"Week 20 (May 14-20) – Black Sheep: Each of us has an ancestor who was the troublemaker or the ne’er-do-well. This is their week." (No Story Too Small)
Genealogists, even those who are moral and law-abiding persons themselves, tend to appreciate a black sheep. We love our sainted ancestors for how they inspire us, for being examples of faith, courage, kindness, honor, and so on. But our black sheep, oh our black sheep! We love them for other reasons. Perhaps they were not so amusing to those who lived when these stories were happening but boy, are they now!
A caveat, though...not all of them are so amusing--my ancestor Elizabeth (Quick) Ennis' brother was Tom Quick, who killed nearly 100 Native Americans in his lifetime, supposedly to avenge his father's death. His victims included innocent children. I do have a hard time with his actions and I don't feel any need to justify him. But in the interest of honesty and integrity in family historian, I try not to sugar-coat my family's past. So, of course, I include him in my family history. Fortunately, in my family, the Tom Quicks are very rare and other types of black sheep are much more plentiful.
Likewise, not all of our stories from our more saintly ancestors are merely inspiring. Being a saint doesn't mean standing on an unapproachable pedestal. These ancestors can be funny in their own right. After all, I've tried to be a good person but I can easily make people laugh with my personal anecdotes. So, why should I expect anything different from an ancestor? An example of this kind of story is the time great-great-grandpa Joshua Haslam drove a car for the first (and, I believe, last) time and resorted to shouting, "Whoa! Whoa! Dang ya! Whoa!"
But enough of my feelings on saints and sinners in the family tree. Let's actually meet some of the latter...
The first person who comes to mind when you say "black sheep" is Great-Grandpa Boyd, along with his dad. However, I already wrote about William Henry Richardson alias Boyd and Squire Richardson, who both ended up in jail for counterfeiting.
So, I decided to turn to a series of events covered in the records of colonial New York from a time when the English had recently taken control of formerly Dutch-controlled lands there. Now, some of the funniest genealogical records I've ever read are the court records of colonial Dutch New York. Liberally scattered among the people suing each other for all sorts of reasons and a smattering of more serious incidents are the "holy cow, they did what?!?" passages. And sometimes those passages concern my family.
 |
| Map showing New Netherland |
So, now I introduce some players in the clash between the Dutch colonists and their English occupiers, all of them my ancestors: Albert Heymans Roosa and his son Arien Allertsen Roosa and another ancestor (not related to the Roosas) Thomas Theunissen Quick. The roles of the Roosas and of Thomas were vastly different. Albert and Arie were instigators, occupied by some of the very serious issues of that day and place and ready to brawl and riot on a moment's notice. And Thomas was...well, drunk.
Let's start with a little background...
The Roosas
Albert Heymans Roosa and his wife Wyntje Ariens de Jongh came from Herwijnen, Gelderland, Netherlands. Albert, who likely had aristocratic roots, served as the buurmeester there in the mid-1650s. After he and Wyntje and eight of their children arrived in 1660, he continued his career as a local leader--he was one of three men chosen as the schepens (basically, aldermen, councillors, or magistrates) of the settlement of Wildwyck. He also served as commissary, consistory, arbitrator, appraiser, witness to transactions, etc. It must have been hard on him, in 1664, when the English annexed New Netherland as one of their colonies and renamed it New York. He had been a civil leader on both sides of the Atlantic and now he was subject to a foreign power who soon sent soldiers to occupy his town. His fiery temper came out in full force.
 |
| The English occupy New Netherland |
But this temper had shown itself before then. In June of 1663, at the start of the Second Esopus War, a group of Native Americans attacked the village and took two his children captive. At least one of the children, Albert’s eldest daughter, was held captive until the end of the year.
The situation was undoubtedly stressful but Albert didn't seem to cope with the crisis well, to say the least:
"This said Jan Hendricksen, with one Albert Heymans Roose, acted insolently on the 7th July. Whilst we were examining the two Wappinger Indians, in the presence of the Schout and Commissaries, in Thomas Chambers’ room. a messenger came in and said that two or three boors were without the door with loaded guns to shoot the Indians when they came forth. Whereupon I stood up and went to the door—found this Albert Heymans Roose and Jan Hendricksen at the door with their guns. Asked them what they were doing there with their guns? They gave me for answer, We will shoot the Indians. I said to them, you must not do that. To which they replied, We will do it though you stand by. I told them in return, to go home and keep quiet or I should send such disturbers to the Manhatans. They then retorted, I might do what I pleased, they would shoot the Savages to the ground, even though they should hang for it; and so I left them. This Albert coming into the Council told the Commissaries that one of them should step out. What his intention with him was I can't say." (O’Callaghan, E.B., The Documentary History of the State of New York, Vol. IV, Albany: Charles Van Benthuysen, 1851, Page 38-39, 28 Aug 1663.)
