DUTCH AND ENGLISH IN NEW YORK That I may say, and say truly, that if there be any terrestrial happiness to be had by people of all ranks, especially of an inferior rank, it must certainly be here. . . . Here those which fortune hath frowned upon in England, to deny them an inheritance among their brethren, or such as by their utmost labors can scarcely procure a living, I say such may procure here inheritances of lands and posses sions, stock them with all sorts of cattle, enjoy the benefits of them whilst they live, and leave them to the benefit of their children when they die.
Cornelis Van Ruyven seems to have been the only per son of importance who returned to Holland after the second English occupation. There he continued to serve the province in its church affairs. Martin Cregier removed to the up-river country where he died in 1715. His descendants have been many in the Mohawk valley. Dr. Hans Kierstede died in 1666, Thomas Hall in 1669 leaving no children, Govert Lockermans in 1671, Domine Drisius and John Underhill in the same year as General Stuyvesant, 1673.
Underhill had settled near Oyster Bay, getting wide lands, which in memory of the English neighborhood where he was born he called Kenilworth, from the Matinecock Indians and afterwards protecting the tribe against all covetous white men, several times petitioning the governor or the court of assizes on their behalf. Over his grave in the old burial ground at Matinecock a large monument has recently been erected, rather out of proportion to its rural surroundings and to the role he played in the history of New Netherland and New York. For more than two hundred years his lands remained in the hands of his descendants. Some of these, who are now numerous, inherit Dutch blood from the wife of his youth. His second wife, Elizabeth Feake whom he married in 1659, was a sister of the wife of John Bowne the Quaker; and in his latter years the old Indian fighter also joined the peace-loving communion of Friends. Family bonds were in those days widely stretched and deeply re spected. As the first husband of Underhill's mother-in-law Mrs. Feake had been a brother of John Winthrop, Underhill, when writing after his marriage, sometimes addressed Win throp as his 'dear cousin' or an interchangeable term at the time 'dear uncle.' In Lion Gardiner's History of the Pequot Wars he praises the prowess of 'Captain Undrill,' saying that he was one of the 'right New England military worthies' whose names were ignored by the chroniclers of New England; they had not once mentioned him although their 'twelve-penny chroni cle' was stuffed with a catalogue of the names of some as if they had ' deserved immortal fame.' Thomas Willett retired again to Plymouth Colony in the time of Governor Lovelace and died in 1674. In the Little Neck Cemetery at Riverside, East Providence, his modest grave is fortunately undisturbed. His name is cut on a headstone of slate, and on a footstone these words: Who was Ye first Mayor of New York And did twice retain Ye place.
He was ' a very able and an honest gentleman,' Colonel Cart wright once assured Governor Nicolls. His letters show that, whatever his origin, he cannot have been familiar with printed pages, so far beyond the variations in spelling cus tomary in his time are the anarchical vagaries of his pen. Like John Underhill he spelled by ear, and his ear, like Under hill's, was bad. In letters to Winthrop, for example, Under hill invented favarabell," considderachonse," menchoned,' and `linggrin,' wrote that the 'last chip' which had arifd' from England was 'but nine wicks in her viagse,' and de scribed John Bowne as a jentiele young man, of gud abilliti, of a louli fetture and gud behafior.' And Willett was quite as ingenious, achieving operetewnetey," waitey afaiares,' `pees and tranqueletey,' and explaining that . . . wampum falenge moar and moar yn vallo and lenengs riseng I thoughte to staey tell et war a beter comodetey bute et stell fell.
Although Willett left children, not from him but from another Thomas Willett one of the original patentees of the town of Hempstead and high sheriff of Long Island under Governor Andros was descended the Marinus Willett who was active in the French and Revolutionary Wars and, like his far-back namesake, became mayor of New York.
The three advisers of the English government, Maverick, Baxter, and Scott, who had shown in 1663 how easily New Netherland might be seized, did not profit by its seizure as they undoubtedly hoped they would. Maverick seems to have got little or nothing more than the house on the Broad Way in New York. Baxter and Scott got nothing at all. Trying at New York to recover moneys which he said the West India Company owed him, Baxter was proved to have served the Company treacherously and was fined for using bad language in court. Soon he departed for the West Indies. Scott, disappointed in his scheme to secure the governorship of Long Island, nevertheless returned there and resumed his old traffic in fraudulent land conveyances. Underhill wrote to Winthrop that he had worked much mis chief at Brookhaven with `a counterfeit portraiture of the king impressed in yellow wax' and attached to a forged grant of twenty miles square, but was now 'packing' out of the province as the court of assizes had condemned him and had reinstated the townsfolk in their `ancient possessions.' In fact, a warrant issued in October, 1666, says that at the Hempstead meeting of 1665, when the Duke's Laws were ratified, Scott had been ordered to bring into the next court of assizes a certain deed 'with the king's picture on it and a great yellow wax seal affixed to it' with which he had de ceived many persons, but fearing that his `counterfeit and deceitful practices' might be discovered had 'privily' with drawn himself from the province; therefore it was ordered that any property he owned should be seized. In the same month Nicolls wrote home that he had positive knowledge that Scott had stolen from the office of the secretary of state in London papers relating to Massachusetts and delivered them to the governor and council at Boston, told that with the paper bearing 'the king's picture drawn with a pen or black lead' and the forged signatures of the king and Henry Bennett he had 'horribly abused his Majesty's honor in these parts' and then fled to Barbadoes, said that the governor of Barbadoes, Lord Willoughby, had sent word that 'upon this account' he would send Scott a prisoner to England, and added that he was writing what he himself knew so that `such fellows might have some mark of infamy put upon them.' Thus, it has usually been thought, Baxter and Scott dis appeared from history. Palfrey, however, suggested that this Captain John Scott might be identical with the Colonel John Scott who afterwards got Samuel Pepys into trouble; and many existing documents tend to show that such was the case.
