When stubborn men butt heads
The last time I checked FamilySearch, I found that one of the branches in Sharon's family tree had been lopped off. In late November this year, one of the contributing members deleted Brandt van Schlichtenhorst as the father of the Dutch woman who married a Husson and brought Dutch heritage into Sharon's line.
The Hussong Manuscripts contain a genealogy that shows that Jannetje van Schlichtenhorst married Rene Jacques Husson, though no date is given for the marriage. The Manuscripts show her father as Brant van Schlichtenhorst, but the woman listed as her mother is not the same as the woman acknowledged in all the historical information I've found as being Brandt's wife. The Manuscripts entry also contains a question mark by her name.
Another genealogy site that provides some information without a subscription shows Jannetje as the half-sister of Brant's children and lists a third woman as her mother. The historical information I've been able to dig up only lists one woman as his wife, who preceded him in death. I checked to see how old he would have been when she died on FamilySearch, but the entry for Brant is messed up, the dates making no sense. A mystery for someone else to solve.
The other thing is that I have edited the last blog to change the name of the van Rennselaer heir for the patroonship to that of the second son, Johannes. Brandt was hired to administer the patroonship on his behalf. At some point, another son, Jan Baptiste, came to America and took on the running of the patroonship, but that puts us into today's story.
In November 1645 or '46 (I have both dates -- in one case in the same document) Brandt was appointed director of the patroonship, Rennselaerwyck, by Johannes' guardians. (I'll refer to him by his first name to save typing.) There's more to that story, but we'll skip it. He took the reigns in 1648. Strangely, for the first 15 years of the settlement, we have no records except those that pertain to Brandt's tenure. No idea why.
Brandt set to work immediately acquiring lands for the settlement along the Catskill River, some of which came very close to Fort Orange, which was under the jurisdiction of the Dutch West India Company (GWC). This put him in immediate conflict with a fellow by the name of Peter Stuyvesant, whose name appears all over New York, and whom you may have run into in history class.
Stuyvesant was director-general of New Amsterdam, the political center of New Netherlands. Stuyvesant took exception to Brandt's activities and believed that he had been given the responsibility of representing the GWC's interests, patroons and patroonships not withstanding. Despite his name's current ubiquity, the residents of the area didn't care much for him and often referred to him by nicknames, usually unflattering and most referring to his having a peg leg because of the loss of a leg in a battle.
Stuyvesant began issuing orders rescinding Brant's actions, but Brant refused to knuckle under. In his view, the patroonship had a charter from the GWC, and he represented the interests of the patroon -- period. The disputes went beyond property -- they were about control.
Take this excerpt from the minutes of the court in 1648: "Brant van Schlictenhorst protested again Petrus Stuyvesant's directive proclaiming a day of fasting and prayer. He considers Mr. Stuyvesant's order to have infringed on the right and priority of the Patroon."
The court records show that Brant protected residents of the patroonship from loss by any action by Stuyvesant. And he repeatedly called on Stuyvesant to produce letters from the directors of the GWC that specifically overrode his authority, something Stuyvesant apparently failed to do.
The conflict between the two men turned violent, with physical attacks on Brant's son and arson attempts on the houses of the patroon and the director. At another time an implied threat to Brant's life was delivered by way of his son-in-law, Philip Schuyler, another important name in New York and Albany.
A Catalyn Donckesz testified in court at another time about a direct threat: She declared "that Mr. Dyckman (who worked for Stuyvesant) said to her that a gallows was being built for three persons. She asked, 'For whom?' He replied: "For Mr. Schlichtenhorst, his son and Jan Baptist van Rennselaer."
By this time Jan Baptiste had moved to the colony, where Brant taught him the ins and outs of the settlement in anticipation of his taking over.
Stuyvesant eventually had Brant arrested. Brant languished in jail for an unspecified time and eventually negotiated his release by paying a bond and promising to leave the colony for good.
We're not sure exactly when Brant returned to the Netherlands -- after 1652 -- but the GWC recognized his stout defense of the patroon's authority in 1674. Probably would have been better sooner, but there you have it.
A biography that seems largely taken from a history published the late 1800s and posted on a family's genealogical site ends by stating, "The name, Van Slichtenhorst, is not now known either in Holland or in America. ..."
I'd like to think the author would be pleased to know that the van Schlichtenhorst name has found new exposure.
Image: Painting of Peter Stuyvesant, by unknown painter, attributed to Hendrick Couturier, in the past was considered a Rembrandt) - image source, Public Domain, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=214184
Comments
Post a Comment