As for "stepping out," the Kingston Papers offers insight:
"Roelof Swartwout, Schout, plaintiff, vs. Allert Heymans Roose, defendant. Plaintiff alleges that defendant challenged a member of the Court when sitting in the Council of War at the house of Thomas Chambers, July 7, concerning two Wappinger savages, saying, “If there is anyone at this meeting who is a friend of these savages, I dare him to come outside.”
Defendant denies this, and requests a copy of the record.
The Honorable Court orders plaintiff, at next session, to prove his charge." (Versteeg, Dingman, New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch: Kingston Papers, 2 vols., Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1976, Vol. I, Page 102, 6 Nov 1663.)
He was also brought to court for insulting a commissary over the issue of horses provided for the expedition against the Wappingers.
Albert and Arie Vs. The English: Part One
So it wasn't just the English who pushed Albert's buttons. But the English certainly pushed them with admirable flair. And his son Arien Allertsen Roosa got in on the action as well.
 |
Rondout Creek near Kingston, New York (formerly Wildwyck)
Photo by Daniel Case |
The first incident involved Albert, Arie, and Ariaen Huybertsen (probably Albert's nephew):
"Samuel Olivier, Joris Porter, Eduard Chattelton, appearing before the hon. court, say that on last Thursday, being Nov. 3/13 (they being stationed on the redoubt as a guard), Allert Heymans came with his people for the purpose of taking a canoe from the shore which canoe they had been ordered to watch by the guard which they relieved. Ariaen Huybertsen then came and took hold of the canoe for the purpose of shoving it into the water, whereupon Samuel Olivier came with his gun for the purpose of preventing the same, and threatened to shoot said Ariaen Huybertsen. Ariaen Albertsen, in the meantime, took the small shot out of his gun, and reloaded it with ball, and Allert Heymans also challenged the guard to fight them, man against man, and even raised his axe and threatened the soldier Eduart Chattelton to hit him with the same, and make a complaint about the violence committed against them in their quality of guards at the redoubt by the aforementioned persons. Allert Heymans answers that he arrived on the bank with his people, for the purpose of launching their own canoe, and to use it for hunting, whereupon Samuel Olivier, coming from the redoubt, with his gun cocked, spoke to them. They not being able to understand him, Ariaen Huybertsen, nevertheless, intended to float the canoe, whereupon Samuel pointed the gun at his chest, whereupon he, Ariaen, pushed the gun out of the way, and took hold of his arm, and, this happening, Eduard Chattelton approached Ariaen, aforementioned, with and oar and struck at him, whereupon Joris Porter drew his sword for the purpose of separating parties. Thereupon Allert Heymans called from the wagon, “Keep quiet, I shall immediately come over to you to get the canoe afloat.” When he came near the canoe, Eduard Chattelton also came with his gun, holding the thumb on the trigger and pointed to him to let the canoe alone. In the meantime, he (Heymans) took up the axe from the canoe and threatened him with the same, whereupon Eduard reversed his gun and threatened him with the butt end. In the meantime Ariaen Allerts, seeing this also took hold of his gun and loaded it with ball. Allert Heymans further went with the others to the redoubt, and there they were better informed by each other. The English, then understanding them a little (and understanding) that it was their own canoe, thereupon gave them the oars, and allowed the canoe to follow, and even Eduard Chattelton himself assisted them in getting the canoe afloat. They also deny having challenged the English soldiers, and further deny having taken the small shot out of the gun, but (say) that they simply loaded it with ball, because it was unloaded." (Versteeg, Dingman, New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch: Kingston Papers, 2 vols., Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1976, Vol. I, Page 176, 18 Nov 1664.)
So, first recorded run-in with the English and Albert was wielding an axe and Arie was brandishing a gun. This is not starting off well...