Not sent to England by Lord Willoughby but taken into his favor, Scott bore an active part in the war then in progress with the Dutch and the French, commanding an expedition which captured the island of Tobago and certain Dutch stations on the South American coast. A long description of the taking of St. Christopher's from the French, now in the Public Record Office, is indorsed 'Major Scott's Rela tion' and was written at Willoughby's request. Returning to England at the close of the year 1667 Scott petitioned King Charles, asking that he be reimbursed for the loss of a ship and some £1600 in the royal service. Willoughby praised his conduct as a soldier but wrote to Joseph William son, the under-secretary of state, that he had probably been telling in England some truth but not all gospel.' There was much truth in an account of the various American colo nies that he dictated to Williamson but also some highly dubious statements, like the assertion that Sir Henry Vane was the father of the monstrous infants said to have been borne in the early days of Massachusetts by the heretical Mrs. Hutchinson and Mrs. Dyre.
In 1668 Scott was appointed king's geographer. Soon afterwards the sight of Colonel Nicolls, newly arrived from Manhattan, 'made him forsake Whitehall.' Nicolls himself wrote this to Samuel Maverick explaining, as Maverick re peated in a letter to Winthrop, that he had told how Scott had behaved on Long Island and had informed the king, queen, and duke of the 'lavish extravagant expressions' he had used concerning each one of them.
Next, Scott spent some time in the Netherlands writing, as parts of an intended book on the coasts and islands of America, a Description of Guiana, now in manuscript in the British Museum, and an unfinished History and Description of the River of the Arno-zones, one copy of which is among the Pepys papers at Oxford, another among those at Cambridge. Doubtless Pepys acquired these manuscripts while he was making an investigation that proved extremely unfortunate for himself. At some previous time Scott had sold a tract on Long Island which he did not possess to a connection of his own in England, a certain Major Gotherson. Later, Gotherson's heirs, to learn the exact situation of the property, invoked the aid of Governor Lovelace, and when the fraud was thus discovered petitioned the king for redress. The Duke of York then ordered Pepys, as an official in the ad miralty office, to gather evidence against Scott, .and Pepys brought together a great number of depositions regarding his dishonest proceedings in New England, New York, France, Holland, and England, including some which proved that while he was living in the Netherlands he swindled the gov ernment of the province of Holland out of £7000 and, in consequence, was hanged in effigy at the Hague in 1672. All these documents are preserved at Oxford.
In the Public Record Office is a letter written in 1674 to Secretary Lord Arlington and enclosing one sent by Scott's wife from the home of her father, the Reverend Mr. Oxen bridge, at Boston in Massachusetts. This says that Scott was then in Surinam, where he had helped in the removal of British subjects (the place having been surrendered to Hol land), and had just written his wife after a silence of three years that he was a `deep sufferer' from ill-treatment at the hands of the Dutch, had thereby been prevented from writing sooner, and did not know when he would make his way to England. This letter seems to prove that he was not the Colonel John Scott who is known to have acted as an English spy in Holland during the war of 1672-1674. Even tually he did get back to England. And evidently he nursed his grudge against Pepys; for in May, 1679, in the height of the excitement engendered by the so-called Popish Plot against the life of King Charles which Titus Oates professed to re veal, on the deposition of `Colonel Scott and some others' Pepys was committed to the Tower, charged with selling the secrets of the admiralty to the French and plotting as a Catholic to dethrone the king and to extirpate the Protestant religion. After sitting in the Tower for several months he was released on bail for £30,000; his trial was postponed four times; he was not relieved from his bail until February, 1680, and then only because Scott refused to swear to the truth of his original depositions and no prosecutor appeared. Thus, as Pepys wrote to one of his friends, he had suffered for almost a year `from one villain's practices.' It seems to have been this same villain whose villainy took a new turn in 1682 when he murdered a hackney-coach man in a fray in the streets of London and fled to Norway where he remained, an outlaw, until, fourteen years later, he was pardoned by William III and returned to England. And it was certainly the John Scott known in New Nether land and New York whose memory was revived when the boundary lines of Venezuela were being settled in 1897 and 1898. Then his manuscripts, never quite forgotten by students of South American history, acquired practical im portance. The report of the United States commissioners discredited their statements; but Edmundson, the English scholar to whose studies of Dutch enterprises in South America we owe our knowledge of Jesse De Forest's journal, has since upheld them with convincing clearness.
Nothing can clear or clean the reputation of John Scott himself. But his career, which could be traced much more in detail than has here seemed needful, might form the theme of an interesting and not uninstructive monograph. The seventeenth-century type of globe-trotting, swashbuckling adventurer scarcely ever enlivened with his presence the northern American colonies; and although he frequently ap peared in the West Indies and, more conspicuously, in the East Indies, he can rarely have taken a hand in such important affairs as did Captain Scott or have left in history such vivid and plentiful traces.
The little book, published at London in 1670, in which Daniel Denton spoke of the horse-races on Long Island was the first English publication relating wholly to the Dutch province. It is fully described on its own title-page : A Brief Description of NEW YORK : Formerly Called New Nether lands. With the Places thereunto Adjoyning. Together with the Manner of its Scituation, Fertility of the Soyle, Healthfulness of the Climate, and the Commodities thence produced. Also Some Directions and Advice to such as shall go thither: An Account of what Commodities they shall take with them ; The Profit and Pleas ure that may accrue to them thereby. Likewise A Brief RELATION of the Customs of the Indians there.
