de Halve Maen, Fall 2017 Issue

de Halve Maen

Journal of The Holland Society of New York Fall 2017

Timeless, Elegance & Style

10

0%

Lapel Pin with Lion of Holland in enamel $45

Si

lk

Ti

e

$7

5

Silk moirĂŠ rosette $25

Celebrate Your Holland Society of New York Heritage Order online at www.hollandsociety.com

de Halve Maen

The Holland Society of New York 708 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY 10017 President Andrew Terhune Vice President Col. Adrian T. Bogart III Treasurer Eric E. Delamarter

Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America Secretary R. Dean Vanderwarker III Domine Rev. Paul D. Lent

Advisory Council of Past Presidents Roland H. Bogardus W. Wells Van Pelt Jr Kenneth L. Demarest Jr. Walton Van Winkle III Robert Schenck William Van Winkle Peter Van Dyke Charles Zabriskie Jr. Trustees Christopher M. Cortright David W. Ditmars Philips Correll Durling Andrew A. Hendricks James J. Middaugh David D. Nostrand

Edwin Outwater III Gregory M. Outwater Alexander C. Simonson Samuel K. Van Allen Frederick M. Van Sickle Stuart W. Van Winkle

Trustees Emeriti Adrian T. Bogart David M. Riker Ralph L. DeGroff Jr. Kent L. Stratt John O. Delamater David William Voorhees Robert G. Goelet John R. Voorhis III Robert Gardiner Goelet Ferdinand L. Wyckoff Jr. John T. Lansing Stephen S. Wyckoff Rev. Everett L. Zabriskie III Burgher Guard Captain Sarah Bogart Vice-Presidents Connecticut-Westchester R. Dean Vanderwarker III Dutchess and Ulster County George E. Banta Florida James S. Lansing International Lt. Col. Robert W. Banta Jr. Jersey Shore Stuart W. Van Winkle Long Island Eric E. DeLamarter Mid-West Gary Louis Sprong New Amsterdam Eric E. DeLamarter New England Charles Zabriskie Jr. Niagara David S. Quackenbush Old Bergen-Central New Jersey Gregory M. Outwater Old South Henry N. Staats IV Pacific Northwest Edwin Outwater III Pacific Southwest (North) Kenneth G. Winans Pacific Southwest (South) Paul H. Davis Patroons Robert E. Van Vranken Potomac Christopher M. Cortright Rocky Mountain Col. Adrian T. Bogart III South River Walton Van Winkle III Texas James J. Middaugh Virginia and the Carolinas James R. Van Blarcom United States Air Force

Col. Laurence C. Vliet, USAF (Ret) United States Army Col. Adrian T. Bogart III United States Coast Guard Capt. Louis K. Bragaw Jr. (Ret) United States Marines Lt. Col. Robert W. Banta Jr., USMC (Ret) United States Navy LCDR James N. Vandenberg, CEC, USN Editor David William Voorhees Production Manager

Odette Fodor-Gernaert

Editorial Committee Peter Van Dyke, Chair

David M. Riker

Copy Editor Sarah Bogart

John Lansing Henry N. Staats IV

VOL. XC

Fall 2017

NUMBER 3

IN THIS ISSUE: 54

Editor’s Corner

55

Archaeological Excavations at Fort Casimir in New Castle

63

71

Preserving a Sense of Place: The Story of Manhattan’s Dutch Past Told in Bronze

72

Here and There in New Netherland Studies

73

Society Activities

75

In Memoriam

by Craig Lukezic

by Glen Umberger

Jacob Leisler Institute Acquires The Holland Society’s de Halve Maen Files.

The Holland Society of New York was organized in 1885 to collect and preserve information respecting the history and settlement of New Netherland by the Dutch, to perpetuate the memory, foster and promote the principles and virtues of the Dutch ancestors of its members, to maintain a library relating to the Dutch in America, and to prepare papers, essays, books, etc., in regard to the history and genealogy of the Dutch in America. The Society is principally organized of descendants in the direct male line of residents of the Dutch colonies in the present-day United States prior to or during the year 1675. Inquiries respecting the several criteria for membership are invited.

