52 Ancestors: Wedding

"Week 23 (June 4-10) – Wedding: June is time for weddings. Write about a June bride in your family or highlight a favorite wedding photo. Maybe there’s a serial marry-er in the family — that could be a fun post!" (No Story Too Small)

Mishaps at weddings are all too common. Stephen Hussey and Martha Bunker's wedding back in the 1670s though was packed with multiple mishaps--unusual ones too, at least to modern readers. And it all started with a French privateer looking for a prize.

Boarding of a British East Indiaman by a French corsair

The wedding took place on 8 October 1676. "Stephen Hussey had sailed to Barnstable, Massachusetts on Cape Cod for the wedding, probably in his own ship.  He was described by this time as a wealthy man. On his way home with his bride after the wedding his ship encountered a hostile French privateer laying off Nantucket harbor. The bride was terrified at the sight of the French warship and was fearful that her wedding day might be her last." (Hussey Millennium Manuscript, courtesy of the Gowen Research Foundation, www.llano.net/gowen/hussey_millenium.htm, 2001.)

Lighthouse, Brant Point in Nantucket harbor
Credit: Farnk van Mierlo, Wikipedia

Map showing the location of Cape Cod, Barnstable, and Nantucket

The next mishap seems a bit tame in comparison to nearly being killed by pirates. "The welcoming party on the shore saw the danger, and while watching the drama on the sea, allowed the wedding cake of Martha Bunker Hussey to burn to a char." (Hussey Millennium Manuscript) But I guess those little things add up.

So, imagine you're on your way to your wedding and pirates show up and try to kill you. You survive but are probably pretty rattled. And now the wedding cake's charcoal. Can anything else go wrong? Well... "In all the excitement a drunken Indian lounging near the punchbowl accidently broke his whiskey bottle on the bowl allowing a shower of glass splinters to fall into the punchbowl, rendering the contents unfit for the welcoming party." (Hussey Millennium Manuscript)

Yep, welcome to the 1600s. And how did the couple take it? We don't have much insight into Stephen's reaction but Martha's is part of the family story. "All of these unnerving incidents were too much for the bride, and she cried that 'the very heavens and stars were against us.'"

But the marriage happened and they ended up having eight children, seven of whom lived to have weddings of their own.

A couple of the late 1600s

To learn more about this couple, see my page at my family's site. I have not yet transferred this information to my Olive and Eliza website but will do so in the future.

Next week's challenge from No Story Too Small: "Week 24 (June 11-17) – Heirloom: What heirloom do you treasure? Who gave it to you? What heirloom do you wish you had?" This will take us to more present times to meet my grandfather.

52 Ancestors: Commencement

"Countless schools will be having their commencement ceremonies around this time. Think not only about school, but also about commencement meaning 'a beginning.'" (No Story Too Small)

If you look at my family's history, we don't have a very long history in higher education, which is funny--education is important to my family now. I have worked in higher education as an instructional designer and I have an aunt who teaches college courses.

But so it is. My maternal grandpa attended college but that was interrupted by World War II. He didn't receive a degree, though he went on to become a computing pioneer. I remember him at the dining table writing out math equations on yellow legal pads with very sharp No. 2 pencils for fun and showing us various science experiments. He may not have finished but learning was extremely important to him.

Mom graduated from college, then I graduated from college about a decade later, then I graduated from grad school, then Mom graduated from grad school. So, in my direct line, Mom and I were first generation college grad and grad school student respectively. Now, her brother did graduate before her, then went on to grad school before me, and his wife was in grad school before I applied. This was a good thing, since I was able to get some advice from them about applying to grad programs.

On my Dad's side, my uncle was the known first college grad in a couple of centuries. If you go back to colonial times though, a few of my ancestors were college educated. In England in past centuries, sons of those who could afford it might either inherit property (typically in the case of eldest sons) or be prepared for some suitable occupation. One of these occupations was as a clergy. Preparation for the church involved college, hopefully followed by a "living." In the 1500s and 1600s, some of these college-educated clerics were exposed to Puritan ideas and developed Puritan leanings. In a number of cases, these leanings put their livings in peril. Those who were committed to Puritanism often had to give their parishes up. Their attentions were turned to the more tolerant Netherlands, then America.