The Quicks
Meanwhile, a young Thomas Theunissen Quick had left his home at New Amsterdam (soon to be renamed New York City) and settled in the area.
Unlike Albert and Arie, he would have been born in the New World, having been christened 24 Apr 1644 in the Dutch Reformed Church in New Amsterdam. His father Theunis Thomaszen Quick, mother Belitje Jacobs, eldest sister Weyntje, and elder brother Jacob had immigrated from Naarden in North Holland, Netherlands before 1640.
.png) |
| New Amsterdam, Thomas' hometown |
His father, a mason in the service of the West India Company, appears in the court records a number of times. There is one such record, of particular interest considering his son's future role in the riot. Theunis got caught passed out drunk on a Sunday:
"Schout Pieter Tonneman, pltf. v/s Maria de Trux, deft. Pltf. concludes that the deft. shall be condemned in a penalty of eighteen guilders heavy money, or thirty six guilders light money, for that he, the pltf., and Resolueert Waldron found last Sunday at defts. house one Lambert Barensen and that Teunis Tomassen Quick lay asleep by the fire drunk; also that Maatseuw’s mate was met coming quite drunk from defts. house; concluding further for a fine of fifty guilders because she, deft., does not have her chimney fixed, whereby great fire and danger may occur; all this with costs. Deft. denies having tapped for any one else, than Lambert Barensen and his wife and only three pints and that such occurred after the second preaching; saying further, that Teunis Tomassen Quick came to her house when drunk and lay down there to sleep; and as regards the chimney she says, she has as much lime and stone ready as she could get. Burgomasters and Schepens condemn deft. in fine of eighteen guilders in zeawant for having tapped on Sunday and order her to have her chimney made up as soon as possible." (Court Minutes of New Amsterdam, from Fernow, Berthold (ed.), Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 Anno Domini, Vol. I, Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1976, Volume IV, Page 343, 18 Dec 1663.)
Thomas himself doesn't seem to have had quite the hot temper of Albert Roosa but he did show up in his fair share of court records. Most of these seem to have to do with debt or were marked "Default." However, twice before his marriage to Rymerick Jurriaens Westfael at about the end of 1672 (once before the trouble with the English and once after), he did have some run-ins with his employers.
A young Thomas (about eighteen) was dismissed by Symon Claasen, which led to a lawsuit in which Thomas sought to recover his wages:
"Thomas Teunissen Quick, pltf. v/s Symon Claasen, deft. Pltf. demands from deft. payment of wages earned, saying that he, the deft., discharged him, undertaking to prove it. Deft. denies that he has discharged him, saying that he ran away and let the work stand several times. Pltf. replying denies it, saying that deft. refused him food and wished to drive him away from the cupboard. The W. Court order pltf. to prove that deft. gave him the sack." (Court Minutes of New Amsterdam, from Fernow, Berthold (ed.), Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 Anno Domini, Vol. I, Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1976, Volume IV, Page 164, 21 Nov 1662)
"Tomas Teunissen, pltf. v/s Symon Clazen, deft. Pltf. appearing with his sister, produces according to the order of last Court day declaration, that deft. bade him go away. Deft. on the declaration being read, says he never mentioned such reasons. Oventje, the pltfs. sister , appearing with the pltf. declares that the deft. discharged her brother saying, that he stated, he would not have his brother within his door. Deft. denies it, saying that pltf. ran away six or seven times and threatened to strike him, and says he can prove, that the pltf. boasted to him, he should make a fool of him as often, as he pleased. Pltf. is asked, how much the deft. got? Answers ninety five gldrs. in the half year and he received thereof twenty guilders, ten stivers. Parties are asked, if they will leave their case in question to the Magistrates as moderators and not as judges? Answer, Yes. Burgomasters and Schepens having heard parties decree and judge, that Symon Clasen shall pay to Tomas Teunissen fifty guilders for his service rendered him and order parties on both sides to trouble each other no more, which parties promise to do and to be content with the decision." (Court Minutes of New Amsterdam, Volume IV, Page 166, 28 Nov 1662) [Note that Oventje should probably have been transcribed Wentje.]