De Halve Maen (ISSN 0017-6834) is published quarterly by The Holland Society. Subscriptions are $28.50 per year; international, $35.00. Back issues are available at $7.50 plus postage/handling or through PayPaltm.

POSTMASTER: send all address changes to The Holland Society of New York, 708 Third Ave., 6th Floor, New York, NY 10017. Telephone: (212) 758-1675.

Fax: (212) 758-2232.

E-mail: info@hollandsociety.org Website: www.hollandsociety.org Copyright © 2017 The Holland Society of New York. All rights reserved.

Cover: Zach Tatti (L) and Nick Tatti of Tatti Art Conservation installing the Holland Society’s Adrian Block Tablet at 45 Broadway, Manhattan, September 14, 2017. Photo by Glen Umberger.

Fall 2017

53

Editor’s Corner

D

ESPITE A REPUTATION for provincial static conservatism, largely perpetuated by Washington Irving’s early nineteenth-century writings, incessant and dynamic change characterized the New Netherland region from its first settlement. Stone, wood, and brick buildings rapidly replaced the first generation’s simple, cramped wooden structures and house-barns. As standards of living rose, buildings grew organically to become even more spacious. Farms, fields, and towns continuously transformed the landscape. The American Revolution, with widespread destruction throughout the Hudson River Valley, Long Island, and New Jersey, accelerated the change. In 1831, as the few last surviving Dutch houses on Manhattan were being torn down, the New-York Mirror editorialized, “The passion for modish change and novelty is levelling all the remains of antiquity.” This issue of de Halve Maen focuses on preserving the memory of that physical past.

In this issue’s first essay, archeologist Craig Lukezic takes us on the exciting journey of archeological digs. On North American rivers, European nations competed for control of the fur trade. To dominate river transport and access to the interior, Lukezic tells us, they established forts. On the South, or Delaware, River border between New Netherland and the English Chesapeake colonies, where a Swedish presence also competed for supremacy, the Dutch West India Company built Fort Casimir in 1651 and laid out streets for an associated village. Taken by the Swedes in May 1654 and renamed Fort Trinity, the Dutch retook the fort the following year. In 1657 the City of Amsterdam acquired Fort Casimir and renamed it New Amstel.

To understand the international dynamics that shaped this community, Lukezic sets forth to reconstruct Fort Casimir’s story through onsite archaeology. Previously, he tells us, it was believed that the fort’s remains had long eroded away.

But recent scholarship challenged these assumptions. Building on these insights and using old surveys, and a seventeenthcentury drafted elevation, Lukezic and his team ran a test trench where they believed the fort once stood. What they found resulted in this exciting recounting of the thrill of excavation while taking the reader on a journey to uncover “decisions that were made 350 years ago.”

“The human mind is prone to forget,” Glen Umberger reminds us in the following essay. “We forget our history: where we came from; what our predecessors accomplished (and those things of which they were proud); and who lived in this place before we did.” Architecture though, he writes, through impressive public buildings, memorials, and monuments is intended to instill memory. In preparation for the Holland Society of New York’s move late last year, Society President Andrew Terhune became intrigued by a commemorative bronze tablet stored in the Society’s archive room. Wishing to know more, he reached out to Umberger, a landmarks conservationist, to uncover the story of this forgotten artifact in the Society’s office. President Terhune’s query led Umberger on a fascinating investigation that revealed the Society’s role

in maintaining memory in the face of cultural upheaval.