Stephen Bachiler, one of these, might have qualified as the subject of the Black Sheep challenge from two weeks ago. According to the Great Migration Project, "Stephen Bachiler led a most interesting life, filled with unusual twists and turns far beyond the norm." But the Roosas and the Quicks won that honor.

Now, it's his second chance. He was among the early college graduates in my family, so he does represent the first kind of commencement mentioned above. He also represents another kind of commencement. While he didn't remain in America, he was the first generation of his family to settle here.

Stephen was born about 1561 and came from South Stoneham, Hampshire, England. He attended Oxford, matriculating at St John’s College on 17 November 1581 and receiving his B.A. about five years later in 1586. In 1587, he became the vicar at Wherwell, Hampshire, England.

Front quad of St. John's College
Photo by Ed Webster, Wikipedia

His first wife's name is not known but according to the Great Migration Project, she "was closely related in some way to Reverend John Bate, Bachiler’s successor as vicar of Wherwell." They had six children, sons Nathaniel, Stephen, and Samuel and daughters Deborah, Ann, and Theodate. Supposed sons Francis and Henry, mentioned by Savage, are not proven. A Mary Bachiler, born in 1651 or 1652, was not his daughter, according to Great Migration, but the issue of an adulterous affair between Stephen's last wife and one George Rogers.

According to Great Migration, "Bachiler began his long career of contrariety as early as 1593, when he was cited in Star Chamber for having 'uttered in a sermon at Newbury very lewd speeches tending seditiously to the derogation of her Majesty’s government' [NEHGR 74:319-20]. Upon the accession of James I as King of England, nearly a hundred ministers were deprived of their benefices between the years 1604 and 1609, and among these, as noted above, was Stephen Bachiler [Kenneth Fincham, Prelate as Pastor: The Episcopate of James I (Oxford 1990), p. 326]." Stephen was ejected from his living at Wherwell in 1605.

Church Street, Wherwell by Chris Talbot.
Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

That the Bachilers associated with Puritans can be seen in 1621 when Adam Winthrop, Gov. John Winthrop's father, stated, “Mr. Bachelour the preacher dined with us” at Groton. The Great Migration adds, "Although this might conceivably be the younger Stephen Bachiler, who had been ordained as a deacon late in 1613, the man referred to in these records is more likely the elder Stephen. Since he is well recorded as a resident of Newton Stacey both before and after this time, he must have made occasional visits to East Anglia."

It continues, "While at Newton Stacey (a village within the parish of Barton Stacey) Bachiler had managed to incite the parishioners of Barton Stacey to acts that came to the attention of the sheriff, who petitioned for redress to the King in Council; the complaint described Bachiler as “a notorious inconformist” [NEHGR 46:62, citing Domestic Calendar of State Papers, 1635]."

It should be noted that Stephen remarried twice in his sixties. Both of his second and third wives were widows--Christian Weare (married 2 March 1623 in Abbots Ann, Hampshire) and Helena, the widow of Rev. Thomas Mason (married 26 March 1627 also in Abbots Ann).

St. Mary's Church, Abbots Ann
Photo by Lee Hargreaves
Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

At a time when other men were settling into the final decades of their lives, Stephen's life took a dramatic turn. He refused to conform and was dismissed. Like a number of other nonconformists at the time, the Bachiler family ended up in Holland for some time, then came to America. Stephen was seventy-one when he sailed from London 9 March 1632 aboard the William and Francis and arrived in Boston 5 June.

Not all of the Bachilers came with him. Of his children, Deborah (Bachiler) Wing and Theodate (Bachiler) Hussey settled in America. Three sons of daughter Ann (Bachiler) Samborne and Nathaniel, son of his son Nathaniel also came to America at some point, as well.

Here, he was admitted a freeman in Saugus (later called Lynn), Essex, Massachusetts 6 May 1635 and organized a church there. Stephen gained attention soon after settling in Saugus. Four months in, there was a complaint about “some irregularities in his conduct.” On 3 October 1632, at the court at Boston, he was ordered to “forbeare exerciseing his giftes as a pastr or teacher publiquely in or Patent, unlesse it be to those he brought with him, for his contempt of authority, and till some scandles be removed.” What these irregularities and scandals were, I'm not sure.