Albert Kicks Off A Riot
The next incident after the canoe brawl united the Roosas and Quicks in their black sheepiness. Albert got into a fight with Daniel Butterwout, a soldier quartered at his house and was arrested, which caused a stir in town:
"Then, in May 1665, when it was rumored that Roosa, a sergeant in the Burgher Guard, was to be arrested for a second assault on the English when he took away a soldier’s gun, the guardsmen armed and assembled. Having learned that their sergeant was merely summoned to court, they dispersed without taking any action; but their Officers’ Council felt constrained to investigate the matter." (Bennett, David Vernooy, “The First American Mrs. Rosencrans”, New York Genealogical & Biographical Record, Vol. XC, No. 2, Apr 1959.)
Enter Thomas...
Apparently following in the fine tradition of his father, he too became drunk and ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. In an examination of several people who became embroiled in "the turmoil on May 26 last," Thomas was questioned:
"Tomas Teunissen Quick, having been asked what
induced him on May 26 last to take hold of his gun, when he did not have the
watch? says that he did as any other, and that he was very drunk. Neither does
he know who took his gun from him.
Who persuaded him to do so? says
that he was in company with a number of young fellows drinking and bowling, and
then went out with the others. Of whom he received the word? says not being
able to remember whether he had the word, because he was very drunk…" (Versteeg, Dingman (trans.), New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Kingston Papers, 2 vols., original translation 1899, Samuel Oppenheim's pub. 1912, Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1976, Vol. I, Page 236, 2 Jun 1665.)
In other words, he got snockered while bowling with his buddies, saw some trouble, and thought something along the lines of "Whee-ha! Where's my gun?" And when he woke up, he didn't exactly remember what happened or where in the world his gun had disappeared off to. Good times.
Arie, meanwhile, was right in the middle of things, while his probable cousin Ariaen (of canoe brawl fame) denied involvement:
"Ariaen Huybertsen asked, What he did with his gun last Tuesday in the guardhouse? says, not having been there, but that, late at night, he went to see Allert Heymans’ wife on the land, and returned to the village at about 2 o’clock at night.
Ariaen Allertsen Roos asked, whether he had the watch last Tuesday? says, “No.” What did he at the guardhouse? says that he had something to do at the minister’s, and seeing some people at the guardhouse also went there, and after having delivered his message to the domine, he returned home." (ibid.)
Albert Fights Five Soldiers with A Broken Plow Blade
But that was not the end of the Roosas' clashes with the English.
"Albert Heymans Roos, appearing before the hon. court, complains of what has been done to him, yesterday, by five soldiers, saying, that he, plaintiff, returning from the land, yesterday, for the purpose of taking the coulter which was broken to the smith, for the purpose of having the same fixed; and whereas the smith was not at home, he was told by Jacob Joosten that the smith was at the house of Louwies Dubois. Plaintiff going thither found the smith there; and called him to the door, whereupon he (the smith) said that he would come right away. Plaintiff, in the mean time, going away from the door, a soldier, named Francois Vreeman, comes outside, walks up to where plaintiff stands, and immediately draws his sword without having word with or answer from plaintiff, and strikes twice at plaintiff, whereupon plaintiff says to him, “You must not do that anymore, or I shall go for you with the piece of the coulter.” He nevertheless lunged a third time at the plaintiff and hit him through his coat, whereupon he threw the coulter at said Francois Vreeman, but did not hit him. In the mean time Ridsert Hamer came out of the aforesaid house, and hit plaintiff with his sword on the head. Plaintiff, feeling this, takes hold of a stick or piece of wood, which was laying handy, and therewith defended his life, striking with it at Ridsert Hamer, aforenamed, who, for the second time struck at him. Thereby still came the third, Thomas Elger, who also struck at plaintiff and whom plaintiff, dealing him (Elger) a blow with the same stick, also turned off. Tomas Quinel, the fourth, arriving, tried to pierce plaintiff from behind, whom plaintiff, jumping about, hit with the same stick, so that he tumbled to the ground. Francois Vreeman, now again attacking plaintiff with the intention of sticking through him, also received of plaintiff a thrust with the same piece of wood, so that it dazed him, whereupon the fifth, Robbert Pecock, appeared, and intended to pierce plaintiff. Plaintiff, retreating, was followed by the aforesaid Pecock who tried to hit him, whereupon plaintiff ran under his sword, and took hold of his body. In the mean time the four other soldiers attacked plaintiff from behind and wounded him five times, being three blows on the head and two thrusts, one in the back, the other in the arm. Plaintiff, on account of this, requests justice, and that he, as burgher, may not be molested by the soldiers and (be permitted) to follow his business without interruption.