At the time of The Holland Society’s founding in 1885, New York was “the most rapidly improving city on earth,” and New Yorkers thrived on the change. “So active and so feverish have been the commercial efforts of our citizens in the decades that are past,” William Laurel Harris wrote in 1917, “that to tear down and build up the whole great town every fifteen or twenty years has not appeared to its real estate owners at all extravagant or wonderful.” Aware that not only the physical remains of Dutch New Amsterdam had disappeared but the very memory of the Dutch founding of the city was being extinguished, the infant Holland Society formed a committee to remind New Yorkers that there was indeed something important to be remembered. The result was the installation in 1890 of five commemorative tablets, including the one in storage, in the area that had been New Amsterdam.

Umberger presents in these pages a detailed and loving history of the Holland Society’s tablets in order to place the forgotten Society’s tablet into a proper context. Ironically and unintentionally, in the process he reveals that institutional knowledge can be lost even among those who claim their interest is to preserve it. Indeed, only a little more than a decade ago the preservation of the Holland Society tablets was still overseen by a special committee. But within the span of a few short years, their history was all but forgotten. We do indeed tend to forget.

On September 14, 2017, the forgotten Society tablet was installed on the granite façade of 45 Broadway Atrium, the site where it had been originally located. Rededicated at an unveiling ceremony four days later, almost 127 years to the day of its original dedication, it again serves to remind New Yorkers of our Dutch origins.

It is always tragic to lose a Holland Society Member at any age, but it is particularly tragic to lose a Member not only in the prime of their life but one whose brief association with the Society had a forceful impact. This is particularly true of the late John Nevius, who only joined the Society in 2008.

Yet, during those few brief years he served as the Chair of the Law Committee, Chair of the Nominating Committee, and Chair of the Real Estate Committee. Former Trustee John Lansing provides an apt epitaph: “I enjoyed sharing meals with John at the times of those meetings,” he wrote. He then continues, “John also designed and oversaw production of a medal for the Society, a copy of which resides in my collection. In 2015, John traveled with my wife and me and other Society members on an exciting tour of the Netherlands. John and I shared a passion for coin collecting. He was an avid numismatist, specializing in early United States half dollars.

I will miss John.”

54

David William Voorhees Editor

de Halve Maen

Archaeological Excavations at Fort Casimir in New Castle

by Craig Lukezic

T

HE TRADE FOR beaver pelts was the economic driver of eastern North America in the early seventeenth century. Competitive conflict arose among the Native American suppliers and between the European traders. Along the northeastern fringe of New Netherland, on the Connecticut River, New Englanders and Dutch competed for trade by positioning their trading stations, or factories, to gain better access to the Native traders, over each other. Jacob Van Curler established a trading post he named the House of Hope.

A contemporary description states it was a blockhouse with two pieces of ordnance surrounded by a perimeter wall or fence. The competing English, led by William Holmes, established another post upriver that cut off the Dutch from the trade routes.1 On the southern frontier of New Netherland, we see a similar dynamic. As the Delaware River was the disputed southern frontier for New Netherland, conflict developed between the Swedes, English, and Dutch.

The South River, or Delaware River, was a border land between the Dutch colony of New Netherland and the English colonies in the Chesapeake Bay area. The situation became more complicated when a Swedish colony, under the leadership of Peter Minuit, established itself in this neglected border territory. Originally from the Rhineland, Minuit rose through the ranks of Craig Lukezic is an archaeologist for Delaware’s Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs. He established the Early Colonial Symposium of the Delaware Valley and contributed to the Lewes Maritime Archaeological Project and Avery’s Rest. Currently, he is involved with the Fort Casimir project in New Castle, and the Wildcat Manor project in Dover. In addition, he is president of the Archaeological Society of Delaware and an adjunct professor at Delaware State University and Roanoke College. This paper was originally presented at the New Netherland Institute Conference in New Brunswick, New Jersey, in 2016.

