the blame on the Indians, saying that the latter fired first. The affairs of the colony being in such an unsatisfactory state, and finding the people would not respect his authority, Smith announced his intention of leaving for New Amsterdam next day. Great excitement was manifested when this became known. The people tried to dissuade him from his purpose by representing their exposed condition, and making assurances of future obedience on their part. Smith was intractable, and continued making preparations for his departure; but by an adroit measure of Stohl and Chambers, who hired all the boats in the neighborhood, he found himself unable to carry out his resolution. It was deemed expedient, however, to acquaint the Governor of the state of affairs, and accordingly Christopher Davis was dispatched down the river in a canoe for that purpose.

Davis was escorted to the river by a company of eight soldiers and ten citizens, under Sergeant Lawrentsen, Sept. 21st, 1659. On the return of the escort to the village they fell into an ambuscade near where now stands the City Hall; the Sergeant and thirteen men surrendered without firing a shot, the rest making their escape. War now began in earnest. More than five hundred Indians were in the vicinity of the fort, who kept up a constant skirmish with settlers. By means of firebrands they set fire to the House of Jacob Gebers; numbers of barracks, stacks and barns were in like manner destroyed. One day they made a desperate assault on the palisades which came near being successful. Failing in this, the Indians slaughtered all the horses, cattle and hogs they could find outside the defenses. Three weeks was a constant siege kept up so that “none dare go abroad.” Unable to take the town they vented their fury on the unfortunate prisoners.

Jacob Jansen Van Stoutenburgh, Abram Vosburg, a son of Cornelius B. Sleight, and five or six other were compelled to run the gauntlet; they were next tied to stakes, and, after being beaten and cut in the most cruel manner, were burned alive. Thomas Clapboard [Chambers], William the carpenter, Peter Hillebrants [son of Hildebrand PIETERSEN] and Evert PELS‘ son were among the captives.

These are the only names mentioned in the early records. Clapboard was taken by six warriors down the Esopus kill. At night he removed the cords by which he was bound, and successively knocked five of his captors in the head while they were asleep, killing the sixth before he could fly, and making good his escape. Another prisoner, a soldier, got home safely after a somewhat rough experience. Peter Laurentsen and Peter Hillebrants were ransomed.

Hendrick Vosberg Pels (1643 Renselaerwyck, NY – ?)  then a mere youth, was adopted into the tribe and married among them. In Lenape society,  Matrilocal residence further enhanced the position of women in society. A young married couple would live with the woman’s family, where her mother and sisters could also assist her with her growing family. Overtures were afterwards made to the Indians by the friends of the lad for his return; but the Indians answered that he “wished to stay with his squaw and pappoose, and he ought to.”

News of these events filled the whole colony with fear and forebodings. Stuyvesant had only six or seven soldiers in garrison at New Amsterdam, and they were sick and unqualified for duty. He then sent to Fort Orange and Rensselaerwyck for reinforcements; but the inhabitants of Fort Orange could not succor without leaving their own homes defenseless. The Governor asked for volunteers, offering Indians as prizes; only six or seven responded, lie then conscripted all the garrison at Amsterdam, the Company’s servants, the hands in his brewery and the clerks. The people made great opposition to this, averring that “they were not liable to go abroad and fight savages.”

Notwithstanding these hindrances Governor Stuyvesant set sail October 9th with about 160 men, and reached Esopus next day. Here he found the siege had been raised thirty-six hours before, and that the Indians had retreated to their homes whither the Governor’s troops could not follow them, for the country was then innundated with nearly a foot of water from the frequent rains.

In the spring of 1660, there was a renewal of hostilities; an Indian castle having been plundered, and several Indians taken captive, the Indians sued for peace and proposed an exchange of prisoners. Stuyvesant declined their overtures, and prosecuted the war with vigor, sending some of the captive chiefs, then in his hands, to Curaçao  as slaves to the Dutch.

The clans now held a council. Said Sewackenamo, the Esopus chief, “What will you do?” “We will fight no more,” said the warriors. “We wish to plant in peace,” replied the squaws. “We will kill no more hogs,” answered the young men.

Stuyvesant met their propositions with an extravagant demand for land. The fertile corn-planting grounds of the Walkill and Rondout valleys had excited the cupidity of the colonists. The Indians were loath to give up so much of their territory, but they finally acceded to the Governor’s demand. During the negotiations the Indians plead for the restoration of their enslaved chiefs. But in pursuance of Stuyvesant’s policy, those ancient sachems had become the chattels of Dutchmen, and were toiling, under the lash, in the maize and bean-fields among the islands of the far-off Caribbean Sea; so the Governor replied that they must be considered dead. Although deeply grieved at this, the chiefs agreed to the treaty, and departed.

Lenape by John Fawcett

.
Continue to 5. Second Esopus War

Posted in History, Storied, Violent Death | Tagged | 8 Comments

Esopus Wars

Many of our Dutch ancestors lived in Ulster County, New York in and around what is now Kingston. In 1659 and 1663 they engaged in two conflicts with the local Esopus Indians. The first Esopus War was caused by an act of Dutch cruelty and murder. While New Netherlands had many fewer colonists than New England in many ways Dutch relations with the Native Americans was worse than did the English.

One of our ancestor’s kidnapped sons decided to remain among the Indians with his new Indian wife and child. Since the Lenape had a matrilineal culture, a Pocahontas in reverse story makes sense. Overall, though, it’s a sad story,  I’ll let the narrative speak for itself.

Navigate this Report
1. Overview
2. Background
3. The Lenape

4. First Esopus War

5. Second Esopus War
6. Aftermath

Map of New York highlighting Ulster County

Ulster County, New York


Overview

The Esopus Wars were two localized conflicts between Dutch settlers and the Esopus tribe of Lenape Indians during the latter half of the 17th century in what is now Ulster County, New York. Like many other wars during the colonial period, at bottom they were the result of competition between European and Indian cultures, aggravated by mutual misunderstanding and suspicion. The first battle was started by Dutch settlers; the second war was a continuation of grudge on the part of the Esopus tribe.

The most lasting result of the wars was the display of power by the Esopus. These two wars coincided with the broadening of English interests in the Dutch territories of the New World. The Dutch difficulty in defeating the Esopus alerted the English to the power of these Native Americans.

Background

The city of Kingston was first called Esopus after a local Esopus tribe, then Wiltwijck (sometimes anglicized to Wiltwyck). Settled in 1651, it was one of the three large Hudson River settlements in New Netherland, the other two being Beverwyck, now Albany, and New Amsterdam, now New York City.  The colony was conceived as a private business venture to exploit the North American fur trade. New Netherland was slowly settled during its first decades, partially as a result of policy mismanagement by the Dutch West India Company (GWC), and conflicts with Native Americans. Not until 1654, when forced to surrender Dutch Brazil and forfeit the richest sugar-producing area in the world, did the company belatedly focus on colonization in North America.

Dutch and Indians 1

Margriet (Margarita) HENDRICKSE was born about 1622 in The Netherlands. Her parents were Hendrick HENDRICKS Van Gouts and Kiis [__?__].  She first married in 1639 in Recife, Brazil to Mathijs Jansen Van KEULEN (1602 -1648),  After Matijs died,  Margariet married again before 16 Dec 1648 to Capt. Thomas “Clapboard” Chambers, the “lord of the Manor of Foxhall” at Kingston, NY.

File:Nieuw Nederland and Nya Sverige.svg

Fort Orange (Albany), Wilwijk,, (Kingston) and Nieuw Amsterdam (New York) were the three major Dutch settlements in Nieuw Niderland

Margriet took Mathijs’ lands at Wildwyck after his death. She was one of the 17 original communicants at the Old Dutch Church, Kingston.  Mrs Van Keuren Chambers was one of the first settlers of Kingston, by virtue of an Indian deed dated 5 June 1652. A Dutch patent for 76 acres was issued to her by Gov. Peter Stuyvesant on 8 Nov, 1653. Either late 1656, or sometime during 1657, Thomas and Margriet moved to Esopus.

In the Spring of 1662, Peter Stuyvesant, Dutch Governor of Niew Amsterdam, established the village of Niew Dorp on the site of an earlier Native American Settlement. On June 7, 1663, during the Esopus Wars the Esopus Indians attacked and destroyed the village, and took captives who were later released.  England took over the Dutch Colony on September 6, 1664. On September 17, 1669, the village, abandoned since the Esopus Indian attack, was resettled and renamed Hurley.

The Lenape

The Lenape have a current estimated population of 16,000.  Lenape, meaning “original people.” Europeans named them Delaware because they lived along the Delaware River and its tributaries.  It’s ironic these people were called the Delaware because the name of the bay, the river, and, consequently, the American Indian people and U.S. state all comes from our ancestor Thomas WEST 3rd Baron de la Warr (1577 – 1618)  (Wikipedia).

As a result of the American Revolutionary War and later Indian removals from the eastern United States, the main groups now live in Ontario (Canada), Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. In Canada, they are enrolled in the Munsee-Delaware Nation, the Moravian of the Thames First Nation, and the Delaware of Six Nations; in the United States, they are enrolled in three federally recognized tribes, that is, the Delaware Nation and the Delaware Tribe of Indians, both located in Oklahoma, and the Stockbridge-Munsee Community, located in Wisconsin. Groups of self-identified Lenape, such as the Lenape Nation of Pennsylvania, also live in other places where they are not officially recognized by the subsequent settler nation state.

At the time of European contact in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Lenape inhabited a region on the North Atlantic coast roughly comprised the area around and between the Delaware and lower Hudson rivers.  Although never politically unified, it is frequently referred to as Lenapehoking or Lenape country.

Lenapehoking hosted over two dozen Lenape polities including Esopus. Some of their names, such as Manhattan, Raritan, and Tappan, remain inscribed on the landscape. Based on the historical record of the mid-seventeenth century, it has been estimated that most Lenape polities consisted of several hundred people. The term Algonquian is occasionally used as a shorthand for people who spoke similar languages, but they had otherwise little in common.

Lenape Society

Lenape society is organized into clans determined by matrilineal descent. That is, children belong to the mother’s clan, where they gain their status and identity. The mother’s eldest brother was more significant as a mentor to the boy children than was their father, who was of another clan. The Lenape had three clans (or phratries) – Wolf, Turtle and Turkey – which traced their descent through the female line.  For example, if a mother belonged to the Turtle Clan, then each of her children also belonged to the same clan.  The sons had to marry women from other clans, and their children belonged to their mother’s clan.

Hereditary leadership passed through the maternal line, and women elders could remove leaders of whom they disapproved. Traditionally, the Lenape had no concept of landed property. But clans had use rights.