Saugus Iron Works - The town's colonial ironworks, now reconstructed by the National Park Service

On 4 March 1633, he was allowed to preach again. However, about 1635, several members began to leave his congregation and a council of ministers was held on 15 March. The matter was not reconciled and another meeting was scheduled. Stephen told those who had left his congregation to write their grievances, but when they refused, he tried to excommunicate them.

The ministers returned to Lynn and decided that “although the church had not been properly instituted, yet the mutual exercise of their religious duties had supplied the defect.” The strife continued and Stephen requested and was granted a dismissal from the congregation for himself and the members who had come with him from England. Stephen continued to preach to those who had come with him. The people of Lynn complained, the magistrates forbade him to continue his ministry, and, in January 1636, he was brought to court in Boston, where he was ordered to leave Lynn within three months. 

He is said to have gone to Ipswich, Essex, Massachusetts. In the winter of 1637, traveled with some friends 100 miles on foot to Mattakeese (now Yarmouth, Barnstable, Massachusetts). He had planned to establish a town and church but was unable to do so and went instead to Newbury, Essex, Massachusetts. On 6 July 1638, he and his son-in-law were granted land there.

On 6 September 1638, he was granted permission to start a settlement at Winnacunett (now Hampton, Rockingham, New Hampshire). Stephen and son-in-law Christopher Hussey sold their land in Newbury and moved to Hampton in 1638. Stephen once more became the minister of his own church. However, there was a division in the town between his supporters and the supporters of Rev. Timothy Dalton. 

Rev. Stephen Bachiler Monument at Hampton
Image from Hampton Historical Society

Plaque from the memorial
Image from Lane Memorial Library

In 1641, Stephen was excommunicated for “irregular conduct” and his house and most of his property was burned down. His communion was restored but not his office. 

By 20 April 1647, he settled at Strawberry Bank (now Portsmouth, Rockingham, New Hampshire). Stephen, then about ninety, married a fourth time, Mary, widow of Robert Beedle, in 1650. He was fined for not publishing the marriage according to law. 

The marriage was not a happy one, as later in the year, Stephen and Mary were brought to court regarding their relationship: "that Mr. Bacherler and Mary his wife shall live together, as they publicly agreed to do, and if either desert the other, the marshal to take them to Boston to be kept until next quarter Court of Assistants, to consider a divorce.... In case Mary Bacheller live out of this jurisdiction without mutual consent for a time, notice of her absence to be given the magistrates at Boston" And in 1650, the Piscataqua (now Kittery, York, Maine) court cited, "George Rogers for, & Mary Batcheller the wife of Mr. Steven Bacheller minister for adultery." George received forty strokes and Mary thirty-nine "six weeks after the delivery" of her baby from the affair, plus branding with the letter A.

Soon afterwards, Stephen returned to England. Mary petitioned for divorce 14 October 1656 and accused him of committing bigamy in England. There is no evidence that he actually did marry another woman. 

Stephen's chair (According to Lane Memorial Library, as of 2010, this chair
belongs to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City,)

Stephen most likely was the “Steeven Batchiller Minester that dyed att Robert Barbers” who was buried 31 October 1656 at Allhallows Staining Church, London, Middlesex, England.

The remaining tower of Allhallows Staining Church
Photo courtesy of John Armagh

Next week's challenge from No Story Too Small: "Week 23 (June 4-10) – Wedding: June is time for weddings. Write about a June bride in your family or highlight a favorite wedding photo. Maybe there’s a serial marry-er in the family — that could be a fun post!" I have been hoping for this topic! And it has to do with Stephen's grandson and perhaps the wildest wedding I've ever heard of. Hint: The wedding crashers may have had peglegs and eye patches.

52 Ancestors: Military

"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?" (No Story Too Small)


Happy Memorial Day!

On this day of remembrance, I've chosen to highlight my ancestor Lt. Benjamin Ennis, who fought and died in the Revolutionary War.

Benjamin Ennis was born 25 April 1743 in the Minisink Valley, "an area which reaches from Minisink Ford, New York, to Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania, to the Delaware Water Gap at New Jersey and Pennsylvania." (Minisink Valley Historical Society). He was the son of William Ennes and Elizabeth Quick, a couple with Dutch, Scottish, Irish, and French roots, living in an area that had once belonged to the Dutch and still showed a strong Dutch influence. 

William Ennis' house

Benjamin married Magdalena Van Etten in 1769. She too came from the Minisink Valley and her roots were even more diverse than her husband's: Dutch, Pomeranian (now part of Poland), German, English, Flemish, Norwegian, and perhaps Spanish. She was the niece of a commander of colonial forts.