the Dutch West India Company to the chief administrator of New Amsterdam (Manhattan). A series of personal conflicts may have tarnished his image in the eyes of the company officials, and he was recalled. With his intimate knowledge of New Netherland, Minuit traveled to Sweden and developed a plan for a Swedish Colony. 2 He was aware that the South River was a sparsely populated border land perhaps due to the lack of good harbors within easy access to the sea, or the treacherous navigation of Delaware Bay at the time. Regardless, the undermanned Dutch soldiers were hard pressed to keep out Swedish interlopers.3 In this era of not so peaceful competition, West India Company director-general Petrus Stuyvesant needed to improve the Dutch position on the southern border. Fort Nassau was built near present-day Trenton at the fall line of the Delaware River. Minuit also positioned the Swedish settlement on the Minquas Kill, or the Christina River in eastern Wilmington today. As the name suggests, this waterway was the access to the Minquas, or Susquehannocks, who traveled down the Susquehanna River through what is now Pennsylvania and crossed over the Delmarva Peninsula with their beaver pelts to trade. While this strategic post did not control the Delaware River, it did out maneuver the Dutch, who were on the east side, or the wrong side, of the river to trade with the Minguas. Following the same tactics seen on the northern border, the Dutch responded with another factory on the Schuylkill River, only to be cut off by a Swedish blockhouse.4 In 1643, incoming Swedish governor Johan Printz followed his instruction from

the Swedish Crown by constructing a fort on a commanding position on the Delaware River’s eastern side. Fort Elfsborg hosted eight 12-pounder cannons and one mortar with the intent of controlling traffic on the river. And, indeed it did, until 1648, when the continuous onslaught of flies and mosquitoes forced the Swedes to abandon it.

The fort was hurriedly built on a foundation of timbers, in “the English plan with three angles close by the river.”5 An English clapboard or plank house was constructed in the fort, which was later moved to Tinicum Island, and reappeared at Fort Christina, where is served as a tavern.6 There has been some debate on where the fort site actually was, and if there are any remnants that survive today. Several historical accounts state that the fort was on an island and associated with a protected harbor. As the primary sources tend to be ambiguous and contradictory, some modern scholars have suggested different locations within the Mill Creek area, southwest of Salem, New Jersey. Ned Heite was probably correct with his conjecture that the fort was situated on the tip of Elsinboro Point, but 1 Jaap Jacobs, New Netherland, A Dutch Colony in Seventeenth Century America (Leiden/Boston, 2005), 67.

Amandus Johnson, The Swedish Settlements on the Delaware 1638–1664, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, 1911), 177.

2

3

Ibid., 185–86.

4

Jacobs, 39.

5

Johnson, 304–306.

Edward F. Heite and Louise Heite, ‟Fort Elfsborg 1643: a Background Study of the History of Elsinboro Point or Fort Elfsborg, Elsinboro Township, Salem County, New Jersey, and New Castle County, Delaware” (Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers. Manuscript on file at the Delaware State Historic Preservation Office, 1986), 8.

6

7

Heite, 20–21.

Fall 2017

55

Fort Harbor Area & Strand

eroded away centuries ago.7 This environment is extremely dynamic, and has been repeatedly re-sculpted over the centuries by diking and violent storms. Current field efforts by the author and others documented landforms subjected to erosion and several century’s worth of redisposition of debris.

In 1651, the Dutch West India Company, under the direction of Petrus Stuyvesant, closed Fort Nassau, which was in a poor position to control the river from the competing Swedes, and moved the garrison, cannons, and the freemans’ house to Sandy Hook. They built Fort Casimir and laid out the streets and lots for an associated village.

On May 31, 1654, a Swedish force under Governor Johan Risingh forced the small, unprepared Dutch garrison under Gerrit Bicker to surrender. Bicker had no choice, as the muskets were being repaired, and rumor has it that his wife sold the gunpowder to the Indians.8 The Swedes renamed the fort Fort Trinity and Peter Lindeström drafted a profile sketch that is the main documentary source of its appearance.