We now know that two related but distinct groups of Indians occupied Lenapehoking; not three as is sometimes stated.  Those living in the northern half (above the Raritan River and the Delaware Water Gap) spoke a Munsee dialect of the Eastern Algonquian Delaware language, while those to the south spoke Unami – a slightly different dialect of the same language.  The beliefs and cultures of these two general groups, although very similar, differed somewhat

The Indians, inhabiting Ulster County and the adjacent regions, belonged to the Munsee (at the place where stones are gathered together) tribe.  They occupied the head waters of the Delaware and the west bank of the Hudson from the Catskills to the borders of New Jersey. Their principal band was the Minisinks (the place of the Minsi), who occupied the southwest part of Ulster and Orange counties and the adjoining parts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  The other bands were the Catskills, Mamekotings, Warwarsinks, Waoranecs, and Warranawonkongs.  They were called the five tribes of the Esopus country.

  • The Catskills had their principal village just north of the Esopus creek.
  • The Warwarsinks were located in the town of Warwarsing, at or near the junction of the Warwarsing and the Rondout creek.
  • The Mamekotings occupied Mamakating valley west of the Shawangunk mountains.
  • The Waoranecs were located at the mouth of Wappingers creek and around the cove or bay at the head of Newburgh bay.
  • The Warranawonkongs was the principal band of the Esopus Indians. They had a village in the town of Shawangunk and another in the town of Warwarsing. Their wigwams stood at and about Wildwyck, now Kingston. They frequented the mouth of the Rondout creek.

The tribes were divided into clans or families, each having its chief. The names of some of these families have been preserved, as the Amogarickakan family, the Kettsypowy family, the Mahon family, and the Katatawis family.

Descendants of the Esopus tribe now live on the Stockbridge-Munsee reservation in Shawano County, Wisconsin as and among the Munsee Delaware of Ontario. Historians believe surviving Esopus joined with the Ramapough Mountain Indians of New Jersey following the wars, as well as some Wappinger people after Kieft’s War in 1643

Continue to 4. First Esopus War

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esopus_Wars  (I know you’re not supposed to use an encylopedia for a source, but it provides a great outline and I’m not doing this project for credit)

http://www.jwwerner.com/history/BURNINGACCOUNT.html

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ny/county/orange/legends/2esopus.htm

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ny/county/orange/legends/esopuspg7.htm

http://www.lenapelifeways.org/lenape1.htm

Posted in History, Storied, Violent Death | Tagged | 10 Comments

Jan Mathijsen Van Ceulen

Jan Mathijsen Van CEULEN (1580 – 1639) was Alex’s 11th Grandfather; one of 4,096 in this generation of the Shaw line.

Jan Mathijsen van Ceulen was baptised 18 Jun, 1580, St Walburgis Church in Antwerp. His parents were Mathij Wolfaertse Van KEULEN and Mayken MERTENS . He married and Annetje Jansz in Amsterdam in 1600. She took the name Annetje Van Keulen. Jan died 30 Sep 1639 – Reusel-de Mierden, Noord-Brabant, Netherlands.

Jan was baptized in Sint Walburgis Church Antwerp. This church is no longer in existence

Annetje Jans was born

Children of Jan and Annetje

Name Born Married Departed
1. Mathijs Jansen Van KEULEN baptized
2 Feb 1601/02 in the Austin Friars Dutch Reformed Church in London, England
Margriet HENDRICKSE
c. 1640
New Amsterdam
16 Oct 1648 in Fort Orange, NY
2. Conraet Jansen Van Keulen Aft 1603
Amsterdam
Aft 1646
Amsterdam
3.  Cornellis Jansen Van Keulen  c. 1605
Amsterdam
 Lyntje Michielse  Aft 1648
4. Annetje Van Keulen  12 Oct 1606
Amsterdam
5. Klaes Jansen Van Keulen c. 1613
Amsterdam
Pierterje Lubberse
6. Magdalena Van Keulen 18 Aug 1615
Amsterdam

Ancestors

Jan’s parents were Mathijs Wolfaertse van Ceulen and Mayken Mertens. Mathijs was b. Antwerp, 1545, and died in Amsterdam, Holland, on April 23, 1619.

i. Hendrick Mathijs Van Keulen was born between 1565 and 1585. He married Barbel Willems Van Deden.

ii. Lijsbeth Mathijsz Van Keulen was born in Antwerp about 1570. She married Arent Dicksz on November 29, 1590, in Utrecht, Netherlands.

iii. Jan Mathijs Van KEULEN

Jan’s  grandfather was Wolfaert van Ceulen. Wolfaert probably was the last of this line to have been born in Cologne. Cologne is in Germany today, but it was part of the Spanish Netherlands in the 1500s. The Catholic inquisiton is what forced these Protestants to move north to the safety of the United Netherlands.

i. Jacob Wolfaertse Van Keulen was born in Antwerp, Belgium, in 1544. He married first, Selken Jannsens, on 20 Feb 1577/78, in Antwerp. He married second, Tannaken Claudesz Van Bruiyssel, on June 18, 1594, in London, England.  Jacob   lived in London(Austin Friars Church records) and Mathijs’ parents were probably visting him when Mathijs was born in London.

ii. Mathij Wolfaertse Van KEULEN

A court of Holland, Amsterdam document, dated 1 July, 1633, gives Jan’s age as 52. It also names the wife (Lyntje Michelse) of his son Cornellis, and gives her age. Only other document found, so far, bearing his name, is the baptismal record of oldest son, Mathij Jansen Van Keulen, 2 Feb, 1601, Austin Friars DRC, London, England.

Children

1. Mathijs Jansen Van KEULEN (See his page)

*Baptism date controversy. It is known that Jan Mathijs van Ceulen was in London on business 1601/1602. Also known is that Jan Mathijs’ uncle, Jacob Wolfaertse van Ceulen, was married in and probably living in London. The 2 Feb, 1602 Austin Friars baptism of Mathijs was always assumed to be son of Jan Mathijs, because of the fact he was there, plus the fact that there was no baptism of a Mathijs in Holland, specifically Amsterdam. However, examination of the actual handwritten baptismal shows name of the father as Mathijs, instead of Jan Mathijs. Clerical errors were common in church records, so the question becomes…is this Mathijs the son of Jan Mathijs and the church record is in error, or is this another Mathijs van Ceulen? Mother’s name was not included in the record, and sponsor names gave no clues. Until evidence is received to the contrary, the 2 Feb, 1602 date will be used.

2. Conraet Jansen Van Keulen

Aug 1639 – Mathijs is recorded on the land of brother, Conraet Jansen van Ceulen (aka van Keulen) in North Harlem…a plot called “Keulens Hook”(History of Harlem).

Van Keulen's Hook - In 1639, Conraet van Keulen secured a Patens for 100 Morgens at Otterspoor, renamed Van Keulens Hook. This being located between present day 108th and 125th Streets, along the River, in Harlem.

Conraet held 2 land Patens on Manhattan, the first at Otterspoor (renamed Van Keulens Hook), and the second at Besteaver Kreupelbosch(old man woods..supposedly refers to Admiral DeRuyter, often refferred to as “The Old Man”)

In 1646, a court action places Conraet still in Amsterdam. There is no record of his ever coming to the Colony

3. Cornellis Jansen Van Keulen

Cornellis’ wife Lyntje Michielse was born about 1607 in Amsterdam.

In 1639 he and brother Klaes were sailors aboard The West Indies Raven. The Raven manifest lists 2 cargoes consigned by brother Mathij back to Amsterdam

Cornellis narrowly escaped an Indian raid at Achter Col, in which the colonists fled when the Indians set fire to the main house.

Cornelis and Klaes were witnesses in a case involving illegal arms trading with the Indians in 1648. They delivered powder aboard their vessel, St Beninjo, which was later resold to the Indians

Cornellis made several voyages to the Colonies, but there is no record of him ever living there

Matthys’ brother was Cornelis Jansen van Ceulen  which is the same name as a famous British portrait painter.  However, Cornelis the brother was born in Amsterdam about 1605, and died after 1648 and married Lyntje Michielse. Cornelis the painter was bapt. 14 Oct 1593, London and burried 5 Aug 1661, Utrecht.  Our Jansen van Cuelens were establishment, but the painter’s were refugees. He’s not our relative, but I enjoyed  looking at his portraits.

5. Klaes Jansen Van Keulen

Klaes’ wife Pierterje Lubberse

5. Magdalena Van Keulen

Sources

http://home.comcast.net/~sonne/ken/dat239.html#1

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~deadrelatives/pyan596.htm#12441

Posted in 13th Generation, Line - Shaw, Place Names | 3 Comments

Andries Arentse Bradt

Andries Arentse BRADT (1578 – )  Alex’s 11th Grandfather; one of 4,096 in this generation of the Shaw line.

Andries Arentse Bradt was born in 1578 in Fredrikstad, Smaalenenes,(now Ostfold), Norway. He married Aeffi Eva Pieterse KINETIS 1606 in Fredrikstad, Smaalenenes, Ostfold, Norway

Aeffi Eva Pieterse Kinetis was born in 1584 in Fredrikstad, Smaalenenes, Ostfold, Norway. Aeffi died in 1630.

Andries was born in Østfold County, Norway

Fredrikstad, Smaalenenes (now in Østfold, Norway)  is town at the mouth of the Glommen, the largest river in Norway. Fredrikstad was a brand new city when Albert was born.  After Sarpsborg was burned to the ground during the Northern Seven Years’ War, the ruling king, King Frederik II, of Denmark, decided by to rebuild the city 15 kilometers south of the original location. The name Fredrikstad was first used in a letter from the King dated 6 February 1569. The temporary fortification built during the Hannibal War (1644–1645)  became permanent in the 1660s.

Whether he was related to the Bratts of Norwegian nobility, can not be ascertained. The Bratt family lived in Bergen, Norway, before the early part of the fifteenth century, when it moved to the northern part of Gudbrandsdalen. It had a coat of arms until about the middle of the sixteenth century. Since that time the Bratts belong to the Norwegian peasantry. They have a number of large farms in Gudbrandsdalen, Hedemarken, Toten, and Land.

Also note that there is another known family member, Albert’s uncle, Lourens Pieters. He assisted Albert with his marriage intention in Amsterdam. Whether Lourens was his father’s brother, mother’s brother, or married to one of the parents’ sisters is unknown.

Children of Albert and Aeffi :

Name Born Married Departed
1. Albert Andriessen BRADT  26 August 1607 in Fredrikstad, Smaalenenes (now in Østfold, Norway Annatje Barentse VAN ROTMERS on 11 Apr 1632 at the Oude Kerke, Amsterdam, Netherlands
.
Pieterje Jans. Pieterje
.
Geertruyt Pieterse Coeymans
7 Jun 1686 near Albany, NY.
2. Arent Andriessen Bradt 1610 in Frederickstad, Norway Catalyntje De Vos
1648
Albany, NY
 1662
Schenectady, Schenectady, New York,
3. Engeltjen Bradt
4.

According to patronymics, Albert Andriessen Bradt and Arent Andriessen Bradt’s father would have been named Anders (the Norwegian form of the name Andries).

Although there is a legend that Albert and Arent’s mother was a Mohawk woman named Kinetis or Kenutje, there is no positive proof in the manner. In fact, it is highly unlikely because Albert and Arent are known to have come from Norway, settling first in Amsterdam, then New Netherland. Albert was often referred to, in contemporary records as “Noorman”, meaning “Norseman”. There is no mention, however, in the primary records, of either Albert or Arent being part Mohawk.