During the Revolution, the Ennises and the Van Ettens were well-represented as patriots. Benjamin, his brothers Cornelius (a private) and Daniel (an ensign), and his father-in-law Johannes Van Etten all fought. His wife's uncle, the commander, now settled in North Carolina, provided civil service for the new government. Even Benjamin's father, William, a one-armed schoolteacher aged 65 at the start of the war, fought as a private. Patriotic feeling seems to have run high in this family.

Benjamin served as a lieutenant for Pennsylvania in the Revolutionary War and was killed in battle 20 Apr 1780 at Raymondskill Creek near Conashaugh, Pike, Pennsylvania (south of his home near the Delaware River in what is now known as the Delaware Water Gap). During the Revolution, there had been many small skirmishes in the region between the Americans and Mohawks that fought for the British under Joseph Brant (Thayendanegea). "...Brant led four of the six Iroquois nations on the British side in the American Revolution. He attacked colonial outposts on the New York frontier, skillfully commanding the Indian contingent in the Battle of Oriskany (August 6, 1777) and winning a formidable reputation after the raid on the fortified village of Cherry Valley, New York (November 11, 1778). Cooperating with British regulars and loyalists, Brant brought fear and destruction to the entire Mohawk Valley, southern New York, and northern Pennsylvania." (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

Joseph Brant

"'Battle Of The Conashaugh'
John Van Campen to Pres. Reed.

Southfield, April 24, 1780. 

Honr'd Sir:

I hope my last by Mr. Mixer has come to hand informing you of the incursion of the Indians at the house of Manuel Gunsaleyes. I herewith inform your Honor of their late attempts. James McCarte with his family was removed to the Jersey on the 20th inst., his sons went to their home to feed the cattle, the farm was in Pa. about three miles below Milford, discovered signs of Indians, returned to the Jersey immediately and acquainted Major Westbrook and Captain Westbrook and the signs they had discovered: they sent immediately for some of their best men and crossed the River that night. About sun rise the morning following discovered the Indians nigh the barn and began the attack: the number of the enemy is supposed to be about fourteen: the Major received no damage with his party: the Indians retreated to the woods: The Major was reinforced by Cap. Van Etten with three of his sons and son-in-law: pursued the Indians by the blood and about two miles came up with them. As it is without doubt three of them was wounded: renewed the attack, drove the Indians to the edge of a thick wood. Captain Van Etten maintained his ground with his few men, the Major with his men also. Captain Westbrook's men left at the first fire from the enemy in the woods, which was the ruin of the whole, but the ground maintained for some time and the retreat secured by the Major and Van Etten. Killed and missing on the part of the Major and Van Etten,—Captain Westbrook missing,—not yet found: Benjamin Ennis* killed, son-in-law to Captain Van Etten: Richard Rosecrans killed and two more wounded. Of the enemy killed, two found,—one an officer appearing by his dress,—found in his pocket a regular Journal from the first of March till the 16th instant. As appears by his Journal there is Three Hundred and Ninety marched from Niagagari, divided into different parties. The officer was a white man. Respected Sir, now under difficulties of march, what the event will be God only knows. The people are determined to evacuate the country as there appears no prospect of relief by the Militia. I am, sir, with due respect,

Your most humble Servt.,

John Van Campen

P. S. The said Mc.Cartee, where the attack began, is about two miles below Wells Ferry [at present Milford PA] on the banks of the Delaware. Capt. Van Etten lives in Delaware Township one mile below Mc.Cartee's."

(Source: Proceedings of the New York State Historical Association, Vol VII, 1907, p 48-49.)

In the family Bible, William wrote, "1780 April 20 departed this life my son Benjamin, killed by Indians, being my eldest son."

Raymondskill Creek, just above its junction with the Delaware
River in Pike County, Pennsylvania, near where Benjamin died
Photo by Ammodramus, Wikipedia

Magdalena would have been about two months pregnant with their youngest child Benjamin when her husband died. The baby had three older brothers and two older sisters (although I have no record of the one sister after her baptism), the eldest being only eight. How Magdalena supported her young family may be hinted at in a local history. The first school of Montague, Sussex, New Jersey had as its the fourth teacher "William Ennes, after which a Madam Benjamin became the directress of the educational interests of the neighborhood." (Snell, James P., The History of Sussex and Warren Counties, New Jersey, 1881.) Madam Benjamin may be Magdalena, the widow of Benjamin Ennis. Whether she taught school or not, it is known that she later moved with her children to the area of Spencer, Tioga, New York (later known as Van Etten, Chemung County), following migration patterns that would later lead her descendants westward.