Lieutenant Sven Skute and Lindeström rebuilt the front of the fort. In addition, the Swedes constructed a four-gun battery in front, along the shore. In September of the following year, a Dutch West India Company task force of 300 men led by Dirck Smit pressured the Swedish commander, Sven Skute, to surrender. Vice Director Jean Paul Jacquet was now in charge of the colony. The accommodating Skute built a bathhouse behind the fort.9 Through a financial arrangement in the Netherlands, the City of Amsterdam took control of the Fort Casmir community and renamed it New Amstel in May of 1657. The

territory to the north, however, remained a West India Company colony, centered at Fort Altena (formerly Fort Christina). Jacob Alrichs became the commander of New Amstel. Later, he and his wife succumbed to disease, and were succeeded by Alexander d’Hinojossa, who built an economic base with an illicit commercial relationship with Maryland. Not all enjoyed this wealth, as d’Hinojossa limited the fur trade to his council and favorites by decree, alienating most of the colonists.10 In autumn of 1664, a British force under Sir Robert Carr conquered the town, and left Captain John Carr in charge. In the assault, the fort was severely damaged by a cannon barrage from two ships. By 1671, the fort was a ruin. The English built a blockhouse on the Green in town and called it a “fort.” The hardware and tiles from Fort Casimir were cannibalized for the English blockhouse. A cordwainer, Englbert Lott, was granted the site under the condition that he level the remains of the fort in 1678.11 The Contexts of the “Fort”: The term “fort” is quite vague and was used in a general sense. This term was used, for example, by the English to denote a blockhouse in New Castle by 1670. More confusing was the use of “fort” to label a factory or trading station and warehouse. The factory was a Portuguese innovation the Dutch adopted for their worldwide trading network.12 Once the traders could establish and staff a secure warehouse, the ship no longer needed to stay in the anchorage for months to host trading activities, but could offload its goods and sail on to make more profit.13 It seems the “forts” of Fort Beversrede and

56

Fort Upland were not military installations, but merely secure warehouses with a perimeter fence or wall.

In addition, the term “fort” was short for fortress, which would be a military installation. These were designed to resist a European force, unlike those above, and its accompanying artillery, to a degree. Fort Casmir was positioned to control the Delaware River, and Fort Christina controlled the Christina River. Therefore, both Fort Casimir and Christina were meant to control a regional water route of transportation, and hence, European access to the region itself.

On the frontier, these fortresses were much more than a military installation; they served as the center of administration of a colony. Fort Casimir held the courthouse and governor, along with the stores for the colony. In addition to the secular roles, Fort Christina contained the church for New Sweden. The military commander was forced to compromise his military obligations with the needs of other aspects of the colony in the same space. For example, in Europe, the commander kept all housing away from the fort to enable maximum observation of the surrounding terrain and a clear field of fire. While housing was forbidden adjacent to the fort, this was impractical for the multiple functions of the administrative center of a colony.

Elements of Fort Casimir: Peter Lindeström, the Swedish civil engineer who came to the Delaware with Swedish Commander Risingh, described the fort: the Hollanders have also fortified and built a fortress with four bastions. . . . however when we arrived in New Sweden, it had fallen into almost total decay.14 Lindeström drafted the elevation drawing 8

Jacobs, 41.

C. A. Weslager, The Swedes and Dutch at New Castle (New York, 1987), 141.

9

10

Ibid., 183.

11

Heite and Heite, 21.

12 Oscar F. Hefting, “High versus Low: Portuguese and Dutch Fortification Traditions Meet in Colonial Brazil (1500–1654),” in Eric Klingelhofer, ed., First Forts: Essays on the Archaeology of Protocolonial Fortifications (Leiden, 2010), 189-208.

13 Wim Kloster, The Dutch Moment: War, Trade, and Settlement in the Seventeenth-Century Atlantic World (Ithaca, N.Y., 2016), 19.

14 Peter Lindström, Geographia Americae with An Account of the Delaware Indians, Based on Surveys And Notes Made in 1654–1656, Amandus Johnson, trans.

(Philadelphia, 1925).

de Halve Maen

of the fort. Using the same scale drawing, modern estimates of the size varies from 160 feet (Tantillo) to 210 feet in length (Heite and Heite).15 Only the physical evidence from and archaeological excavation can sort out these contradictions.