Mattheu Blanchan, having been summoned as a witness in the above case, declares that, yesterday, having taken malt to the mill, he returned the wagon with the oxen to Louwies Dubois, and says when arriving at the house of said Dubois, he heard a noise in the house, on account of which he did not want to enter, and that, in the mean time Allert Heymans Roos arrived at the front of said house and had the smith called outside for the purpose of fixing his coulter. In the mean time Francois Vreeman came out of the said house, and he saw that said Vreeman drew his sword against Allert Heymans, and thrust at him, and that thereupon, Allert Heymans threw the piece of the coulter at him, but did not hit him. In the meanwhile Ridsert Hamer attacked Allert Heymans, who was retreating to the wagon, and struck at Allert Heymans, and has seen that Ridsert Hamer’s sword passed below Allert Heyman’s left arm, but does not know whether or not he wounded him. Allert Heymans retreated from there to the house of Louwies Dubois, and he saw that Allert Heymans took hold of a stick there. While defending his life he (Heymans) struck Ridsert Hamer (who intended to strike Allert Heymans) with the same stick on the arm, so that he dropped the sword. And also saw that Thomas Elger appeared and intended to hit Allert Heymans, whereupon Allert Heymans hit the same with the stick so that he whirled around (or grew giddy). Francois Vreeman, appearing again, intended to hit Allert Heymans, but Allert Heymans struck him down with the same stick, and while Allert Heymans was preparing to hit said Vreeman another blow, Tomas Quinel in the mena time approached from behind with the sword against Allert Heymans, but Allert Heymans with the same stick, struck him down. Declares not having seen more, and is prepared (if need be) to affirm the present under oath.
Ridsert Hamer, appearing, declares having seen yesterday at the house of Lowys Dubois that Dirrick DeGoyer drew his knife against Francois Vreeman. In the mean while Francois Vreeman went outside, while Allert Heymans was standing outside the door, he (Hamer) has seen that Allert Heymans struck said Francois Vreeman with the piece of the coulter, so that he tumbled down, whereupon he, appearer, also went outside for the purpose of separating them, and in the mean time Allert Heymans grasped a stick, and beat appearer with the same. Meanwhile Ariaen Huyberts also came out of the said house with a bare knife, hidden by his hand, and struck him, appearer, with the same. And says not to know more, and is ready (if necessary) to affirm the present under oath.
Tomas Elger, appearing, declares having seen yesterday, at the house of Lowys Dubois that Dirrick DeGojer being outside the said house, had a bare knife in his hand. Francois Vreeman, seeing this, drew his sword against Dirrick DeGojer. Allert Heymans, also standing in front of the same door, threw the smallest piece of the broken coulter at aforesaid Vreeman, and taking the largest piece in his hands, ran up to the aforesaid Vreeman for the purpose of hitting him with the same, and does not know what cause there was between Dirrick DeGojer and the aforesaid Vreeman. And says not to know any more, and is ready (if need be) to affirm the present under oath.
Ariaen Huybertsen, appearing, he was notified that he is accused by Ridsert Hamer of having, yesterday, struck said Ridsert Hamer with a knife, which Ariaen Huybertsen denies, saying that, yesterday, he did not carry his knife, but only the sheath of his knife, but says that he has been at the house of Louwies Dubois, and has heard, while still being in said house, that the soldiers were fighting on the street with Alert Heymans, and upon coming outside, he saw that his uncle, Allert Heymans, was bleeding, and intending to go to him, three soldiers with drawn swords attacked him, without a word being uttered on either side, with drawn swords, and cut through his hat. In the mean time Captain Broadhead arrived and pacified the soldiers and took him to the guardhouse under arrest. Arriving there, Corporal Ridsert Hamer, who had arrested him, and taken to the guardhouse, immediately hit him with his drawn sword in the head, and cut his hand, and says that while under arrest he would have murdered him, if another soldier had not set him free. And enters a complaint because he, a prisoner, was maltreated and assaulted by Ridsert Hamer, and requests justice on this account.