Albert and Arent’s mother is now believed by many researchers to be named Eva. This argument is based on the fact that both of the brothers named their eldest daughters Eva and Aefje (a Dutch equivalent of Eva). In the Dutch naming system, the eldest, or sometimes the second eldest daughter, was named after her paternal grandmother. As Albert’s wife’s mother was named Geesje, this rules out the possibility that these girls were named after their maternal grandmothers instead.

Children

1. Albert Andriessen BRADT  (See his page)

2. Arent Andriessen Bradt

Arent settled in Rensselaerswyck with his brother’s family on the Normanskill where he worked for his brother Albert Andriesse as a tobacco planter. After a decade, he ran his own sawmill, perhaps did some trading, and may have kept a tavern. He spent time at the downriver settlement of Esopus (where one of his children was born), and travelled to Manhattan and Long Island on business.

During the late 1640s, he married Catalina De Vos of Rensselaerswyck. The last of their six children was born in 1661.

Arent relocated to Beverwyck and was among the first proprietors when houselots were partitioned in 1652. The next year he took the oath that gave him full municipal rights. He also had a lot on the river north of the village. In 1658, he leased an island in the Hudson and paid rent in wheat in oats.

In 1662, he was among the first patentees of Schenectady. Failing to reach his fiftieth birthday, Arent Andriesse Bradt died in 1663. His children married the children of Schenectady’s leading families and established strong Bradt presence on the Mohawk as well.

Schenectady Original Owners of the Farms in the Bouwery -- Farm #1: Catalynje De Vos Bradt

15 Original Proprietors of Schenectady

1. Arent Van Curler
2. Philip Hendrickse Brouwer
3. Alexander Lindsey Glen
4. Simon Volkertse Veeder
5. Swear (Ahasuerus) Teunise Van Velsen
6. Peter Adriance Van Woggelum
7. Cornelis Antonisen Van Slyck
8. Gerrit Bancker
9. William Teller
10. Bastiaan De Winter
11. Catalynje De Vos Bradt
12. Pieter Danielse Van Olinda
13. Peter Jacobse Borsboom
14. Jan Barentse Wemp(le)
15. Jaques Cornelise Van Slyck

Arent’s wife Catalyntje De Vos was born 1628 in Holland. Her parents were Andries de Vos and Margritze Coeymans.  She emigrated with her parents 17 May 1641 from Amsterdam, Holland, arriving 20 August 1641, New Amsterdam, New Netherland. After Arent died, she married Barent Janse Van Ditmars after 12 November 1664 and Claes Janse Van Boekhoven in 1691.  Catalyntje died 1712 in Schenectady, Schenectady, New York.

Andries De Vos  was a deputy director of Rensselaerwyck and in 1648 a magistrate and member of the court at Albany. On 27 Feb 1656 Andries and his son-in-law, Arent Bratt, were appointed curators for the estate of Cornelia Vedos (De Vos) wife of Christoper Davids at Albany.

After the death of Arent about 1662, the grants of land allotted to him were confirmed to Catalyntje. Her home lot in the village, was the west quarter of the block bounded by Washington, Union, Church and State streets, being about 200 ft sq. Amsterdam measure. On the 12th of Nov. 1664, being about to marry her second husband, Barent Janse Van Ditmars, she contracted with the guardians of her children, to set off for them from her estate, 1,000 guilders, and mortgaged her bouwery, No. 1, on the Bouwland to secure this sum to them.

Catalyntje’s husband Ditmars and her son Andries Arentse Bratt, “shott & Burnt & also his childn“were killed in the Schenectady Massacre of Feb. 08, 1689/90.

In 1691, she married Claas Janse Van Bockhoven, whom she also outlived. She died in 1712.

Schenectady Map 1690 showing the homes of many of colonists killed in the massacre -- Blue X marks the home of Elizabeth Hendrix and Wouter Albertse Van Den Uythoff. -- Red X marks the home of Barent Janse Van Ditmars, Catalyntje De Vos Bradt Van Ditmarsand Andries & Arentse Bradt

The Schenectady Massacre was a Canadien attack against the village of Schenectady in the colony of New York on 8 February 1690. A party of more than 200 Canadiens and allied Mohawk nationSault and Algonquin warriors attacked the unguarded community, destroying most of the homes, and killing or capturing most of its inhabitants. It was in retaliation to the Lachine massacre, and related to the Beaver Wars in North America and King William’s War between France and England.

In much of the late 17th century, the Iroquois and the colonists of New France engaged in a protracted struggle for control of the economically important fur trade in northern North America. In August 1689, the Iroquois launched one of their most devastating raids against the French frontier community of Lachine. This attack occurred after France and England declared war on each other, but before the news reached North America.

New France’s governor the comte de Frontenac organized an expedition from Montreal to attack English outposts to the south, as punishment for English support of the Iroquois, and as a general widening of the war against the northernmost English colonies. The expedition was one of three directed at isolated northern and western settlements, and was originally aimed at Fort Orange (present day Albany).

The raiding expedition consisted of about 160 Canadiens, mostly frontier-savvy coureurs de bois, with 100 Indian warriors, primarily Catholic MohawkSault and Algonquins. They made their way across the ice of Lake Champlain and Lake George toward the English communities on the Hudson River.

Schenectady Massacre

Fort Orange appeared to be well defended, and a scouting reported on February 8 that no one was guarding the stockade at the small frontier community of Schenectady to the west. Schenectady and Albany were so politically polarized in the wake of the 1689 Leisler’s Rebellion that the opposing factions had not agreed on the setting of guards.

Finding no sentinels and the gate ajar, the raiders silently entered Schenectady and launched their attack two hours before dawn. The invaders burned houses and barns, and killed men, women and children. Most were in night clothing and had no time to arm themselves. By the morning of February 9, the community lay in ruins — more than 60 buildings were burned. Most of the residents were dead or taken prisoner, with some survivors managing to flee as refugees to the fort at Albany.

Symon Schermerhorn was one of these. Although wounded, he rode to Albany to warn them of the massacre.

Near midnight on February 8, 1690 Symon Schermerhorn was roused by his great dog Negar. When he opened the shutter he saw, almost in disbelief, a column of men in strange uniforms, followed by a file of Indians. Rousing his brother, he said, “Ryer, the French are in town – I will ride to Albany and give the alarm.” He was able to saddle his horse and get to the north gate before he was fired upon, wounding his thigh and the horse. His route passed close to the river and through Niskayuna, where there was no doctor. He had to pull his mare down to walk because of the pain. It is logical that he turned down the Crooked Road (Old Niskayuna Road) and on down the hill to the stockade gate. Numbed by the cold and weak from loss of blood he could barely stammer “Schenectady – French – Indians – Fire – everything afire.”

In commemoration of this, the mayor of Schenectady repeats the ride [about 19 miles] every year. Most mayors have done so on horseback, though a few have preferred the comfort of an automobile.

Burning of Schenectady

The 60 dead included 38 men, 10 women and 12 children. The raiders departed with 27 prisoners and 50 horses. The community took many years to recover from the attack. John A. Glen, who lived in Scotia, across the river from Schenectady, had shown previous kindness to the French. In gratitude, the raiding party took the Schenectady prisoners to him, inviting him to claim any relatives. Glen claimed as many survivors as he could, and the raiders took the rest to Canada. Typically those captives who were too young or old or ill to keep up along the arduous journeys were killed along the way. As was the pattern in later raids, some of the younger captives were adopted by Mohawk and other Indian families in Canada; others were ransomed by communities in New England.

By capturing Albany, and perhaps destroying it, the French might have succeeded
in detaching the Iroquois from the English besides holding the key to the
navigation of the Hudson.  But it was not done, and now the whole English
province was stirred up like a hornet’s nest over the carnage wrought at
Schenectady.

Sources:

http://boydhouse.com/michelle/dehooges/anderseva.html

http://trees.ancestry.com/owt/person.aspx?pid=2856818&st=1

http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~rwhitney/whitney/4/3312.htm

http://brownwheelerfamilyhistory4.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/28b-military-roll-of-honor/

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/albany/bios/b/aranbradt4181.html

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~vanepsgenealogy/proppat.html

Posted in 13th Generation, Line - Shaw, Pioneer, Tavern Keeper, Violent Death | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Johann Conrad Weiser

Johann Conrad WEISER Sr. (1662 – 1746) (Wikipedia) was a German soldier, baker, and farmer who fled his homeland with thousands of other German Palatines and settled in New York. Weiser became a leader in the Palatine community and was founder of their settlement of Weiser’s Dorf, now known as Middleburgh, New York. When the Germans were in dispute with their English landlords and the colonial government of New York, he was among the representatives chosen to go to London and seek help from the British government. This contributed to the downfall of the governorship of Robert Hunter.  He was Alex’s 9th Grandfather; one of 1,024 in this generation of the Shaw line.

Johann Conrad Weiser was born in 1662 in Großaspach, Württemberg, Holy Roman Empire. His parents were Jacob WEISER and Anna TREFTZ.   He married Anna Magdalena UEBELE in 1686 in Germany. After Anna died, he married Anna Margaret Müller in 1711 in Schoharie, Schoharie, New York.  Johann died May 1746 in Womelsdorf, Berks County, Pennsylvania.

Weiser fought during the Nine Years’ War and served as a Corporal in the military. He was a member of the Württemberg Blue Dragoons, and was stationed at Affstätt, Herrenberg, Württemberg in the 1690s. Soon after the birth of Conrad Jr., the Weisers moved back to their ancestral home of Großaspach. Afterward, he followed the trade of a baker. 

Weiser and his family were German Palatines who fled Germany because of the destruction of crops by invading French armies, and the icy cold winter of 1708-09.

Anna Magdalena Uebele was born 1666 in Großaspach, Germany. Her parents were Hanna Johannas UEBELE and Anna Catherine [__?__]. Anna  died suddenly of an attack of the gout while pregnant with their fifteenth child on May 1, 1709.  Conrad Weiser  wrote for his children, “Buried beside Her Ancestors, she was a god-fearing woman and much loved by Her neighbors. Her motto was Jesus I live for thee, I die for thee, thine am I in life and death.”

On June 24, 1709, Weiser and eight children, moved away from Großaspach.   The Weisers, along with over 15,000 other Palatines, left their homeland and traveled west to the Rhine River, and then down the Rhine into the Netherlands. As the number of German refugees increased, the Dutch decided to send them to England. In late summer 1709, the Weisers arrived in London, along with thousands of other Germans.

Anna Margaret Müller was born in 1680 in Germany. His children disapproved of the marriage, as Conrad Jr. writes, “It was an unhappy match, and was the cause of my brothers and sisters’ all becoming scattered.”