How was the fort made?

of New Netherland.18 “We are busy fitting the fortress with gabions and shall cut the decayed points down obliquely.”19 In other contemporary forts in the Netherlands, the base of the wall hosted a “palisade.” These were wooden poles or pales which functioned as an abatis or obstacle to sudden assault, but not a solid barrier.20

Lieutenant d’Hinojossa was observed locking two prisoners into a “dark powder hole.” In forts of this time, locating the magazine buried or standing in the bastion was a common practice. Indeed, in May of 1657, Jacob Alrichs wrote that he constructed a powder magazine in the southeastern bastion:

The Walls: The neighboring Swedish forts, Christina and Elfsborg, were earthworks reinforced with wood.16 In the Netherlands, walls were made of turf. The excavations at Zwartendijksterschans have documented sections of stacked turf in the wall.17 Dutch forts constructed around the world, however, may not have strictly followed the pattern set out in the Netherlands, as they had to adapt to local conditions. According to the Lindeström sketch, the curtain and bastion wall are depicted to be smooth, compared to the vertical lines in the front battery wall. Therefore, Fort Casimir was probably an earthwork that may have been supported by timber beams and wooden planking. Earthen gabions were employed for the repair, and maybe in the original construction. Indeed, Willem Beeckman, the WIC representative at Fort Altena, was in charge of the gabion production for all

Bastions: According to the Lindström drawing the bastions appear to be fortytwo feet in length, along the front side.21 If Fort Altena can be used as a comparison, Beekman wrote on rebuilding the bastions or walls, “whether it is not necessary that the decayed batteries be built up with sod or beams. I have them here at hand from the dilapidated house on Cuyper’s Island.”22 This leaves us with the impression that sod (not generic earth) and wooden beams were the primary ingredients for the battery or bastion. Sod may have been extensively used here, as we are surrounded by wetlands in a time before the current invasive flora of phragmites invasion. As well, there are numerous Dutch dikes in the region, and at least two within 300 yards of the fort that may have been constructed from sod.

There is a suggestion of a military magazine for gunpowder in the documents.

The house is covered with oak shingles which are so shrunk, drawn up, and in part rotten, that scarcely a dry spot can be found when it rains. And as there was no place for the powder, and only from eight to ten kegs in the house, I have thought it best to have a powderhouse constructed under the southeast bastion of the fort for the greater security of about 36 or 40 kegs.23 Support Structures: A number of support buildings were assembled inside and out of the fort. These structures were components of the administrative service center of the colony. According to a 1659 letter from Jacob Alrichs, we note that inside the fort stood the following structures: • A large storehouse and dwelling, twenty-six feet wide, fifty-four feet long, the first story and a loft.

• A guard-house, sixteen feet wide and twenty feet long, covered with boards.

Lindestrom Elevation Plan.

• A bake-house of about eighteen feet wide and thirty-two feet long, with the first story ten, and the second seven feet high, with a garret under the roof which was covered with borrowed tiles.

15 Len F. Tantillo, The Edge of the New World (Nassau, N.Y., 2011), 39, and Heite and Heite, 14.

16 Jaap Jacobs,“Dutch Colonial Fortifications in North America, 1614–1676. Historical Research in the Netherlands and United States of America.” Contributions to the Atlas of Dutch North America 1 (2015), 34.

17 Hans van Westing, Drie Drentse Schansen; Zwartendijksterschans, Emmerschans, Katshaarschans (Groningen, 2012), 34.

18

Jacobs, “Dutch Colonial Fortilfications,” 12.

Willem Beekman to Petrus Stuyvesant, April 28, 1660, in Charles T. Gehring, New York Historical Manuscripts, Volumes XVIII-XIX. Delaware Papers (Dutch Period) (Baltimore, 1981), 195.

19

20

Van Westing, 40.