Van Etten, New York

Benjamin and his family are not the only veterans in my family history. Of my direct ancestors, the following fought in wars between 1776 and now:

Revolutionary War

• Ebenezer Smith, Army
• Nathaniel Munro alias Maxfield, Navy, privateer aboard the Lady Washington
• Lt. Benjamin Ennis, Army, killed in action
• William Ennis, Army (Benjamin's father)
• Capt. Johannes Van Etten, Army (Benjamin's father-in-law)
• Jan Van Etten, listed by the DAR as a patriot because he provided civil service in the Revolution (also commander of Fort Hyndshaw, French & Indian War; Johannes' brother but also a direct ancestor)
• Probable ancestor (yet to be proved but likely): Whiting Parks, Army

Ebenezer Smith's grave

The Lady Washington II, a replica of the ship on which
Nathaniel Munro alias Maxfield served as a privateer
(Trivia: This ship was used in the first Pirates of the 
Caribbean movie. If I remember right,  it was the smaller one that
Capt. Jack and Will took after pretending to commandeer 
the bigger ship.)
Photo taken by me, 2013.

War of 1812

• Hill Richardson, Army
• James E. Bird, Army
• William A. Ennis, Army, heavy artillery

The personal headstone of James E. Bird
(part of a bigger monument)
James must have been proud of his service--this
stone reads, "J. Bird was a pensioner of the war 1812"

World War I

• Herman Elias Green (Great-Grandpa), Army, Rainbow Division, fought near Verdun, France

Herman E. Green peeling potatoes

World War II

• James Aloysius Carey (Grandpa), Army, artillery spotter in the Pacific Theater (including at Attu, Leyte, and Okinawa)
• Frank Richard Boyd (Grandpa), Army, military police in Arizona, medic-in-training in Colorado, Washington, North Carolina, and Missouri, post-war medic at a clinic in Hawaii

Frank Boyd in Hawaii

James A. Carey

In addition, several of my ancestors had brothers who served, including:

• Benjamin Ennis (brothers Daniel and Cornelius fought in the Revolution; evidently several of his brothers-in-law also fought)
• Keziah Elmer (brother Gad enlisted in the Army during the Revolution, brothers-in-law Nathan Lyon, Josiah Moody, and Levi Bacon served as well, with Nathan serving during the Lexington alarm)
• Ebenezer Smith Jr. (brother Preserved entered the Army at the age of 16 at the start of the Revolution, his uncle Nathan Chapin, who married Mary Smith, fought also and was taken prisoner at Ticonderoga, though he escaped shortly after)
• Remember Ellis (brothers John and Caleb fought in the Revolution)
• Judith Davenport (brother Jonathan served in the Revolution, as well as her brother-in-law Job Snell)
• Mary Lee Clark (brother William Henry Lee died in the War of 1812)
• Alonzo Havington Ennis (brothers Lorenzo Dow and Franklin V. died in the Civil War)
• Olive Bird (brother James A. died in the Civil War, brother Albert fought in the same war and survived)
• Caroline E. Devol (brother William Henry died in the Civil War)
• Mary Ann Harrigan (brother Patrick immigrated from Ireland and was recruited to fight with the Confederate Army during the Civil War, injured in action and died in hospital)
• Florence Mahler (her brother John fought in the Navy Reserve and brother Jacob fought in the Army, both during World War II; brother Pete was a SW2, Navy in the Korean War, brothers Andy and Michael Elmer apparently also served in the military)
• James Carey (brother Tom served in the Army during World War II)
• Beulah Green (brother Keith served in the Air Force before and during World War II)
• my mother (one of her brothers and a sister-in-law served in the Air Force)

Now I mentioned that I worked with the Coast Guard last week, so I'd better relate my time with the military:

Here I am about to board a ship, wearing every piece of 
personal protective equipment the Coasties could find
Photo taken by C. Pryke, 2011

Not long after I finished grad school, recession hit and I struggled to find work. And then I got a phone call--I was offered a job as a contract instructional designer working at the Coast Guard's TRACEN Yorktown. It was terrifying moving across the country where my nearest relative was about six hours away and my nearest friend about three hours but not only was it a job, it seemed an intriguing job. 