Children of Johann Conrad and Anna Magdalena:

Name Born Married Departed
1. Maria Catharina Weiser 1686
Großaspach
Germany
Hans Conrad Boss
19 May 1705
Großaspach  Württemberg, Germany
25 Feb 1761
Grossapach, Germany
2. Anna Margarete Weiser 1689
Großaspach
Germany
Oct 1748
New Jersey
3. Anna Magdalena WEISER 1692
Großaspach, Bocknang, Württemberg, Germany
Jan Johannes DeLONG
1690 Rochester, Ulster, New York
1760
Rochester, Ulster, NY
4. Maria Sabina Weiser 1694
Großaspach
Germany
1739 America
5. John Frederick Weiser 27 Feb 1705
Großaspach
Germany
Dec 1711
Livingston Manor, New York
6. John Conrad Weiser (Wikipedia) 2 Nov 1696
Affstätt
Herrenberg,
the Duchy of
Württemberg
Anna Eva Feg (Feck)
22 Nov 1720 Schoharie, New York
13 Jul 1760
Womelsdorf, Berks, Pennsylvania,
7. George Frederick Weiser 1697
Großaspach
Germany
Sarah Scudder
Smithtown,NY
.
Rebecca Udall
31 Dec 1729 Suffolk, New York
 1764
Smithtown, Long Island, New York,
8. Christopher Weiser 24 Feb 1699
Großaspach
Germany
Maria Catharine Roeder
29 Jul 1762 Emmaus, Lehigh, Pennsylvania
16 Jun 1768
Emmaus, Pennsylvania
9. Anna Barbara Weiser 17 Oct 1700
Großaspach
Germany
Nicholas Pickard
1722 Schenectady, Schenectady, New York
1750
New York
10. Rebecca Weiser 6 Jun 1703
Großaspach
Germany
8 Jun 1704
Großaspach, Württemberg, Germany
11. Erhard Frederick Weiser 11 Jun 1706
Großaspach
Germany
29 Nov 1707
Großaspach, Württemberg, Germany

.
Children of Johann Conrad and Anna Margaret Miller:

Name Born Married Departed
12. Jacob Weiser 1708
New York
Anna Eva Batdorf
13. Rebecca Weiser 1713
Schoharie, Schoharie, New York
Frederick Klein
1733
Greene, New York
 New York
14. John Frederick Weiser 14 Nov 1714
Schoharie, Schoharie, New York
Leana Catherine Henrich
19 Apr 1738 Loonenburg, Greene, New York
2 Sep 1769
Swatara, Lebanon, Pennsylvania

The Great Frost (as it was known in England) or Le Grand Hiver (as it was known in France) was an extraordinarily cold winter in Europe in late 1708 and early 1709,  and was found to be the coldest European winter during the past 500 years. France and the Palatine were  particularly hard hit by the winter, with the subsequent famine estimated to have caused 600,000 deaths by the end of 1710.  Climate scientists don’t know what caused this event, but it was recorded that

  • Chickens’ combs froze solid and fell off.
  • Major bodies of water like lakes, rivers and the Baltic sea froze solid or froze over.
  • Soil froze to a depth of a meter.
  • Livestock died frozen in barns.
  • Trees exploded from the extreme cold.
  • Sailors aboard English naval vessels out at sea died from the cold.
  • Fish froze in rivers, game died in the fields, and small birds died by the millions.
  • Herbs and exotic fruit trees died, as did hardy oak and ash trees.
  • The wheat crop failed.
  • People went to bed and woke to find their nightcaps frozen to the bedstead.
  • Bread froze so hard it took an axe to cut it.

The Winter of 1709/10 was the coldest in Europe in 500 years Le lagon gelé en 1708, by Gabriele Bella, a lagoon which froze over in 1708, Venice, Italy.


Queen Anne of Great Britain
 was sympathetic toward the German Palatines, and allowed them to stay in England. However, as their numbers grew, the Board of Trade and Plantations prepared a plan to send them to America, where the Crown promised them free land after they worked off their passage by producing naval stores. The Weisers remained in England for a few months. They left England December of 1709 on the Lyon, one of ten ships carrying 2,800 people to America, including Weiser and his family. The Lyon arrived in New York on June 13, 1710.

The 2,400 who survived the voyage to New York—more than half the number of people in Manhattan at the time—were at first confined in the harbor, by typhus, to what is now called Governor’s Island.  After the disease ran its course, the surviving refugees were taken up the Hudson River to Livingstone’s manor a 160,000 acre  tract of land granted to Robert Livingston the Elder through the influence of Governor Thomas Dongan, and confirmed by royal charter of George I of Great Britain in 1715, or as it was called by the Germans Lowenstein’s Manor.

Life in the New York colony

Despite being promised free land, the Germans were required to work for several years to pay for their transportation expenses. The Germans were also forced to pay rent for their property. The Germans were divided into five camps, and Weiser was appointed to be in charge of one.  England was at the time having trouble obtaining the Swedish pitch and tar needed to keep the English fleet seaworthy. The Germans were to grow hemp and produce tar from the trees, but they were unsuitable. Weiser took the Germans’ complaints to governor Robert Hunter. In 1711, the English conscripted German Palatines to fight the French in northern New York. Weiser served as a captain in one of the Palatine contingents. Upon their return, the Palatines discovered that their families had nearly starved in their absence. Again, Weiser led the Palatines in complaining to Governor Hunter. 

In 1711, Weiser remarried to Anna Margaretha Müller. His children disapproved of the marriage, as Conrad Jr. writes, “It was an unhappy match, and was the cause of my brothers and sisters’ all becoming scattered.” 

In the fall of 1713, Weiser and his family reached Schenectady. They stayed at the home of John Meyndert during the winter of 1713-14. The Mohawk, part of the Iroquois Confederacy, helped the German Palatines throughout the winter, in which they earned their trust. After negotiating with the Mohawk, the Germans were given permission to move further west in the valley. In the spring of 1714, with the help of Mohawk Indian guides, Weiser led his family, along with about 150 other families to Schoharie, located 40 miles  west of Albany.

Today, 1000 people live in Schoharie Village, the name is a native word for driftwood. Due to Hurricane Irene in August 2011 the Village experienced a 500-year flood which inundated large portions of the Village with up to 7 feet of water.

Map of New York highlighting Schoharie County

Schoharie County, New York

At this time, a Maqua chief named Quaynant visited Weiser, and suggested that his son, the younger Conrad, go with him and learn the Maqua language, and he did. The Germans who settled here were very poor to start out with. At Schoharie, they grew corn, potatoes, and ground beans to get through the following year. Life was harsh, and families sometimes went two or three days without food.

Conrad Weiser Jr wrote

In the spring my father removed from Schenectady to Schochary, with about 150 families in great poverty. One borrowed a horse here, another there, also a cow and plow harnesses. With these things they united and broke up jointly so much land that they raised nearly enough corn for their own consumption the following year. But this year they suffered much from hunger, and made many meals on the wild potatoes and ground beans which grew in great abundance at that place. The Indians called the potatoes Ochna-nada, the grounds beans Otach-ragara. When we wished for meal, we had to travel 35 to 40 miles to get it, and had then to borrow it on credit. They would get a bushel of wheat here, a couple at another place, and were often absent from home three or four days before they could reach their suffering wives and children crying for bread.

The people had settled in villages, of which there were seven. The first and nearest, Schenectady, was called Kneskern-dorf 2. Gerlacho-dorf; 3. Fuchsen-dorf; 4. Hans George Schmidts-dorf; 5. Weisers-dorf, or Brunnen-dorf [now Schoharie Village,]; 6. Hartman’s-dorf; 7. Ober Weisers-dorf. So named after the deputies who were sent from Livingston’s manor to the Maqua country

Eventually, more food was grown, and thus life improved and people no longer starved. But, despite the fact that Hunter had let the Germans go free, he threatened the Germans not to move to Schoharie, or he would see it as rebellion. 

Weiser’s Dorf Schoharie County New York

Conrad’s son writes

Towards the end of July I returned from among the Indians to my father, and had made considerable progress, or had learned the greater part of the Maqua language. An English mile from my father’s house there lived several Maqua families, and there was always something for me to do in interpreting, but without pay. There was no one else to be found among our people who understood the language, so that I gradually became completely master of the language, so far as my years and other circumstances permitted.

Here now this people lived peaceably for several years without preachers or magistrates. Each one did as he thought proper. About this time I became very sick and expected to die, and was willing to die, for my stepmother was indeed a stepmother to me. By her influence my father treated me very harshly; I had no other friend, and had to bear hunger and cold. I often thought of running away, but the sickness mentioned put a bit in my mouth; I was bound as if by a rope to remain with my father to obey him.

The people had taken possession of Schoharie without informing the Governor of New York. In 1715, Hunter sent an agent, Adam Vrooman, to Schoharie, to make deeds for the Palatines, although the Mohawk had granted them the land.  The Palatines were resistant, and the land that the Germans had settled on in Schoharie was taken away and granted by Hunter  to seven rich merchants, four of whom lived in Albany, the other three in New York. The names of those in Albany were Myndert Shyller, John Shyller, Robert Livingston (the one with the 160,000 acre manor), Peter Van Brugken; of those in New York were George Clerk, at that time Secretary, Doctor Stadts, Rip Van Dam.

The German deputies were stripped of their titles, and the promise of free land by Queen Anne was ignored.  Hunter authorized a warrant for Weiser’s arrest, after Vrooman complained of mistreatment while in Schoharie, but Weiser escaped. This brought an uproar, and the Germans rebelled. They drove out the sheriff who was sent from Albany, and became increasingly hostile to the government.

Adam Vrooman was father-in-law to Hilletje LANSING’s son Joachim Ketel.  Here’s the story from his perspective

Adam Vrooman Bio from Genealogical and family history of northern New York : a record of the achievements of her people in the making of a commonwealth

Upon this a great uproar arose in Schocharie and Albany, because many persons in Albany wished the poor people to retain their lands. The people of Schocharie divided into two parties; the strongest did not wish to obey, but to keep the land, and therefore sent deputies to England to obtain a grant from Queen Anne not only for Schocharie, but for more land in addition. But the plans did not succeed according to their wishes.

Commissioner to London

After five years of hostility between the Germans and the New York government, the German Palatines decided to send representatives to appeal to the Board of Trade in London. The community sent three men to represent them: Johann Conrad Weiser, Wilhelm Scheff, and Gerhardt Walrath. Hunter and his allies worked on a compromise to prevent the men from leaving. Because Hunter had threatened to arrest Weiser, the three commissioners decided to leave from Philadelphia instead of New York. They departed the city in 1718, but fell into the hands of pirates in the Delaware Bay. They lost their personal money, but not that of the colony. Conrad was three times tied up and flogged, but would not confess to having money; finally William Scheff, the other deputy, said to the pirates, this man and I have a purse in common, and I have already given it to you, he had nothing to give you. They were released and left without money and suitable clothing.

The ship stopped at Boston for more supplies. The commissioners finally arrived in London and found that Queen Anne had died. The new monarch, King George I, was not interested in their case.