Daniel Denton, a son of Richard Denton a Presbyterian minister who had been one of the original patentees of Hemp stead, was during the Dutch period town clerk of Hemp stead and of Jamaica. In 1665 he was one of the deputies from Jamaica to the Hempstead meeting and one of the first justices appointed by Governor Nicolls. His book tells that it was published to attract settlers to a province which until recently had been 'new or unknown to the English.' Cer tainly this was true, for the edition of 1667 of Heylin's Cos mography ignores the fact that the province then belonged to England and says that it contained few people and 'only one village.' Denton's over-enthusiastic tone and the fact that he does not speak in detail of any part of the province except Long Island suggest that he was writing as a land agent on his own or his friends' behalf, yet his specific state ments seem truthful. Of the city he says: New York is built most of brick and stone and covered with red and black tile, and the land being high it gives at a distance a pleas ing aspect to the spectators. The inhabitants consist most of Eng lish and Dutch and have a considerable trade with the Indians for beaver, otter, raccoon skins, with other furs ; and also for bear, deer, and elk skins; and are supplied with venison and fowl in the winter and fish in the summer by the Indians, which they buy at an easy . . .
On Long Island corn and cattle were the chief sources of livelihood. 'Store of flax' was grown, for 'every one' made `their own linen' as well as woollen cloth and linsey-woolsey `for their own wearing.' Had there been more artisans in the province it would soon have been able `to live without the help of any other country' in the matter of clothing. All artisans lived 'happily' and persons who had no trade be took themselves to husbandry, got lands of their own, and lived 'exceeding well.' Along the southern shore of Long Island 'an innumerable multitude of seals,' which made 'an excellent oil,' lay all winter upon the 'broken marshes and beaches or bars of sand,' but the people had not yet learned how to hunt them although in small boats they captured the whales and cram passes' that numerously frequented the same coast. Wild fruits of many kinds were abundant strawberries so plenti ful that in June when the 'fields and woods' were 'dyed red' with them the country people, says Denton, . . . instantly arm themselves with bottles of wine, cream, and sugar and instead of a coat of mail every one takes a female upon his horse behind him, and so rushing violently into the fields, never leave until they have disrobed them of their red colors and turned them into the old habit.
Only one more passage need be quoted from Denton's laudations. He has not the land agent's accent when he says, in words that are pleasant to remember as an epitaph upon the forefathers of New York: Were it not to avoid prolixity I could say a great deal more, and yet say too little, how free are those parts of the world from that pride and oppression with their miserable effects, which many, nay, almost all parts of the world are troubled with, being ignorant of the pomp and bravery which aspiring humours are servants to, and striv ing after almost everywhere: where a wagon or cart gives as good content as a coach, and a piece of their home made cloth better than the finest lawns or richest silks; and though their low-roofed houses may seem to shut their doors against pride and luxury, yet how do they stand wide open to Iet charity in and out, whether to assist each other or relieve a stranger. . . .
After Denton's book no other was published relating spe cifically to Long Island until Wood's Sketch of the First Settlement of Long Island and Furman's Antiquities of Long Island appeared in 1824.
Better known to-day than any other old Dutch book about America is a handsome volume, called The New and Unknown World or Description of America, written by Arnold Montanus and first published at Amsterdam in 1671. It is not much more than a compilation from Denton and the earlier Dutch writers, especially Van der Donck. It de scribes the city according to the witness not of contemporary eyes but of the old engravings, and includes pictures of tropical or mythical animals supposed to be native to the province. John Ogilby, King Charles's cosmographer, pub lished at London in 1671 a large volume called America which follows Denton and Montanus but enlarges a little upon Denton's description of the city, saying: It is placed upon the neck of the Island Manhatans looking towards the sea, encompassed with Hudson's River which is six miles broad ; the town is compact and oval with very fair streets and several good houses ; the rest are built much after the manner of Holland to the number of about 400 houses which in those parts are held consider able. . . .
John Josselyn, in the account of his voyages to New Eng land published in 1674, tells how the English had taken New York from the Dutch and 'turned out their governor with the silver leg,' and describes the city very briefly, saying that it was `built with brick alla moderna' and, a statement which may be doubted, that `the meanest house therein' was ' valued at one hundred pounds.' The most important map of the period is one, now called the Nicolls Map, which was evidently sent by this governor to England. Roughly drawn but from an accurate survey, it shows on a large scale the whole of Manhattan with the adjacent shores and the islands in the harbor, and gives the names of a few localities including New Harlem and 'The governer that last was his Bowry.' Adjoined to it is a plan of the city on a still larger scale which resembles the Duke's Plan already described but, although less well executed, is supplied with a key indicating various buildings and points of interest such as the fort, the wall and its gates, the 'Town House,' the West India Company's garden, and 'the Old Governer's House' on the water front near the fort.
One of the most attractive maps of the province appeared between 1662 and 1665 in one of the many atlases issued by the Blaeu family of Amsterdam. It is adorned with pictures of native animals and of Indian villages and canoes. A large Dutch map very complete in its nomenclature and showing the harbor, Manhattan, part of Long Island, the Hudson to beyond Albany, and a bit of the Mohawk River, and also in an inset part of the Connecticut River, was published at Middleburg and the Hague in 1666 in a pamphlet bearing on the controversy between the States General and Sir George Downing. It gives the names of the Hudson as `The North River, otherwise River Manhattans or Hudson's River, called the Great.' The spelling of the name Hoboken, ' Hopoghan,' supports its supposed Indian origin. About the year 1670 a map of the province appeared as one of the three American maps in the first edition of Visscher's Atlas Minor, published at Amsterdam.