And so it was. In Yorktown, I was immersed in a far more military setting than I had ever experienced before. I worked on a base and got to know the wonderful Coast Guard well. I learned not to flinch at the sound of gunfire (coming from firing ranges) or even cannon fire (except the time I accidentally ended up on the business end of one at the wrong time--of course, it was a blank but it took a good long while before my heart rate returned to normal). Many of the great people I met while living in Virginia were military folk.

There were many other military bases in the area. These included Fort Eustis down a street near my apartment, which I accidentally entered several times when I took a wrong turn. Fortunately, I could show my military ID to the guard, then make a quick trip around the fort and exit with the shreds of my dignity, without having to explain what a directionally-impaired twit I was yet again. By the way, I also, on a day trip to DC, ended up taking another wrong turn--this time, I ended up at the gates of the Pentagon. You know what happens when you show up at the gates of the Pentagon? I do. A truck with flashy blue lights comes to scare you off. I had the presence of mind to get back up on the Beltway right away, so I never found out what happens after the flashy blue light truck gets to the gate. Technically, I don't know if the military ID trick would fly there. Somehow, I think not.

I did enter Fort Eustis on purpose. On one occasion, it was to avail myself of the opportunity of riding a Huey helicopter from the Vietnam War. I also had the opportunity to visit the World War II Memorial and Vietnam Memorial on Memorial Day. It was especially touching finding the names of battles that Grandpa Carey fought in and discovering Kilroy, which Grandpa Boyd taught me to draw when I was little.

And living on one corner of the Historic Triangle, the past was part of my day-to-day life. I lived a couple of blocks from where the British surrendered. My daily commute took me through the Yorktown battlefield, past a Civil War cemetery, and over Civil Way trenches. I came across more Civil War trenches while walking around the base. Not far away was Colonial Williamsburg, where I could see reenactments of great moments of the Revolution. I bicycled around the Moore House, where the terms of surrender were drawn up, towards where Washington and his troops once camped. I wandered the battlefield, feeling a sense of reverence for the sacrifices that took place there, and the historic downtown, including the house of Thomas Nelson, a Founding Father.

The Civil War trenches that I encountered in my walks
Photo taken by me, 2011

Duke of Gloucester Street, Colonial Williamsburg, looking toward the armory and courthouse
Photo taken by me, 2011

Perhaps, one of the most awe-inspiring moments was the Fourth of July when I went to the TRACEN for a barbeque with the Coasties that I come to serve. Afterwards, I sat on the pier and watched three different fireworks displays, Yorktown, Gloucester, and Poquoson's celebration of the great struggle to become an independent America. Then, I left and ended up in the traffic from Yorktown. We were rerouted down the tour roads, through the battlefield and past the American camp. On the eve of the anniversary of the bold signing of the Declaration of Independence, I was driving where Washington and so many American and French soldiers defied the odds and sieged the British.  A little over a year after Benjamin gave his life to the north, there on those grassy fields and thick woods in Virginia, the war was finally won.

The surrender at Yorktown, 1781

Benjamin died, Magdalena raised her family alone, and William fought and mourned his eldest son for the fledgling country seemed to have valued so highly. Others of my ancestors fought in New England, New York, and on the seas for the same cause. Hill, James, and William fought to keep that new freedom. Alonzo, Olive, Caroline, and others mourned their brothers. Great-Grandpa Green and Grandpa Carey faced hard combat at Verdun, Attu, Okinawa, and the Philippines, while Grandpa Boyd waited in suspense to see if he would be sent into the final battles on the European Front. "O beautiful for heroes proved in liberating strife. Who more than self their country loved and mercy more than life!"


Next week's challenge from No Story Too Small: "Countless schools will be having their commencement ceremonies around this time. Think not only about school, but also about commencement meaning 'a beginning.'" I'm not quite sure who to feature yet but come back and find out!

52 Ancestors: Black Sheep

"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.

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.

A colonial bowling ball
Image from Massachusetts Historical Commission

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.

Plow, showing a coulter
Photo from historylink101

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.