They still found some of the old friends and advocates of the Germans, among whom were the Chaplains at the King’s German Chapel, Messrs. Boehn and Roberts, who did all in their power. The affairs of the deputies finally reached the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, and the Governor of New York, Robert Hunter, was called home. In the meanwhile, the deputies got into debt; Walrath, the third deputy, became homesick, and embarked on a vessel bound to New York, but died at sea.

Weiser and Scheff  were thrown into prison; they wrote in time for money, but some of their letters were intercepted and owing to the ignorance and over-confidence of the persons who had the money to transmit which the people had collected, it reached England very slowly. In the meanwhile, Robert Hunter had arrived in England, had arranged the sale of the Schocharie lands in his own way, before the Board of Trade and Plantations. The opposite party was in prison, without friends or money. Finally, when a bill of exchange for seventy pounds sterling arrived, they were released from prison,

In July 1720, Weiser and Scheff petitioned anew to the Board of Trade, and in the end got an order to the newly arrived Governor of New York, William Burnet, to grant vacant land to the Germans who had been sent to New York by the deceased Queen Anne.

By this time, Hunter had resigned as governor and took a position in Jamaica. The newly commissioned Governor of New York, William Burnet, was ordered to grant land to the Germans. In 1723 he completed what was called the Burnetsfield Patent, whereby 100 heads of families received about 100 acres each on the north and south sides of the Mohawk River west of present-day Little Falls.  Governor Burnet gave patents for land to the few who were willing to settle in the Maqua country, namely in Stone Arabia [Starting in the 1980’s an Amish Center], and above the falls, but none on the river as the people hoped. They therefore scattered, the larger part removed to the Maqua country or remained in Schocharie, and bought the land from the before-named rich men.

Weiser and Scheff were dissatisfied and had a falling out in 1721. Refusing to follow Weiser, Scheff returned home but died six months later. Weiser returned to North America in 1723.  He decided to migrate to the colony of Pennsylvania.

Later life and death

In 1723, William Keith, Baronet Governor of Pennsylvania, was in Albany on business when he heard about the suffering of the Germans in New York. He invited them to the colony of Pennsylvania. With the help of the Mohawk, Weiser led a group of Germans from Schoharie south to the Susquehanna River; they traveled along Indian paths and by canoe to present-day Tulpehocken in the spring of 1723. 

Conrad Jr writes:

The people got new of the land on Suataro and Tulpehocken, in Pennsylvania; many of them united and cut a road from Schochary to the Susquehanna rive, carried their goods there, and made canoes, and floated down the river to the mouth of the Suataro creek, and drove their cattle over land. This happened in the year 1723. From there they came to Tulpehocken, and this was the origin of Tulpehocken settlement. Others followed this party and settled there, at first, also, without the permission of the Proprietary of Pennsylvania or his Commissioners; also against the consent of the Indians, from whom the land had not yet been purchased. There was no one among the people to govern them, each one did as he pleased, and their obstinacy has stood in their way ever since.

Weiser was unhappy with many of his fellow Germans, and returned to New York a few years later. He wandered around New York for several years. Conrad Jr. brought him to the home of his grandsons in Pennsylvania in May 1746, where he died soon after.

Children

1. Maria Catharina Weiser

Maria’s husband Hans Conrad Boss was born 1685 in Grosaspach, Germany. His parents were xx. Hans Conrad died 15 Jun 1753 in Germany.

Catrina, stayed behind with her husband, Conrad Boss and two children. Weiser sold his house, fields, meadows, vineyard, and garden to Conrad and Catrina, but they could only pay him 75 gulden, the remainder, 600 gulden, was to be paid to my father at a subsequent period, which was never done, so it was made a present to them.

3. Anna Magdalena WEISER (See Jan Johannes DeLONG‘s page)

6. John Conrad Weiser

Conrad’s wife Anna Eva Feg was born 5 Jan 1699/1700 in Schoharie, Schoharie, New York. Her parents were John Peter Feg (Feck) and Anna Maria Risch. Anna died 11 Jun 1781 in Womelsdorf, Northumberland, Pennsylvania.

Conrad was a Pennsylvania Dutch pioneer, interpreter and diplomat between the Pennsylvania Colony and Native Americans. He was a farmer, soldier, monk, tanner, and judge as well. He contributed as an emissary in councils between Native Americans and the colonies, especially Pennsylvania, during the French and Indian War.  Weiser was able to maintain fairly stable relations between the Pennsylvania government and the Iroquois Nation during the 1730’s and 1740’s.

File:ConradWeiserPortrait.jpg

There is no certifiable image of Conrad Weiser in existence and this one is no exception. Neither the often used drawing of a man in a suit and top-hat, which was first published in the Walton book, nor this image are proven to represent Weiser’s true appearance and in fact, the top-hat image is clearly a fabrication, as the clothing is of a different time and wholely inconsistent to anything Weiser would have worn. 

When Conrad was 16, his father agreed to a Sacem Quaynant’s proposal for the youth to live with the Mohawks in the upper Schoharie Valley. During his stay in the winter and spring of 1712-1713, Weiser learned much about the Mohawk language and the customs of the Iroquois, while enduring hardships of cold, hunger, and homesickness. For example, Weiser was one of the few Indian/Colonial interpreters who comprehended the overwhelming significance of the use of Wampum in conducting matters of diplomacy with the Iroquois. Conrad returned to his own people towards the end of July 1713.

Mohawk Longhouse

On November 22, 1720, at the age of 24, Weiser married  Anna Eve Fegg. In 1723 the couple followed the Susquehanna River south out of New York and settled their young family on a farm in Womelsdorf, Pennsylvania near present-day Reading, Berks County , PA. Weiser prospered in the Pennsylvania colony, building a tanner, engaging in surveying, and investing in land.  He also devoted considerable time to spiritual development, serving as a schoolmaster and lay reader for a German Lutheran congregation.  The couple had fourteen children, of which only seven reached adulthood.

Map of Pennsylvania highlighting Berks County

Berks County, Pennsylvania Weiser desired to establish a separate county from Lancaster in which the town of Reading would be located. His wish was granted, as the county of Berks was created in 1752. Additionally, Weiser was appointed the county’s first justice of the peace. 

Trouble was brewing in two regions. In eastern Pennsylvania, the Delaware and Shawnee —despite a legacy of their peaceful relations with William Penn—were growing more angry at being pushed out of their homelands by the increasing number of frontier settlements. The situation in the Susquehanna Valley was even more volatile, as large bands of Native American refuges from the south—moving slowly northward to join the Iroquois in upstate New York—were establishing temporary colonies as they traveled. Weiser and Logan knew the Iroquois were supporting these settlements in the Iroquois tradition that members of their nations who see the Confederacy’s protection should receive it and be adopted. Various bands of Native Americans—Tuscaroras, Nanticokes, Conoys, and Tutelowes—all sent representatives to the Iroquois capital of Onondaga requesting permission, which they received, to move north through Pennsylvania.

Iroquois and Delaware Map

The Iroquois saw this refugee movement as a way of maintaining a Native American presence in the Susquehanna Valley. They also knew that the migrations posed the danger of clashes with neighboring colonial settlers. To balance these two elements and ensure continued friendly relations with the colonists, the Onondaga Council—the highest governing body of the Iroquois Confederacy—dispatched a deputy to Pennsylvania to act with Iroquois authority over the tribes. This official was known among the Delawares as Shikellamy, which is pronounced “Shi-KELL-a-mee,” and means “Our Enlightener.”

Weiser’s colonial service began in 1731. The Iroquois sent Shikellamy, an Oneida chief, as an emissary to other tribes and the British. Shikellamy is believed to have been born to a French father and a Cayuga mother. The matrilineal tradition of the Cayuga tribe led to his being raised by his mother within the Indian tribe. He was taken captive by the Oneidas when he was about two years old and spent his formative years with that tribe. He lived on the Susquehanna River at Shamokin village, near present-day Sunbury, Pennsylvania. Early in the eighteenth century, the village consisted of Iroquois migrants from the north, as well as Shawnee and Lenape settlers moving away from the expanding white settlement of Pennsylvania.

Shikellamy’s portrait from the Appletons’ article on “Swatane”

An oral tradition holds that Weiser met Shikellamy while hunting. In any case, the two became friends. When Shikellamy traveled to Philadelphia for a council with the province of Pennsylvania, he brought Weiser with him. The Iroquois trusted him and considered him an adopted son of the Mohawks. Weiser impressed the Pennsylvania governor and council, which thereafter relied heavily on his services. Weiser also interpreted in a follow-up council in Philadelphia in August, 1732.

Weiser was instrumental in forging Pennsylvania’s new policy which recognized Iroquois authority over the Native Americans within the colony’s borders. The policy was sound in theory, but there was still a question as to whether it could be effectively carried out. A person of unquestioned integrity and stature would be needed to administer such a policy, on who could hold the trust of both colonists and Native Americans. The Iroquois already had appointed Shikellamy, who was respected both by his people and the colonists. Pennsylvania appointed Conrad Weiser, who was known to be on good terms with some of the Mohawks. It was unclear, however, how he would be received by the Iroquois and their famed Onondaga Council.

During the treaty in Philadelphia of 1736, Shikellamy, Weiser and the Pennsylvanians negotiated a deed whereby the Iroquois sold the land drained by the Delaware River and south of the Blue Mountain.

Delaware River Basin

Since the Iroquois had not until then laid claim to this land, Pennsylvania’s agreement to purchase from them represented a significant change in the colony’s policy toward the Native Americans. William Penn had never taken sides in disputes between tribes. By this formal purchase, the Pennsylvanians were favoring the Iroquois over the claims of the Lenape/Delawares for the same land. Along with the Walking Purchase of the following year, Penn’s treaty exacerbated Pennsylvania-Lenape relations. The Lenapes became disenchanted with the English colonials as a result; during the French and Indian Wars, they sided with the French and caused many colonial deaths. Penn’s purchase persuaded the Iroquois to continue to side with the British over the French.

File:Pennsylvania land purchases.png

Pennsylvania land purchases

During the winter of 1737, Weiser was commissioned by Pennsylvania to present an invitation from the government of Virginia to the Onondaga Council to send delegates to a peace conference in Williamsburg. It was an urgent matter because Virginia was allied with the Catawbas, who were at war with the Iroquois. The danger loomed that Virginia might be drawn into a war with the Iroquois, which could potentially pull Pennsylvania into the conflict. Weiser was instructed to rush to Onondaga in time to halt Iroquois war parties scheduled to set out in the spring

Weiser left home on February 27, 1737, crossing the Blue Mountain by Indian path and joining up with Shikellamy. The traveling party ran into heavy snow, making the trip difficult and treacherous. With war or peace hanging in the balance, they pressed on, climbing cliffs to escape flooded valleys and struggling on foot through snow that was at times up to their knees.

After six terrible weeks, exhausted and starving, Weiser collapsed in the snow. If it had not been for Shikellamy, he would have died on the trail.