On the map of the province given in Montanus's New World Herrman's view of the city was reproduced with alterations that include an attractive group of palm-trees. This is sometimes called the third picture of the city. The true third picture, bearing the legend Nieuw Amsterdam on lange Nieuw Jorck genamt (New Amsterdam recently named New York) with the information that the place had been retaken by the Hollanders in 1673 and finally given up again to the English, appeared on a map retouched at this time by a Dutch cartographer, Hugo Allard, to bring it up to date and known as the second Allard Map. It shows the city from the East River side with its batteries and enclosed dock. Etched, most probably, by the distinguished artist Romeyn De Hooghe from a drawing by some unknown hand, during a long period it was frequently reproduced with more or less alteration in books and atlases or as a separate picture. With the title Nieu Amsterdam al New Yorck it figured in a collection of one hundred views of the cities of the world published at Amsterdam by Carel Allard about the year 1680.
It is a pity that a drawing does not survive which, as is told in a letter written by John Davenport of New Haven in 1666, showed the 'three suns and four rainbows' that had recently appeared in the sky of New York. Governor Nicolls had had it made to send to Governor Winthrop.
The burgomasters of New Orange said that there were about six thousand people of the Dutch nation in the province. Ten years earlier the estimated number had been seven or eight thousand, or sometimes ten thousand. Probably most of those who departed, going to Holland, to Curagoa, or to Carolina, belonged to the floating elements of the popula tion, always abundant in a colonial seaport. Certainly the decline was not due to any lack of fecundity. Our Dutch ancestors married as early, remarried as promptly and re peatedly when bereaved, and had as many children as the forefathers of New England, for they were pressed upon by the same conditions so imperative a need for industry and thrift and so plentiful a lack of hired service that a father less or motherless household was almost an impossibility. One man, a German, is mentioned in the chronicles of Love lace's time as being the fourth husband of his first wife and the third husband of his second wife whose antecedent spouses had been a Dane and a Dutchman. This is a sample of the way in which a numerous posterity was insured, and also of the way in which different strains of continental blood were intermingled. When all of these strains had blended into one predominantly Dutch, constant intermarriages kept it so intact that many families among the farming people, and many also among the chief people of New York and Albany, came down to recent times with no intermixture, or with scarcely any, of British blood.
Although the Dutch-Americans were only a handful com pared with their English-American neighbors, and although their city did not draw its increasing population from Hol land, nevertheless for half a century New York remained a characteristically Dutch city in language, customs, and feel ing; at the end of a whole century, when it had tenfold as many inhabitants as New Orange, half of them were still considered Dutch; and even after the Revolution travellers noticed the un-English aspect and atmosphere of the place.
For two or three generations even a colloquial acquaint ance with the English tongue was not universal on Man hattan; and all through colonial times the English speech of its people was very corrupt, for a large proportion of them heard only Dutch in the family, the church, and the school. The Reformed church permitted no English sermons to be preached from its pulpits until 1764 and did not abolish Dutch sermons until the end of the century; no master taught Eng lish in its school until 1773 and the first who taught it exclu sively took charge in 1791. In 1785 there was still at least one private pedagogue in the city who taught nothing but Dutch.
On Long Island many persons, including descendants of its early English settlers, spoke Dutch as late as the middle of the nineteenth century. The last Dutch preacher of King's County lived until 1824. Albany, remote from the door of immigration, remained almost wholly Dutch until long after the Revolution and still contains a church which holds all its services in the old tongue and imports its pastors from Holland. In some parts of the rural up-river districts it was impossible in the middle of the eighteenth century to find jurors who understood the language of the courts, and in the most secluded parts Dutch was almost exclusively spoken for still another hundred years and is not yet for gotten. It was doubtless a native of one of these conserva tive spots who, when the third constitution of the State of New York was under discussion in 1846, proposed an amend ment to the provision that no one should vote who could not read English. It should be English or Dutch he said, and referred to the Articles of Surrender of 1664 as guaran teeing that Dutch residents should be protected in all their rights.
Numbers of Germans and Swiss settled in the valleys of the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers during the first half of the eighteenth century, but very few Englishmen entered until after the Revolution. They did not like to become tenants of the great proprietors who soon divided among themselves the eastern shore of the Hudson, while, on the other hand, the Dutchmen who owned small farms, developing in their rustic isolation a narrowness of spirit unknown to their ancestors, were unwilling, it is said, to sell land to English men and especially to New Englanders. Only on Manhat tan and in its neighborhood was there any free influx of English settlers. Consequently, in this one of the colonies of England corroboration could long be found for what Thomas Mun wrote in the year 1664 about Netherlanders in the kingdom itself. Even those born and bred in the king dom, he said, were 'among but not of ' its people, 'not having so much as one drop of English blood in their hearts.' Shortly before 1750 William Douglass of Boston wrote that the Dutch in New York . . . because not well dashed or intermixed with the English, though in allegiance above eighty years, do not seem to consult our interests so much as might be expected.
Nor have the old love and the old antipathy died out now that all New Yorkers have been for generations simply Americans. They were strongly expressed on Manhattan during the recent war in South Africa, still more emphatic ally in the interior parts of the state.
In Delaware the chief offices were long held by persons of Dutch descent, a strong strain of Dutch blood is still dis tinguishable, and many Dutch names are as well known as in New York, among them Bayard, Van Dyke, Van Zandt, and Vandegrift. In the northern parts of New Jersey Dutch names are still more common and Dutch traditions are cherished. At Bergen, close to Manhattan, the ancestral tongue was remembered for two hundred years by a group of people so conservative that they would not listen to Eng lish sermons until 1806 and then only on alternate Sundays, and until 1809 kept their church records in Dutch. In 1770 Rutgers College and a theological seminary for students of the Dutch Reformed faith were founded at New Brunswick; and this town is described in a gazetteer of 1810 as containing 6000 people half of them 'of Dutch origin.' Clear proof of the vitality of New York's slender current of Netherland blood springs from even a superficial acquaint ance with the surnames well known in the huge city of to-day.