Reconstructed by Len Tantillo in Edge of the New World, 39.

21

22 Willem Beekman to Petrus Stuyvesant, February 1660, in Gehring, 170.

23 Transcribed and translated in Jacobs “Dutch Colonial Fortifications,” 43.

Fall 2017

57

The Schans Plan at New Amsterdam.

• The Commander’s dwelling raised and improved with a square loft covered. No dimensions were given, but it would be at least sixteen feet square.

• A Commissary for the distribution of rations, of square timber twenty-two feet wide, fifty feet long, with a story nine feet high and a garret, the roof covered with boards.

Alrichs goes on to claim that outside the fort stood • A long barrack, sixteen to seventeen feet wide and 190 feet in length, covered with reed, also divided in eleven compartments; erected, right under the fort • A burgher watch-house built of logs; it is about twenty feet square, the first story nine feet, the second eight feet, and covered with tiles.

• A clergyman’s house, smithy’s house, and forge.24 One has to ask if five sizable structures could fit into a square of seventy-eight feet as reconstructed in Tantillo. 25 Perhaps it would be prudent not to take these optimistic statements at face value. If the internal square of the fort inside the curtain wall measured seventy-eight feet on a side, then it could contain 6,084 square feet.

A straight forward estimate of the square footage of the above four structures would be about 3,656 square feet. In essence, the support structures would have taken 60 percent of the area inside the fort, which,

at face value, appears to be impractical, if not improbable.

Magazine or Storehouse, and a later Guardhouse: It appears a magazine was constructed outside of the fort, and did not initially perform a military function. It served as a storehouse, perhaps an official one for the West India Company or the New Amstel colony. A land grant to John Moll places this outside of the fort, in or across the ravine from the fort.26 Additional correspondence reveals the mercantile nature of this structure, and the location was the official sanctioned area for trade. Edicts were passed to insure the protection of Native American traders outside of a community and to have a supervised area of trade. Occasionally, native people were victimized by alcohol or other “sharp practices” that fueled conflict and bloodshed. It was in the best interests of the City to have a sustainable trade in beaver pelts with the Native Americans. It seems the space in front of the fort, by the river and magazine, was this supervised market area.27 They offer the City’s warehouse or magazine which is at present completely unsuitable and unsound; it is also filled with hay, straw, cattle and sheep so that the goods would not be secure at all. It is also presently not possible to hoist goods into the magazine through the high wall; instead, Mr. d’Hinojosse has to haul the City’s goods a considerable distance from there with oxen and wagons because there are no

58

draymen to be found. Therefore, the sailors have to transfer everything out of the boat into the beach; consequently, the unloading makes little progress. Also, since their arrival, the weather has been very unpredictable with storms, winds, frost and blizzards, so that because of the ice flow it was necessary on the 17th to haul the ship to the wall.28 It seems the magazine was a store house that was adapted to various need of the colony. It may have demarked the edge of the “Strand” or commercial waterfront, or perhaps separated the official beaver pelt trade market area from the commercial waterfront.

Archaeology: Previously, in 1905, Alexander Cooper announced the remains of Fort Casmir had long eroded away. In his lifetime, he experienced the massive flooding from hurricanes in the 1880s that devastated much of the landscape by the river.29 In 1986, however, archaeologists Ned and Louise Heite challenged these Vice Director Alrichs to Burgomaster De Graaff, August 16, 1659, in O’Callaghan, New York Colonial Documents 69.

24

25

Tantillo, 39.

Louise B. Heite, “New Castle Under the Duke of York: A Stable Community” (Ph.D.Thesis, University of Delaware, 1978), 130; New Castle Deed Book B-1, p. 37. 1676.

26

27

Jacobs, 2005, 212.

Willem Beeckman to Petrus Stuyvesant, February 20, 1662, in Gehring 19, 22.