When they arrived April 10 in Onondago, Weiser mustered enough strength to stand before the assembly of chiefs and deliver his message, confirming it with a belt of white wampum, the symbol of peace. The chiefs immediately dispatched runners to all parts of the Six Nations to call off preparations for war. Weiser persuaded the Iroquois not to send any war parties in the spring, but he failed to convince them to send emissaries to parlay with the southern tribes.

Weiser emerged from this episode an Iroquois hero.  Impressed with his fortitude, the Iroquois named Weiser Tarachiawagon (Holder of the Heavens). Spill-over violence from a war between the Iroquois and southern tribes such as the Catawba would have drawn first Virginia, and then Pennsylvania, into conflict with the Iroquois. Therefore this peace-brokering had a profound effect on Native American/colonial relations.

In 1742, Weiser interpreted at a treaty meeting between the Iroquois and English colonials at Philadelphia, when they were paid for the land purchased in 1736. During this council, the Iroquois Onondaga chief Canasatego castigated the Lenape/Delawares for engaging in land sales. He ordered them to remove their settlements to either Wyoming or Shamokin village. This accelerated the Lenape migration to the Ohio Valley, which had begun as early as the 1720s. There, they were positioned to trade with the French. At the same time, they launched raids as far east as the Susquehanna River during the French and Indian Wars.

In 1744, Weiser acted as the interpreter for the Treaty of Lancaster, between representatives of the Iroquois and the colonies of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. After the Treaty of Lancaster, both the Virginia and Pennsylvania colonial officials acted as if the Iroquois had sold them settlement rights to the Ohio Valley, but the Iroquois did not believe they had done so.

Weiser was one of Pennsylvania’s most noted travelers, whether on horseback , on foot or by canoe. He made five journeys to the Iroquois homeland: in 1737, 1743, 1745, 1750, and in 1751. The most significant trip he undertook after 1737 was in 1748, when he traveled to  Logstown, a council and trade village on the Ohio River, eighteen miles below the Point at Pittsburgh.   Here he held council with chiefs representing 10 tribes, including Delawares, Shawnees, and the Iroquois. Weiser’s stated goal was to “brighten the chain of friendship” with Native Americans in the region, and specifically to claim the Ohio-Allegheny country for the English colonies.

He arrived at a treaty of friendship between Pennsylvania and these tribes. Threatened by this development and the continued activity of British traders in the Ohio Valley, the French redoubled their diplomatic efforts. In addition, they began to build a string of forts to protect their interests, culminating in Fort Duquesne in 1754 at present-day Pittsburgh. The conflict ultimately resulted in the French and Indian War, which established English colonial control over the land.

In 1750, Weiser traveled again to Onondaga, where he found the political dynamics in the Six Nations had shifted. Canasatego, always pro-British, had died. Several Iroquois tribes were leaning toward the French, although the Mohawks remained pro-British.

Early in the summer of 1754, on the eve of the Seven Years’ War, called the French and Indian War in North America, Weiser was a member of a Pennsylvania delegation to Albany. The English government had called the meeting, hoping to win assurances of Iroquois support in the looming war with the French. Present were representatives of the Iroquois and seven colonies. Because of divisions within both the British and Native American ranks, the council did not result in the treaty of support which the crown desired. Instead, each colony made the best deal it could with individual Iroquois leaders.

Conrad Weiser was able to negotiate one of the more successful agreements. Some lower-level chiefs deeded to the colony most of the land remaining in present-day Pennsylvania, including the southwestern part still claimed by Virginia.

In 1756, the government appointed Weiser and Ben Franklin to lead construction of a series of forts between the Delaware River and the Susquehanna River. In the fall of 1758, Weiser attended a council at Easton, Pennsylvania. Representation included colonial leaders from Pennsylvania, the Iroquois and other Native American tribes. Weiser helped smooth over the tense meeting. With the Treaty of Easton, the tribes in the Ohio Valley agreed to abandon support for the French. This collapse of Native American support was a factor in the French decision to demolish Fort Duquesne and withdraw from the Forks of the Ohio.

Conrad Weiser Portrait –  From CONRAD WEISER AND THE INDIAN POLICY OF COLONIAL PENNSYLVANIA. The book was published in 1900. — The founder of the Weiser Family Association and scholar and author, Rev. Frederick S. Weiser, did not believe this image was in any way accurate and in fact, laughed heartily about the garb the figure is wearing in it. 

Throughout his decades-long career, Weiser built on his knowledge of Native American languages and culture. He was a key player in treaty negotiations, land purchases, and the formulation of Pennsylvania’s policies towards Native Americans. Because of his early experiences with the Iroquois, Weiser was inclined to be sympathetic to their interpretation of events, as opposed to the Lenape or the Shawnees. This may have exacerbated Pennsylvanian-Lenape/Shawnee relations, with bloody consequences in the French and Indian Wars.

Nevertheless, for many years, Weiser helped to keep the powerful Iroquois allied with the British as opposed to the French. This important service contributed to the continued survival of the British colonies and the eventual victory of the British over the French in the French and Indian Wars.

In 1734, Weiser began a spiritual journey with Conrad Beissel,, a mystic with the German Seventh Day Baptist Church who had recently established the Ephrata Cloister, a monastic settlement in the nearby Cocalico Valley, Ephrata Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Weiser was among a group of Tulpehocken Valley settlers who, in 1735, accepted baptism from Beissel. Following the ritual, Weiser burned his Lutheran devotionals and attempted to establish a congregation in the Tulpehocken Valley.

He met with opposition to this attempt and moved from his home, with his wife, to the Ephrata Cloister, where he was known as Brother Enoch. Anna stayed only a few months before moving back. Conrad Weiser stayed for six years, although he made frequent visits to his family, resulting in the birth of four of his children.  In addition, he took leaves of absence from the monastery for diplomatic duties, such as those in 1736 and 1737. Weiser left the Ephrata Cloister in 1741 and resumed his life in the Tulpehocken Valley. After returning from Ephrata, Weiser became the foremost layman of his day in the Lutheran Church of America. He also was a great promoter of the Native American mission which the Moravian Church established in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

File:Ephrata cloister.jpg

Ephrata Cloister, now a Pennsylvania State Historic Park

Like many other colonists, Weiser combined farming with other trades: land owner and speculator, tanner, and merchant. He created the plan for the town of Reading in 1748, was a key figure in the creation of Berks County in 1752, and served as its chief judge until 1760. Conrad was also teacher and a lay minister of the Lutheran Church; he was one of the founders of Trinity Church in Reading.

File:Trinity Lutheran Reading PA.JPG

Trinity Lutheran Church in Reading, Pennsylvania

In 1756, during the French and Indian War, the Lenape began to raid central Pennsylvania. When the colony organized a militia, its leaders appointed Weiser as a Lt. Colonel. Working with Benjamin Franklin, he planned and established a series of forts between the Delaware and Susquehanna Rivers. When General Forbes evicted the French from Fort Duquesne in 1758, the threat subsided and Britain later gained all territory east of the Mississippi River at the Treaty of Paris following their success in the Seven Years War.

Death and legacy

Weiser died on his farm on July 13, 1760. Upon his death, one Iroquois Indian noted to a group of colonists, “We are at a great loss and sit in darkness…as since his death we cannot so well understand one another.”  Indeed, shortly after Conrad Weiser’s death, relations between the colonists and the Native Americans began a rapid decline.

Weiser’s will bequeathed about 4,000 acres  and part of his farm to Berks County. It serves as an interpretive center for 18th century farming, political and colonial history, and hosts regular re-enactments of events during the French and Indian War. The property is administered as a state park.  Here is the inventory of Conrad’s estate, which totaled  £2641. The list of books is especially interesting.

Conrad Jr’s Descendants

Weiser and Anna’s descendants continued to play roles in civic life. Their daughter Maria married Henry Muhlenberg. Two of their sons had important roles in gaining independence for the United States.

Peter Muhlenberg served as a Major General in the Continental Army and saw service at Valley Forge,the Battles of BrandywineGermantown, and Monmouth and the Battle of Yorktown,  A Lutheran minister, he served as Lt Governor of Pennsylvania and later in the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate from Pennsylvania.

Peter Muhlenberg, Minister, Major General, Lt Governor, Representative and Senator

Frederick Muhlenberg was the first Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. According to legend, Muhlenberg suggested that the title of the President of the United States should be “Mr. President” instead of “His High Mightiness” or “His Elected Majesty”, as John Adams had suggested

Frederick Muhlenberg 1st and 3rd Speaker of the House

A great-grandson Peter M. Weiser (born 1781) was a member of the Corps of Discovery on the Lewis and Clark Expedition in 1804-1806.

Places named for Conrad Weiser

Weiser’s major contribution to history was his service as an emissary between the British colonies and the Native Americans, especially the Iroquois. This service had direct and powerful influence over the histories of the French and British empires, the Native American peoples, and the United States.

  • The Conrad Weiser Homestead in Womelsdorf has been preserved as a state historic site and is administered by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. Weiser and his family were buried at the homestead. The property is on Pennsylvania Route 422 in Berks County. The site contains original and historic buildings on a 26 acre site with grounds designed by the Olmsted Brothers in 1928. Due to state budget cutbacks, the PHMC announced that it would close public access to the buildings.

    File:Conrad Weiser Homestead.jpg

    Conrad Weiser Homestead, Womelsdorf, Berks County, PA 

  • Camp Conrad Weiser  is a 500-acre  YMCA overnight camp in Berks County. Founded in 1948, it serves boys and girls aged six to sixteen.
  • Conrad Weiser Area School District in western Berks County serves the townships of South Heidelberg Township, Heidelberg Township, North Heidelberg Township, and Marion Township, and the boroughs of Wernersville, Robesonia, and Womelsdorf.
  • The Weiser State Forest occupies 17,961 acres  on several tracts in Carbon, Coulmbia, Dauphin, Northumberland, and Schuylkill counties in southeastern Pennsylvania.

Veneration

Weiser is honored with a feast day on the liturgical calendar of the Episcopal Church (USA) on July 13.

7. George Frederick Weiser

George’s  first wife was Sarah Scudder and they had a daughter Prudence Weiser. Prudence married Daniel Blatchley and they had a daughter Mary. All occurred in Smithtown, LI NY.  George’s second wife Rebecca Udall was born 1697 in Germany. Her parents were Joseph Udall and [__?__]. Rebecca died in 1774.

8. Christopher Weiser

Christopher’s wife Maria Catharine Roeder was born 24 Mar 1720 in Mutterstadt, Germany. Her parents were Johann Adam Rader and Anna Katharina Tauber. Maria Catharine died 19 Feb 1786 in Emmaus, Lehigh, Pennsylvania.

9. Anna Barbara Weiser

Anna Barbara’s husband Nicholas Pickard was born 23 Feb 1701 in Schoharie, Schoharie, New York. His parents were Bartholomew Pickert and Eechje Classez. Nicholas died 1773 in Fort Plain, New York.