Many pretty puzzles for the historian as well as the genealo gist are set by the names in the old records, for while sur names, as has been explained, were quite casually adopted in New Netherland, not until later days did any one, Dutch or English, think it needful to spell a name always in the same way even when signing legal documents. Even after the Revolution the first Episcopal bishop of New York wrote his own name sometimes Provoost and sometimes Provost. In earlier days variations were much greater. It is easy to divine that the Beekmans and Beeckmans of to-day had a common ancestor, harder to read La Montagne in Montanye, the form that most of the doctor's descendants now use. La Chair the notary public was also D'la Scheer. Bayard may be found written Beyaerdt, Cregier in half-a-dozen ways. Paulus Leendertsen Van der Grist masquerades in official writings as Leendertzen, Leenders, Van den Grift, Van der Grift, and Van die Grift. The same family name was indif ferently Voorhis, Voris, Vorhees, or Van Voorhuys; or, to take another example, Couwenhoven, Van Couwenhoven, Kouenhoven, Koowenoven, and Conover.
Moreover, surnames were often changed in the course of time. The Remsens of to-day, for instance, descend from a Dutchman known as Rem Jansen Vanderbeeck; the Suy dams trace back to the three sons of Hendrick Ruycker, or Riker, who assumed the name Suydam about the year 1710. Again, in the adoption of surnames relatives did not always agree. Only inquiry could suggest" a relationship between the progeny of the Marten Cornelissen who called himself Van Buren and that of his brother who assumed a name afterwards anglicized into Bloomingdale; or could reveal that the Rutgers family traces back to one Rutger Jacobsen Van Schoenderwart, the Van Wart family to his brother Teunis.
To sources of confusion like these are added those left in the old papers by Dutchmen writing English names and by Englishmen writing Dutch names. The New Englanders turned Wouter Van Twiller into Gwalter Vertrill, and Van Tienhoven into Teinoh or Van Teynoix. Their governors usually addressed Stuyvesant as Governor Peter Stevenson or Stevensen. Philip Pietersen Schuyler's name stands on the list of persons who took the oath of allegiance in 1664 as Philip Van Schuiller Paterson. John Underhill became at the point of Dutch pens Jan Van der Hyl, John Lawrence sometimes Jan Laurentsen or Lauwerens, while Delavall was De la Vaal. A so-called Sander Leendertsen, first an em ployee of the West India Company and afterwards one of the original settlers of Schenectady, was a Scotchman named Alexander (Sandy) Lindesay of the Glen. In later life he called himself Alexander Glen, and his descendants retained this surname.
Sometimes an English name was more or less permanently transformed into a Dutch name. Thomas Davis, an English son-in-law of Domine Schaats of Albany, appears as Tomas Davidtse Kekabel. A Silesian whom the Dutch called Burger Joris (Burgher George) the English called simply Burger, and Burgers his posterity remained. Charles Bridges, it will be remembered, held many offices under Governor Stuyvesant as Carel Van Brugge.
Much more often Dutch names were anglicized in the course of time, as when the son of a Dutchman named Titus Syrachs De Vries figured as Francis Titus. Many New Yorkers with such names as Peters, Williamson, and Johnson are descended, whether they are aware of it or not, from Netherlanders who were known by patronymics like Pieter sen, Willemsen, and Jansen. Many other Dutch names have been somewhat altered like Sill (De Sille), Corwin (Corbyn), Drew (Dreuw), Cole (Kool), Kortwright (Kortryk), Has brook (Hasebroeck), Hoagland (Hooglandt), Cooper (Cuyper), Snediker (Snedicor), Garretson (Gerritsen), Bloodgood (Bloet goet), Hotaling (Hoogteilingen, Hooghtaling, Hoogtaling), Lansing (Lantsingh), Benson (Bensingh), Paulding (Paul dinck), Ryerson (Ryerse), Mabie (Mebie), Sigsbee (Sixbe), See (Zy), Riker (Rycker), and Depew (Dupuis, De Puy). Many others which thought English are unchanged Dutch or Flemish: Cooley, for example, Post, Potter, Elting, Wendell, Waldron, Lott, Holt, Hegeman, Vedder, Nevius, Terhune, Cordes, Sickels, Vreeland, and Provost. Again, while certain New York names which appear to be English are French in origin, like Freer (Frere), Bevier (Beviere), Blanshan, and Truax (Du Truy), others which may seem to be French, like De Lanoy, Demarest (Des Marest), Mesier, Vide, and De Kay, are known to be Dutch or Flemish; and so it is with some German-sounding names such as Brinker hoff and Goetchius. Other names, of which Duryea, Oothout, De Milt, Lefferts, and Steffens are differing examples, might be divined to be Dutch, and a multitude very familiar in New York are unmistakably so, notably those with the particle van. When all the various kinds are added together their total seems surprisingly large; and they have spread, although not numerously, throughout the western and even into the southern states, borne by Americans of the seventh or eighth generation easily distinguishable, of course, from the Dutch immigrants who in recent years have settled in New Jersey and in some of the states of the northern middle West.
Naturally, not all the old Dutch names are now pronounced as they used to be. Our tongues have forgotten, for instance, the guttural sound of the Dutch sch, speaking it as sk, and also the broad sound of the Dutch uij. Writing this as uy we pronounce it, in such names as Schuyler, Cuyler, Pruyn, Duyckinck, and Frelinghuysen, simply as y. In parts of the country where Dutch names are unfamiliar even the New York pronunciation is not always followed. Roosevelt, for example, is there given a long first syllable whereas it should be spoken, and is in New York, as though written with a single o.