Louys Dubois declares that yesterday some residents came to his house for a drink. In the meantime some soldiers also entered to have a drink. Coming from his inner room he saw that Francois Vreeman being half mad had partially drawn his sword whom he requested to again sheath his sword, which he did. Ridsert Hamer, in the meantime, also being mad, said something which appearer did not understand, whom appearer requested to not make trouble in his house, but to drink their wine in peace. Hereupon Ridsert Hamer, drawing his sword, appearer, with one hand, took hold of the hilt and with the other hand held his sleeve so that he could not entirely draw his sword, and thus holding fast the sword, both of them got outside. But Robert Pecock, intervening, took hold of the appearer, and dragged him away from Ridsert Hamer, and being rid of him, Ridsert Hamer struck appearer with the little stick on the head. Thereupon Robbert Pecock again took appearer in the house, and was followed by Ridsert Hamer, who, still standing before the door, struck at appearer with the same little stick, whereupon appearer’s wife asked Ridsert Hamer why he beat her husband? Thereupon he twice beat his wife with the same little stick. Ridsert Hamer at the same time exclaimed, “I want my gloves, or I shall kill your husband,” whereupon appearer answered, “Come inside and look for your gloves.” Francois Vreeman, then, being in the house, again entirely unsheathed his sword, not knowing with whom he had a quarrel. Appearer, seeing this, took hold of aforesaid Vreeman’s arm, and threw him outdoors. Thereupon he was followed by the greatest part, English as well as Dutch, and appearer then closed his door. And as to the drawing of any knife, he appearer, has not seen that the same was done in his house. And says not to know any more, and (if required) is ready to affirm the present under oath.
Frederick Pietersen, appearing, declares, whereas yesterday he has been present at the house of Louwies Dubois, he has not seen that a knife was drawn by Dirk De Gojer, and neither knows that there were any differences in the aforesaid house between soldiers and inhabitants. And further says that he was outside the door of the aforesaid house when Allert Heymans arrived with the broken coulter and called the smith outside the said house, and has seen that Francois Vreeman came out of the aforesaid house, and further that said Vreeman drew his sword against Allert Heymans, whereupon Allert Heymans said, “Look out what you do,” and at the same time Vreeman struck twice at Allert Heymans, and while he was striking at him a third time, Allert Heymans threw a piece of the coulter at aforenamed Vreeman, but did not hit him with the same. In the meanwhile the corporal Ridsert Hamer came out of the aforesaid house, drew his sword and struck at Allert Heymans who defended himself with a stick he had there found and parried as much as he could for the purpose of defending his life. And then there arrived one Thomas Elger with his sword drawn, and also struck at Allert Heymans who also parried him with said stick. Thereupon came Thomas Quinel, also with his sword drawn against Allert Heymans, and struck at him who was also parried with the same stick. At last Robbert Pecock also appeared against Allert Heymans, with his sword drawn, and struck at him, under whose sword Allert Heymans ran and took hold of his body. In the meanwhile Allert Heymans was wounded by the four other soldiers. The Captain Broodhead came and ordered the soldiers to desist. And says not to know any more and (if need be) is prepared to affirm the present under oath." (Versteeg, Dingman (trans.), New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Kingston Papers, 2 vols., original translation 1899, Samuel Oppenheim's pub. 1912, Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1976, Vol. I, Page 291-5, 29 Apr/4 May 1666.)
The Esopus Mutiny
Richard Nicolls, the English governor, had attempted to ease the tensions between burgher and soldier by replacing the garrison’s commander at Kingston with one Captain Brodhead. Brodhead, as seen in the last incident, only worsened the problem with his favoritism towards the soldiers and abusive behavior towards the Dutch.
"Much of the ill feeling was due to the overbearing conduct of Brodhead, who did not hesitate to commit to the guard any who offended him. He imprisoned a burgher who would keep Christmas according to the Dutch and not the English style. He quarreled with and arrested Cornelis Barentsen Slegt, the village brewer, and a sergeant of its militia. Slegt's wife and children thereupon ran crying through Wildwyck. The excited villagers rushed to arms. Finding some sixty of them drawn up before their lieutenant’s door, Captain Brodhead marched thither with a few of his soldiers, and ordered them to disperse. The local magistrates asked Brodhead to release his prisoner and have him tried before them, which he refused, and threatened to resist any attempt at a rescue. The people would not disperse until late at night, and then only with the understanding that the whole matter should be laid before the governor. What added to the bitterness was that Hendrick Cornelissen, the village ropemaker, was killed by William Fisher, one of Brodhead's soldiers." (Brodhead, John Romeyn, History of the State of New York, Vol. II, 1st Ed., New York: Harper & Brothers, 1871, pages 121-3.)