12. Jacob Weiser

Jacob’s wife Anna Eva Batdorf was born 1722 in Schoharie, Schoharie, New York. Her parents were Johannes Martin Batdorf and Maria Elizabeth Walborn. Anna died 1769 in Dauphin, Pennsylvania.

13. Rebecca Weiser

Rebecca’s husband Frederick Klein emigrated from Germany in 1710.

14. John Frederick Weiser

John Frederick’s wife Leana Catherine Henrich was born 12 Feb 1717 in Maxsain, Hessen-Nassau, Preußen. Her parents were xx. Leana died 8 Dec 1793 in Anneville, Lebanon, Pennsylvania.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Conrad_Weiser,_Sr.

http://trees.ancestry.com/owt/person.aspx?pid=9104649&st=1

http://www.weiserfamily.org/

Weiser Families in America. Vol I & II New Oxford PA: Penobscot Press, 1997. Chapter 5: Anna Magdelena Weiser DeLong p 1405.

http://conradweiserhomestead.org/history_autobiography.htm

http://www.governor.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_6_2_36735_4277_443827_43/

http://motherjones.com/politics/2001/11/refugees-time

Posted in 11th Generation, Artistic Representation, Historical Church, Historical Monument, Historical Site, Immigrant - Continent, Place Names, Storied, Veteran, Wikipedia Famous | Tagged , , , , | 13 Comments

Jan Johannes DeLong

Jan Johannes DeLONG (1690- 1763) was Alex’s 8th Grandfather; one of 512 in this generation of the Shaw line.

Jan Johannes DeLong was born in 1690 Rochester, Ulster, New York. His parents were were Adrianus DeLANGE and Rachel Jansen PEER.  He married Anna Magdalena WEISER 29 Sep 1712 Kingston, New York.  Jan died 1763 in Greene, NY.

Anna Magdalena Weiser was born in 1692 in Großaspach, Bocknang, Württemberg, Germany.  Some records say she was born 1696 in Hoog-Duytlsand Germany.  Hoog dytsland, or “hoog duitsland,” is not a specific place.  It was the Dutch pastor’s rendering of “Hoch Deutschland,” or High Germany (as contrasted with the “Low Germany” of the North Sea coastal regions. Her parents were Johann Conrad WEISER and Anna UEBELE.  Anna died 1760 in Rochester, Ulster, New York.

One Jacbous DeLong cousin baptized in 1720/21 died as an infant and the other lived to have a family.  Genealogists are divided about which is which so I’ll show it both ways.

1. Jacobus DeLange was baptized 6 Aug 1721 in Kingston, NY.  His sponsors were Henrik Bras and Geertruy Paarsen, probably maternal relatives..  His parents were Jonas DeLONG and Blanda (Blandina) PEERSON.

2. Jacobus DeLange was baptized 12 Oct 1720 in Poughkeepsie, NY.  His sponsors were Jacobus  Van Den Boogaard and Grietjen de Mon.  His parents were Jan Johannes DeLONG and Anna Magdalena WEISER.

Children of Jacobus and Elizabeth:

Name Born Married Departed
1. Arie DeLong 1 Jan 1711/12 Kingston, NY Margreta Vlegelar
28 May 1737
2. Gertrude (Geesje) DeLong c. 1714
Kingston, NY
Isaac Wieler
2 Feb 1731/32
Kingston, NY
or
Alexander Thompson
1732
3. Frans DeLong c. 1716
Kingston, NY
Catherine Dymant
Bef. 1742
.
Hannah
Carly
1806 in Smithfield, Northampton, Penns.
4. Christina Magdalena DeLong 8 Apr 1718
New York
Thomas Ceerber
31 May 1736
Fishkill, Dutchess, NY
Staten Island, NY
5. Jacobus DELONG 12 Oct 1720
Poughkeepsie, NY
Elizabeth BUCK
1748
Dutchess, NY
Aft 1766
Beekman, Dutchess, NY
6. Rachel DeLong Mar 1720/21
NY
William Tanner
9 Jan 1738/39
Fishkill, Dutchess, NY
1786
7. Conrad DeLong c. 1723 Catherine Freeligh
18 Sep 1743 Fishkill, Dutchess, NY
 c. 1777
8. Maria DeLong Jun 1725
Poughkeepsie, NY
Martinus Osterle
9. Catherine DeLong 29 Apr 1727
Dutchess, NY
Quirinus Light

Jan Johannes was born in the town of Rochester , an interior town located near the center of Ulster County (Mid-Hudson region of New York). The northwest part of the town is in the Catskill Park.  Mombaccus was the Dutch name for the area that became the Town of Rochester. It was first settled in 1672. The name Rochester began with the issuance of a land patent in 1703. It became a Town in 1788 and the formal establishment of the Town of Rochester occurred in 1803.

Parts of Rochester were used to create the Towns of Middletown in 1798 (now inDelaware County), Neversink in 1798 (now in Sullivan County), Wawarsing in 1806, and Gardiner in 1853.

1710 – Jan was sponsor for Dirck Keyser, son of his sister Maritje.

1713-1718 – Jan and Anna Magdalena moved from Ulster to Dutchess County.

1716 – Jan was probably the DeLong referred to in French’s 1860 gazzetteer of N.Y. State who, in 1716, moved to Dutchess county “and early on kept an inn”

1718-1738 – Jan appears on Dutchess tax lists for Rombout-Poughkeepsie, rated and assessed as John

16 Jan 1723 – Unable to be taxed

1 Feb 1724; taxed Mar. 11, 1725-26.

2 Apr 1723 – Jan was overseer of the King’s Highway

6 Apr 1723 – He was South Ward (present Putnam Co.) surveyor “along ye road from pocghqueick to mill and water side.”

1738 – Epon 13 Jan de langh dr to acknowleded sp ba il 12.0″ as he appears in Filkin’s Journal.

May 1737  – #285 Court of common pleas. Frans Filkins on Jan DeLange, filed Oct. 4, 1737. Jan on 30 June 1730 at POK indebted to sum of 7 pounds 3 shillings 9 pence half penny current money New York for devers good wares and Merchandizes to pay this day year. Want 9 pounds. Filed 4 Oct. 1737.

18 May  1737 – Francis Filkin vs. Jan De Lange. Sheriff returns Copia Corpus. On motion of Mr Allsop att. for the plaintiff ordered that the sheriff bring in the body of the defendant sitting the court or be amerced fourty shillings.

15 Jun 1740  – Jan and Magdalena as sponsors at baptism of Magdalena, dau. of Thomas Kerve and wife Lena (Lutheran Church of New York City).

Oct. 1741  – #232 Court of common pleas. John Alsop vs. John Delangh, filed 1 Dec. 1741, judgement entered for want of plea 4 Apr 1742. Jan made a note (copy included but not original) to pay 3 pounds 6 shillings 3 pence New York money on or before 1 Oct next for value received as witnessed 18 May 1737 at Poughkeepsie. not payed.

May 1747 Jury – James Paddock, John DeLangh. Case of Arie De Lange vs. Samuel Griswold. (See Arie De Lange.)

1 Aug 1747 – Poughkeepsie, John Simon burned several parcels of fence and upward of 100 shingles and — number of clapboards of John DeLonge, farmer of Peekman Prct.

1750-1753 – John DeLange sued William Tanner, husband of Rachel, for pound 23-7-6 for goods, money and service which John supplied him

Oct. 1750 – John De Lange vs. William Tanner. He is delivered to bail to Matthew Dubois Esq. The Like.

May 1751 – John DeLangh vs. William Tanner. Ordered the nonsuit obtained in this cause be set aside. Mr. Crooke files the declaration in court. Oct. 1753 William Tanner vs. John DeLong. The referees have not agreed; its therefore ordered that the plaintiff bring this cause to tryall next court or be non suit.

May 1753 – John DeLong vs. William Tanner. By consent of parties this cause referred to Matthew Dubois and Isaac Germond, named by the parties, Christophell Van Bonnel appointed by the court and to make their report by the last day of next court. obtained in this cause be set aside. Mr. Crooke files the declaration in court.

1763 – John and Magdalena as sponsors at bpt. of Johannes son of Jacobus and Elizabeth on (ct. 15, 1763, Zion Lutheran Church, Loonenburg, now Green Co.

Children

1. Arie DeLong

Arie’s wife Margreta Vlegelar (Flagler) was born in 1719. Her parents were Zacharias Flagler and Anna Hobin.

2. Gertrude (Gessje) DeLong

Also seen as Ariaantje

Gertrude’s husband Isaac Wieler was born in 1710 or 1713 in New York.

3. Frans DeLong

Frans’ first wife Catherine Dymant was born in 1725 Dutchess, New York. Her parents were Edward Diamond and Christina Snider. Catherine died in 1763 Smithfield, Northampton, Pennsylvania.

Frans’ second wife Hannah Carly was born 9 May 1742 in Smithfield, Pennsylvania. Her parents were Peter Carly and Magdalena Depuy.

4. Christina Magdalena DeLong

Christina’s husband Thomas Ceerber (Coeber or Carver) was born xx.  Thomas died in Staten Island, NY.

5. Jacobus DELONG (See his page)

6. Rachel DeLong

Rachel’s husband William Tanner was born 1720 in Beekman, Dutchess, New York. His parents were Samuel Tanner and [___?__]. William died in 1786 in Beekman Patent, Dutchess, New York.

7. Conrad DeLong

Conrad’s wife Catherine Freeligh was born in 1720 in West Camp, Ulster, New York. Her parents were Johann Frolich and Anna Rapp. Catherine died in 1790.

8. Maria DeLong

Maria’s husband Martinus Osterle (Esterles) was born

9. Catherine DeLong

Catherine’s husband Quirinus Light was born

Sources:

http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/m/a/c/Doug-M-Maclellan/GENE2-0003.html#CHILD7

http://trees.ancestry.com/owt/person.aspx?pid=24313722

http://www.stupakgen.net/Genealogy/Spencer/01496_dlon.htm

Posted in 10th Generation, Immigrant - Continent, Line - Shaw, Public Office, Tavern Keeper | 6 Comments

Leendert Arentsen De Grauw

Leendert Arentsen De GRAUW (c. 1601 – 1664) was Alex’s 12th Grandfather; one of 8,192 in this generation of the Shaw line.

Leendert Arentsen De Grauw was born about 1601 at Aalsmeer, Noord Holland, Netherlands. His birth is based on his testimony that he was 44 years old in 1645 (See below).  He married Leuntje Janje LYDECKER about 1619 at Amsterdam.  He immigrated on 7 Sep 1637 from Amsterdam to New Amsterdam with wife and children on the Dolphin.  Leendert died March 1664 at New Amsterdam at 63 years of age.

Leuntje Janse Lydecker was born about 1600 at Amsterdam.   Her parents were Jan Albertse LYDECKER and [__?__]. Leuntje died about 1668 at New Amsterdam at 68 years of age.