All through the colonial period the Dutch New Yorkers kept themselves numerously and honorably prominent in provincial, municipal, and commercial affairs, and distinctly at the head in social life despite the influence of the official circle that surrounded the English governors. And they have not been swept from their place by the great currents from other parts of America and from all parts of Europe which mingle now in the maelstrom called New York. Indeed, while some families once prominent have died out or ceased to play any visible part in public or social life, others Van Buren, Roosevelt, Cortelyou, Vanderbilt, Depew are names that occur to mind have in one way or another achieved in modern days a prominence they did not have before.
New Yorkers are still very proud of Dutch descent even when it is masked under names of other origins. In family pride some of them are as tightly and complacently encased as any Virginian. In the more generous sentiment called pride of race they exceed all other Americans, and this feel ing has strengthened instead of diminishing since the Revo lution. In the year 1787 a Holland Lodge of freemasons was formed in the city, using the Dutch tongue in its pro ceedings. An association organized in 1835 for historical, charitable, and social purposes, and called the St. Nicholas Society in honor of the saint whom tradition names as the patron saint of New Amsterdam, was never as flourishing as it is to-day. Although it does not confine its membership to persons of Dutch descent it preserves Dutch customs and sentiments, holding its anniversary meetings with Dutch feasting on St. Nicholas Day in December, and in the spring celebrating the Paas festival, the Easter festival of the Hol lander. More definitely social in its aims but making colonial descent a requirement for membership is the St. Nicholas Club, founded in 1875. The Holland Society of New York, founded in 1885 chiefly for historical but also for social pur poses, includes only direct descendants in the male line of Netherlanders by birth or adoption who immigrated before the final establishment of English dominion in 1675. It has published many valuable old records and historical essays. A similar association is the Huguenot Society of America, founded at New York in 1883 with broad and scholarly his torical aims.
These overt signs of love and respect for the fatherland of New York have brought about a rebirth of personal inter course between men of Dutch blood on opposite sides of the Atlantic and an awakening in Holland of a genuine interest in the history of its connection with its quondam province.
Although not a single building dating from Dutch times now remains on Manhattan, New Amsterdam stamped itself on the aspect of the city by bequeathing it the 'high stoop' house, and ineffaceably affected its topography. Wall Street shows where its northern limits lay. The irregular block where the new custom-house stands preserves the shape of Master Kryn Frederycke's fort, and the Bowling Green in front of it is the Dutchmen's Plain. More remarkably, the place that the Dutchmen chose for their centre of traffic is still, it may again be said, the great financial and commercial mart of Greater New York.
Many Dutch names persist on the map of the city or can be divined under anglicized spellings. In its neighborhood they are still more numerous town names like Brooklyn, Flushing, Gravesend, New Utrecht, Bergen, Yonkers, and Flatbush, and others like Staten Island, Coney Island, Shooter's (Schutter's) Island, Sandy Hook, Hell Gate, Kill Van Kull, Robbin's Reef (from robyn, a seal), Oyster Bay, 'so named by our nation' wrote Captain De Vries in 1639, and Spuy tenduyvil Creek which means not Spite-the-Devil, as is some times said, but Spouting Devil. 'Brooklyn' has gone through transformations which have sometimes caused its origin to be mistaken. At various times it has been Breuckelen, Brookland, Brockland, Brocklin, Brookline, and Brooklyn, the last and now permanent form coinciding more nearly than the intermediate ones with the first of all.
Up the Hudson, of course, Dutch place-names are very frequent although, again, sometimes altered as in the case of Haverstraw (Haverstro), and Catskill (Kaaterskill). Far to the southward and well to the eastward the Hollander's nomenclature survives. Wherever any of the suffixes 'hook' (hoelc, a corner), 'kill' (old Dutch kil, a channel), 'gat' (the mouth of a harbor), `clove' (kloof, a cleft), 'rack' (reeks, a ridge), or 'fly' (valei, a valley) are found they bear witness to the presence of Dutchmen as the first Europeans; and Cape May and Cape Henlopen are their monuments at one extreme as at the other are Fisher's (Visscher's) Island, Block Island, and Dutch Island in Narragansett Bay. The Dutch origin of the name Rhode Island, first bestowed on the isle that the Indians called Aquidneck and then upon the commonwealth of which it was the nucleus, has often been denied but is far more probable than any other that has been suggested. Stuyvesant once wrote that his people had secured a small island in Narragansett Bay 'near the Red (Roode) Island'; and Aquidneck was almost certainly called Roode Eylandt, probably by the first explorer of the region, Adriaen Block.
Some of the minor legacies left by New Netherland to New York have been borrowed by other parts of the country for example, the 'high stoop' house; the piazza which, in the northern states at least, seems to have been developed from the Dutch stoop; many of the dishes of the skilful Dutch housewife including the now typically American buck wheat-cake; the Dutch skate and the Dutch sleigh; and a few more or less transmogrified Dutch words. Chief among these are 'boss' (baas) which has acquired a novel political meaning but has also in its true Dutch meaning everywhere replaced the English 'master' in artisans' parlance; and `boodle' (boedel), an American slang word but a respectable Dutch word meaning household stuff or personal property. `Pinxter-flower' comes from the Dutch name for Whitsun tide although we apply it to our Rhododendron nudiflorum while in Holland a pinkster-bloem is an iris. Our weak-fish was named by the Dutch week, soft or tender; our moss bunker was their marsbancker. 'Cooky' comes from koekje, a little cake; 'hooky' from hoekje, a little corner, 'to play hooky' meaning to hide around the corner. 'Spook,' identical in Dutch, is called by English dictionaries an American word. And every born New Yorker says `to snoop,' getting it from snoepen which means to pry, to do things on the sly.