Brodhead was suspended from his command. Meanwhile, the Roosas were in serious trouble:
"Four of the movers of the insurrection, Antonio d'Elba, Albert Heymans, Arent Albertsen, his son, and Cornelius Barentsen, were found guilty of a “rebellious and mutinous Riot,” and were carried down to New York for sentence by the governor. Nicolls was of opinion that they deserved death." (ibid.)
Death! Yikes! But fortunately, that didn't happen, as we will see.
But first, let's wrap up Thomas' story.
What Happened to Thomas?
Thomas ended up in a situation similar to his prior employment incident five years before:
"Thomas Quick, Plaintiff vs. Reyner Van Coelen, Defendant
Plaintiff says that defendant hired him till May for 40 sch. of wheat and that defendant has now discharged him without reasons. Therefore, he demands his full hire. Defendant says that he hired his man Thomas Quick till May and that he ordered him to cart wood which he refused, and that he several times fed clean wheat to the horses, which he did to cause trouble. Plaintiff denies having fed the horses clean wheat. Defendant agrees to prove the same and produces his threshers Jacob Van Etten and Jan Broerssen, who declare having seen several times wheat in the horses’ manger. Leendert Barents also a thresher declares having taken a quantity of wheat out of the horses’ manger and all the threshers together say that said Thomas Quick has several times fed the threshed wheat against their will to the horses. The hon. court, having considered the case, orders defendant to pay plaintiff in proportion of his rendered services and time." (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Kingston Papers, Vol. I, Page 380, 3/13 Dec 1667.)
Interestingly though, after 1669, Thomas' appearances in the court record drops sharply. In 1671, he registered a mark for his cattle and a year later, he married. Perhaps, his younger, irresponsible days were done and he decided to settle down. Or, at least, he managed to stay out of the courts. The father of four only lived to about his early fifties. His last child Geertje was baptized, presumably as an infant, in 1695, while "the widow of Thomas Quick" joined her brothers and others in buying land in the Minisink Valley.
What Happened to Albert and Arie?
The Roosas too seemed to have quieted down after the Esopus Mutiny. They survived the threat of a death sentence. "But, on the petition of the inhabitants and by the advice of his council, he sentenced Heymans to be banished for life out of the government , and the others, for shorter terms, out of Esopus, Albany, and New York." (ibid.) Vernooy added that the punishment was "banishment, with confiscation of property in the elder Roosa’s case." (“The First American Mrs. Rosencrans”)
Even that didn't last. "These sentences were afterward modified; and Heymans, the chief offender, became a prominent officer at Esopus." (History of the State of New York, Vol. II)
The reason? "But in the fall of the year, when he learned of the Treaty of Breda, which confirmed English possession of New Netherland, he declared a general amnesty…" (“The First American Mrs. Rosencrans”)
Albert died 27 February 1678/9. An inventory of his property listed “a farm with its growing crops, a dwelling and a barn, seven heads of horses… eight heads of cattle…” (Versteeg, Dingman, New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch: Kingston Papers, 2 vols., Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1976, Vol. II, Page 657, 30 Apr/10 May 1667)
Arien married Maria Everts Pels and had nine children, including my ancestor Jannetje Roosa. I am descended from two of Jannetje's grandsons, Jan Van Etten and Johannes Van Etten. Jan was a colonial fort commander who later provided civil service in support of the Continental Congress in North Carolina while Johannes fought during the Revolution as a captain in Pennsylvania. If Albert had been told that his great-great-grandsons would contribute to the fight to end Britain's rule in his adopted country, what might he have thought?
Next week's challenge from No Story Too Small: "Week 21 (May 21-27) – Military: This week, the United States will be observing Memorial Day. Do you have any military ancestors? Were any ancestors affected by the military or by war?" Yes and yes. I have direct ancestors who commanded a colonial fort and fought in the Revolution, the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. Others had brothers who fought in the Civil War or served in a post-Vietnam Air Force. Yet others were profoundly affected by ward, including the English Civil War and the Russian Revolution. And I myself spent four years working on Coast Guard bases and carrying around military ID as a contract instructional designer.
.png)
.jpg)