Children of Barent and Marretje:

Name Born Married Departed
1. Marritje De GRAUW 1617  in Aalsmeer, Noord, Holland, Netherland. Barent Jacobsen KOOL
1637
Esopus (Kingston), NY
1670
Kingston, Ulster, NY
2. Cornelia De Grauw 1625
Noord, Sint Anthonis, Noord-Brabant, Netherlands
Died young or After 1650
3. Aefje De Grauw 1630 Jan Perie
05 Feb 1655 at New Amsterdam
.
Cornelius Andriesen Hoogland
23 July 1661
New Amsterdam
4 Albert De Grauw c. 1632 Arriantje Cornelis Trommels
18 Nov 1656 Reformed Dutch Church, New Amsterdam
1690
New York
5. Arent De Grauw c. 1634 Gysbertje Harmen Coerten
(daughter of Harmen COERTEN)
30 Jan 1660 at New Amsterdam
.
Marritje Hendrickse Gerrits
16 July 1679
New York City
betw. 1686- 1690
New York City

Den Dolphyn“,  left the Texel area of the Netherlands on 7 Sep 1637 and arrived in New Amsterdam on or about 28 Mar 1638.  Schipper (Captain): Jacob Teunesen.  In September 1637,  the skipper of the “Dolphin” hailed his brother skipper of the “Herring.” He was in very poor trim for an ocean voyage to New Amsterdam to which port he was bound; his vessel was leaking badly; he had no carpenter, and his crew stoutly refused to go to sea without one. Could the skipper of the “Herring” do anything for him? On board the “Herring” was a young carpenter named Pieter Cornelissen, whom the skipper of his vessel was able to spare; and as he was willing to go, he embarked on board of the “Dolphin” and reached New Amsterdam in safety, after many months at sea, never to return to Holland. Most of which was a stormy and perilous voyage in which most of the cargo was ruined.   Yatchs back then were only able to carry about 20-30 lasts, 40-60 tons, of cargo and about the size of maybe two large school buses, being on a stormy sea could make even the strongest of men feel small and alone.

On April 19, 1638, the crew of the Den Dolphyn made a formal complaint to the provincial secretary about how the ship leaked during the voyage and that the captain had not provided enough food for the passengers. Leendert and his future son-in-law Barent Jacobsen Kool testified that several children belonging to Jan Schepmoes and his wife didn’t receive enough food.

Andries Hudde and Jan Lapalt, Commissary Pietersen and Skipper Derksen told that the Captain of the “Dolphin,” Jacob Teunesse of Amsterdam, had complained, before sailing, of the leaky condition of the ship.

More details of the case against the crew of the ship is detailed in “New York Historical Manuscripts Dutch” by Arnold J. E. Van Laer (Vol. 2, Item 139g) when the case was continued during town minutes from 1645. So far this is the last entry found about the ocean crossing of our troublesome, but ultimately succesful, ship in her career as a transport.

“Before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, secretary of New Netherland, appeared Leendert Arentsz. aged forty-four years, and Barent Jacobsz. aged thirty-four years, who at the request of Jan Jansz. Schepmoes jointly attest, testify and declare, in place and with promise of a solemn oath if necessary and required, that it is true and truthful that they arrived here in the year 1638 in the ship “Den Dolphyn”, on board of which were then also Jan Schepmoes, his wife and two children, of which children during the voyage one received half rations and the younger being a sucking babe, never received any ship’s food. All of which they, the deponents, offer to confirm.
Done in Fort Amsterdam in New Netherlands, the 12th of January 1645.

This is the X mark of Leendert Arenden
Barent Jacobsz. Cool
Acknowledged before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, Secretary”

According to “Ships and Work boats of New Netherland, 1609-1674” by Charlotte Wilcoxen (p. 64), a yatch listed as “De Dolphijn”, along with the yatch “Abraham’s Offerhande”, were listed as carrying 4 guns (cannon) each in action against New Sweden. It is undetermined if this is the same yatch that brought the families to New Amsterdam and was possibly later pressed into service of the colony, which happened often enough. The name Dolphin, or its variants, have often been used and reused on many different boats of different classes. So the work history and final fate of these vessels can often be lost and merely guessed at.

In May 1638 he agreed to take care of the cows belonging to William Kieft, the director of New Netherland.

18 May 1639 – He leased Bowery (farm) #3 for six years from the West India Company.

Bouwerie No. 3 –  Source   Manhattan, 1624-1639. New York: By Edward Van Winkle  1916. —  Note that Leendert’s son Arents married Wolfort’s granddaughter Marritje

19 Oct 1645 – He recieved a patent a patent for the land he had been leasing.

Viingboom Map 1638  Showing Leendert’s lease to Bowrey No. 3

Leenderdt received a land grant for a house and garden lying east of what is now Broadway.  This lot was the fourth lot south of Wall Street.  He sold this lot in 1651 to Lubbertus Van Dincklagen.  He then bought a lot north of his former lot in 1656.  This was the land that the governor deeded to his son-in-law, Barent Jacobsen Cool in May of 1668. It was across from the south yard of Trinity Church. Click Here for today’s Street View of  Broadway just south of Wall Street

18 Jul 1663 – He sold land he sold his land received under the patent of 1645 to Peter Stuyvesant.    This land became part of a large farm that Stuyvesant retired on after the English took over the city in 1664.  Stuyvesant spent the remainder of his life on his farm of sixty-two acres outside the city, called the Great Bouwerie, beyond which stretched the woods and swamps of the village of Haarlem. A pear tree that he reputedly brought from the Netherlands in 1647 remained at the corner of Thirteenth Street and Third Avenue until 1867, bearing fruit almost to the last.   His farm, called the “Bouwerij” – the seventeenth-century Dutch word for farm – was the source for the name of the Manhattan street The Bowery, and the chapel facing Bouwerie’s long approach road (now Stuyvesant Street) became St. Mark’s Church in-the-Bowery.

Leendert died before 24 March 1664 at New Amsterdam.

Children

1. Marritje De GRAUW (See Barent Jacobsen KOOL‘s page)

3. Aefje De Grauw

Aefje’s first husband Jan Perie was born 1629 at Province de West Vlaanderen, Belgium or 1620 in Pont, Cote d’Or, Bourgogne, France. Jan died in 1661 in New Amsterdam.

Jan was very litigious.  I don’t have time to copy all his New Amsterdam court cases, but here are some highlights.

Jan Perie vs. The Skipper of the Lady Maria 1654

x

Jan Perie vs. Engeltie Mans 1655

x

Jan Perie vs. Adriaen Sparck 1656

x

Jan Perie vs. Colombie 1656 – 1

Jan Perie vs. Colombie 2 (We’ll never know what happened in the case of carnal conversation the Jew and the Negress)

x

De Sillia vs. Jan Perie 1656 – 1

De Sillia vs. Jan Perie 1656 – 2

x

D’Silla vs. Perie 3 (Some time later in 1656)

x

D’Silla vs. Perie 4 (Yet another excuse)

x

People vs. Jan Perie 1656

x

Schout D’Silla vs. Holgersen 1656 – I wonder if the wound led to Jan’s early death?

x

Jan Perie vs. Dirck Volckertsen 1656 Evidently, Jan survived long enough to file suit.

x

Aafie Leendersen 1658

x

Aafie Leendersen 1659

Aefje’s second husband Cornelius Andriesen Hoogland was born in The Hague, South Holland, Netherlands.  He sailed from Amsterdam May 17, 1658 In the Gilded Beaver. (Vergulde Bever) Captain Jan Reyersz Van der Beets Arrived at New Amsterdam July, 1658.  Cornelius was listed as a tailor in the ship’s manifest.  He was a soldier in the service of the Dutch West India Co., as shown by a petition, June 16, 1661, of William Van Vredenburg and Cornelis Andriessen Hoogland, discharged soldiers, for a remission of the prices of their passage money to this country (Col. Dutch MSS. p. 225). Oct. 19, 1664, .

4. Albert De Grauw

Albert’s wife Arriantje Cornelis Trommels was born in 1620 in Schouwen, De Marne, Groningen, Netherlands. Her parents were Cornelis Trommels (1600 – 1655) and [__?__].  She first married before 1640 to Cornelis Claesszen Swits (1615 – 1655).. Arriantje died 7 Feb 1664 in New Amsterdam

5. Arent De Grauw

Arent’s first wife Gysbertje Harmen Coerten was born c.1642 Voorthysen, Netherlands.  Her parents were Harmen COERTEN and Aertje GERRTIS. Gysbertje died 1679 in Flatbush, NY

Arent’s second wife Marritje Hendrickse was born circa 1640. She first married in 1662 to Wouter Gerritsen (1625-1679).  Marritje died in 1686 in New York City.

Sources:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~rclarke/page1/degrauw2.htm

http://dgrawrock.tripod.com/dwg%20site%20one-p/p95.htm#i6707

The De Grauw Family by Colista E. B. Stuewer, 1985.

http://www.conovergenealogy.com/famous-p/p547.htm#i27327

“Ships and Work boats of New Netherland, 1609-1674” (p.62) by Charlotte Wilcoxen

Posted in 14th Generation, Immigrant - Continent, Line - Shaw | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

Barent Jansen (Post)

Barent JANSEN  (Post) (1594 – 1647) was Alex’s 12th Grandfather; one of  8,192 in this generation of the Shaw line.

Barent Jansen was born About 1594 in the Netherland.  He married [__?__].  Barent  died 1647 in New Amsterdam, New Netherlands.

Children of Jan and Nieltje:

Name Born Married Departed
1. Jan BARENTSEN (Post) 1620
Netherlands
Nieltje Von BREUCKELEN
Netherlands.
1669
Poestenkill, Rensselaer, NY

Barent Jansen was “one of the earlier colonists, but hardly anything in relation to him can be gleaned from the records. His very patent or ground-brief for” his “land cannot be found, and its existence is only learned by allusions to it in other instruments. It was a parcel of about thirty-seven English feet frontage upon Hoogh Street, and it extended back to the Slyck Steegh. Upon its western side it would appear that Barent Jansen must have built a small house at an early date.”

“Barent Jansen must have died before the spring of 1647, for in March of that year a grant which had been made of him, of fifty morgens, or about one hundred acres of land on the west side of the Hudson River, but for which he had never received his ground-brief, was vested, by the Director and Council in Claes Carsensen,” who was “intimately connected with Jansen in some way — probably by marriage”.

As to the house upon the westerly side of the plot, supposed to have been built by Barent Jansen, it appears in 1662 as then in the joint occupation and tenure of Claes Carstensen and of Jan Barentsen Kunst, probably the young sone of Barent Jansen.”

— Innes, J.H., New Amsterdam and Its People, (1902) Reprint: (Port Washington, NY, Ira J. Friedman, Inc., 1969)

Between 1643 and 1647, Barent Jansen signed a “Resolution adopted by the Commonality of the Manhattans,” which waived the right to elect representatives and gave that power to the Director-General and Council, reserving the right of the people to reject any unacceptable appointees.

Sources:

http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/s/o/l/John-O-Solis/BOOK-0001/0152-0001.html#IND56REF0

Posted in 14th Generation, Immigrant - Continent, Line - Shaw | 7 Comments