Until 1772 the Reformed Church continued to flourish in dependence upon the classis of Amsterdam, remaining for generations the chief communion in the city in spite of official favor shown to the Anglican Church, and steadily increasing elsewhere. It now embraces within the United States, chiefly in the states of New York and New Jersey, about six hundred and fifty congregations with seven hundred ministers and more than a hundred thousand communicants. In 1902 it counted in the greater city of New York one hun dred and twenty-eight congregations and missions, while next to the corporation of Trinity Church the wealthiest in the city was the corporation of the Collegiate Church the actual organization that Domine Michaelius formed in 1628, now owning six church buildings on Manhattan and still controlling the school that Adam Roelandtsen first served.
The New Year's festival of the Dutch, a day for giving gifts and for visiting all one's acquaintances, retained its traditional features in New York until, thirty or forty years ago, the city grew too large for its right observance. More interesting is the story of the Christmas festival of modern America as it has been affected by the St. Nicholas festival of New Amsterdam.
While Catholicism prevailed St. Nicholas was everywhere the children's saint. In Holland, where his personality was modified by memories of Woden, god of the elements and the harvest, he had a peculiar hold on popular affection which persisted into Protestant times. The children of the Dutch still believe that St. Nicholas brings the gifts that they always get on the eve of his titular day, December 6. In New Amsterdam this day was one of the five chief feast days of the year. After New Orange became New York the characteristic traits of the Dutch children's festival were transferred to the near-by Christmas festival which was English as well as Dutch. It cannot now be said when the change began or when it was firmly established. It is known, indeed, that by the middle of the eighteenth century St. Nicholas Day had been dropped from the list of official holi days which, religious and patriotic together, then numbered twenty-seven. But, on the other hand, more than one memoir and book of reminiscences says that as late as the middle of the nineteenth century some conservative old Dutch families still celebrated the true St. Nicholas Day in their homes in the true old fashion, then bestowing the children's annual meed of gifts. Nor is any light thrown on the question by certain entries in a local newspaper, Riving ton's Gazetteer, dated in December 1773 and 1774 and referring to celebrations of `the anniversary of St. Nicholas, otherwise called Santa Claus,' for they speak of social meetings of the `sons of that ancient saint' in which children can hardly have participated, and they indicate days which were neither Christmas Day nor the true St. Nicholas Day.
It is clear, however, that on Manhattan by a gradual con solidation of the two old festivals Christmas became pre eminently a children's festival presided over by the children's saint whose modern name, Santa Claus, is a variant of the Dutch St. Niclaes or San Claas. In all European countries Christmas still means simply the day of Christ's nativity; for the 'Old Christmas' whom we meet in English ballads of earlier times, the 'Father Christmas' of Charles Dickens, and the 'Pere Noel' of the French are abstractly mythical figures in no way related to St. Nicholas. But everywhere in our America the domestic observance of Christmas centres around Santa Claus with his burden of gifts. The stockings that our children hang on Christmas Eve were once the shoes that the children of Amsterdam and New Amsterdam set in the chimney corners on the eve of December 6; and the reindeer whose hoofs our children hear represent the horse, descended from Woden's horse Sleipner, upon whose back St. Nicholas still makes his rounds in Holland. The Christmas-tree is not Dutch but German; about the middle of the nineteenth century we acquired it from our German immigrants. But even this the American child accepts at the hands of Santa Claus, not of the Christ Child as does the little German. `Kriss Kringle,' it may be added, a name now often mistakenly used as though it were a synonym of Santa Claus, is a corruption of the German Ghristkindlein (Christ Child).
As the New Netherlander, intent at first upon trade alone, was soon compelled by his necessities and encouraged by chances of traffic in food-stuffs to cultivate his soil, so the agricultural New Englander was soon forced by the poverty of his soil and the rigors of his climate to depend chiefly upon the fisheries and trade, and the Virginian soon learned how to send his tobacco directly from the plantation wharf to England and thence to draw the supplies he needed. Mean while, however, the English colonies were helped by the trad ing ambitions of their Dutch neighbors as when Peter Minuit's agents taught the Pilgrim Fathers the use of wam pum money, and when New Amsterdam served the Virginian, who had no real seaport, as a mart for his tobacco. When agriculture developed in the Dutch province it is probable that the better methods there in vogue gradually spread beyond its borders. They were wholly different from the methods of the English in America, Stuyvesant explained when he was urging Charles II to let New York trade with Holland, and only in Holland could the proper tools for them be obtained.
The Roman-Dutch system of law which prevailed in New Netherland was 'a kind of irregular mosaic,' says the his torian of the New York court of common pleas, James Wilton Brooks, but 'on the whole' was 'infinitely superior to the more technical and artificial system' introduced by the English. It was weakest on the criminal side, yet the early New Yorker did not welcome the establishment of trial by jury, so long considered by the Englishman one of the chief bulwarks of his liberties. Even to-day the people of Hol land prefer their quicker and, as they think, surer ways of getting justice at the hands of experienced judges.
English practices did not altogether banish Dutch practices from the courts of New York until the early years of the eighteenth century. Although in modern times it has some times been affirmed that Roman-Dutch law never rightfully prevailed in a province which the English said had always been their own, fragments of this law, applicable to property held under the Dutch land patents that were recognized as valid by the representatives of the English crown, survived until the State of New York succeeded to the rights of the crown and still remain a part of its common law. The Dutch method of making wills by oral declaration before a notary, or by written instructions put in his keeping, was long employed. Dutch customs in respect to inheritances persisted although the English made some effort to establish rights of primogeniture. The burgher-right secured for resi dents of the city in Stuyvesant's time restricted rights of suffrage until 1804 and in other ways also constantly affected the history of Manhattan. The district-attorney of to-day is a non-English official, directly descended from the Dutch men's schout. The custom of registering deeds and mort gages which was known in early New England as well as in New Netherland was also, as has been said, distinctly non English. The practice of raising money by excises was borrowed from Holland and first introduced into England, with great difficulty, by the Parliamentarians during the early years of the Civil War. Although used in New England also it was always especially favored in the Middle Colonies. The practice of paying for local improvements by special assessments was dropped for a time under the English gov ernors but revived before the end of the seventeenth century. It has sometimes been thought that it was then suggested by its very exceptional use in London when the city was rebuilt after the Great Fire of 1666. Local precedents offer a more natural explanation. The city magistrates, for ex ample, can hardly have been thinking of a rare English prec edent twenty years old when they ordered in 1687 that in paving a certain street the householders themselves should be responsible for as much of the work 'as lies before their respective doors.' As the struggle of the New Netherlanders to win a share in the provincial government went for nothing when they became New Yorkers, in one sense the political history of the State of New York begins with the efforts that secured the establishment of an assembly in the year 1683. But th perpetuation of th I - of -1 a a u : I ttan it was permitted to play in matters of wider than municipal importance, and the survival of Dutch town and district organizations elsewhere, did as much to keep alive the politi cal aspirations of the people as did the town-meetings of the English Lon Islanders which continued in spite of th it nominal abolition by le Du.es aws. Moreover, the politi calri.srirtVe of the province as it was eventually built up reposed on the local foundation stones set by Governor Kieft and Governor Stuyvesant.
In New England the towns, self-governing in local matters, were the units of representation and taxation upon which the political structure of the colony rested; and they so continued after counties were marked out. In Virginia, on the other hand, the vestries which corresponded roughly to the New England townships soon became close corporations, the people at large having no share in choosing their mem bers; and they were overshadowed by the counties which were the units of representation and exercised all the high offices of local self-government. It was, of course, economic conditions that insured the persistence of a township system in the commercial north with its concentrated population, of a county system in the agricultural south with its widely scattered population. In...N.9.;---York, where the people were both traders ar),d agricultuilits and were neither as closely grouped as in /Massachusetts nor as dispersed as in Virginia, a mixed to lea u When Governor Nicolls er etuated the munici al cor oration on M ; and confirmed the old town patents, established th courts of that resemble ' , d, as he explained in 1666 in a paper called Conditions for New Planters, granted the 'several n - ...ke their own ' eculiar laws' and to decide `all small cases w_i_t_hig, hemselyes, se y elaboratin arrangements that The Dutch commanders and Governor Colve went a step farther in the same direction. So did Governor Andros, making the Duke's Laws valid throughou is And what they had established persisted after counties were marked out in 1683. These counties became, as in Virginia, the units of taxation and representation and also of militia organization, but within them the towns that survived from earlier years, or were planted when new regions were settled, played a much more prominent part in government than the Virginian vestries.
Undoubtedly the arrangements of Colve and Andros as William Penn found them existing in the Delaware country influenced him when in 1682 he settled a system of govern ment for his wide domain a type of colonial government which stood midway between those of New York and Vir ginia as the New York type stood between those of Massa chusetts and Virginia.
Of course the system now in force in the State of New York has at various times been altered and elaborated. Yet it is to-day, as it has always been, a mixed township-county system; and as such it has had more influence in the develop ment of the northern Middle West, of the great region thrown open to settlement by the famous Northwest Ordinance of 1785, than the system of New England or even of Pennsyl vania, either establishing itself (with more or less modifica tion, of course) at an early day or gradually winning its way where New England ideas prevailed for a time. As perfected in these states the so-called 'New York plan,' says our chief authority in the matter of local constitutional development, Professor Howard, is 'the highest form of local organization . . . symmetrical and complete' ; it is worthy to become and possibly is destined to become 'the prevailing type in the United States.' Strangely, however, Howard adds that it may be thought `one of the most perfect products of the English mind.' It is a product of the American mind, de veloped on American soil with some help at the beginning from English officials who, uninstructed by their superiors at home, took their cues from existing Dutch arrangements. De Tocqueville did not see the English mind at work when he decided that the most 'salient' feature of public adminis tration in our country was its 'prodigiously decentralized' character. Nor can it be said that the English mind has yet developed in its own home-country a well-rounded sys tem of local self-government.
To the end of the colonial period the concession to women of a more independent standing and wider activities than they enjoyed in communities of English origin bore witness to the Dutch origin of New York. So also did its hospitality of spirit. It was not only in New England, it should be remembered, that inhospitality was long shown to foreigners. Virginia, for example, passed in 1657 a law which gave to aliens the same status as to the Irish servants who were coming in without indentures, making them work as bonds men for six or eight years. Because Manhattan had been Dutch it always remained, in feeling as in fact, the most cosmopolitan place in the colonies. It was typical as no purely English place became, more clearly typical than even Philadelphia, of what the whole continent is to-day 'America, half-brother of the world.' Of course this cosmopolitanism fostered in early New York, as it had in New Amsterdam, that democratic spirit which ought never to be confounded with the existence of republican institutions. Beneath forms of government lie customs and laws. These must be studied when the existence of democratic feeling is in debate; so must the ways in which they were introduced or administered; and so must the attitude toward them of that public opinion which is the voice of the people at large explaining that they indorse their institutions and law-givers, or are cramped by them, or are thinking and speaking in their despite.