28

29 Alexander Cooper, The Starting Point in History of New Castle in the State of Delaware. It’s Location in History, 1651–1671 (Wilmington, DE. 1905).

de Halve Maen

conclusions by the results of several test units they excavated in the location of a twentieth-century ferry lot. Building on the insights of the Heites, we followed up with another campaign of excavations, funded by the Secretary of State of Delaware.30 Everything is grounded in topography of the landform. New Castle, or New Amstel, was built on a landform called Sandhook, which was fast land. Bull Hill, a small lobe that separated the town marsh from the river, connected to the north east side of Sand Hook. Both side of the Delaware Bay are fringed with wetlands, with serpentine creeks, so areas where a ship could land were scarce and prized. Sand Hook was prime land.

A U. S. Coastal Survey drafted in 1840 depicts anchorages and sounding depths of the sea floor. At this time, the depth offshore of New Castle, on the Strand, between Delaware and Harmony streets, was suitable for docking ships, and the harbor area was ringed by protective ice piers. But the area in front of Bull Hill was shallow, too shallow for this function.31 This can be misleading, however, as the landforms on land and under the water have been altered many times. As presented in the Beekman to Stuyvesant letter in the previous section, there was a “high wall,” perhaps a sea wall that separated the magazine from the river.

Perhaps the magazine was at the edge of the Strand or water front.

The harbor area or Strand has been filled in for commercial quays and piers for two

centuries. The United States Army Corps constructed a series of ice piers, and connecting piers, only to find out they accelerated siltation and diminished access to shipping.

Some of these features were demolished a decade before this 1840 survey.32 The terrestrial landform has been greatly altered as well. The marsh on the interior side of Bull Hill was drained by the Broad Marsh Dyke beginning in 1675. Drainage continued to be an issue in New Castle. In 1804, Benjamin Henry Latrobe conducted a topographical survey of the town, a feat repeated over one hundred years later in the 1920s. Heite, Tantillo, and Meek have analyzed these data to recreate the contours of the landform. In 1804, the Bull Hill was an actual hill, which rose eight feet above the marsh and river. Apparently, it was cut down to create fill for the low-lying areas. This action occurred between 1804 and 1851, when Elihu Jefferson build row houses on the fort lot that currently stand.33 From the historical land plats, we have a good idea where Fort Casimir stood. In 1678 the English Government granted Mr. Englbert Lott two lots, one was where the fort stood, and with the understanding he would complete the demolition process.

The composite 277 by 268 foot lot was located adjacent to the current intersection of Chestnut and Second streets.34 Remote Sensing: To refine our understanding of the landform, ground penetrating

radar (GPR) was used in an irregular 400 by 100 foot study area. Additional GPR and survey work to the north was conducted before the recent reconstruction of the Foot Dike.35 The results of the survey indicate the study area is filled with soil anomalies, or unexplained irregularities. One of linear zones behind, or southeast of the row houses appears to be an early historic ditch.

The eastern or riverside section of the landform consisted of late nineteenth-century or early twentieth-century fill. Similar fill zones appear to the north of Bull Hill. One can speculate this area was eroded away in the Gale of 1878, and subsequently filled with debris from around the region to reconstruct and possibly expand the landform.

This chain of events would explain why the historian Alexander Cooper believed the ruins of the fort were washed away, as 30 Peter Leach, Wade P. Catts, and Craig Lukezic, “The starting Point in the Historic of New Castle”: Geophysics and the Exploratory Archaeology at the site of Fort Casimir (7NC-E-105E), City of New Castle, Delaware, 2014.

John Milner associates. On file at the Delaware Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs, Dover.

31

U.S. Coastal Survey, 1840.

Frank E. Snyder and Brian H. Guss, The District: A History of the Philadelphia District; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1866–1971 (Philadelphia, 1974), 27.

32

33 Heite and Heite, 8; James Meek, NCCHAP website; Tantillo, 84.

34

Heite and Heite, 8.

Timothy Mancl, Elizabeth LaVigne, Peter Leach, William Chadwick, Wade Catts, Phase I Archaeological survey o the Broad Marsh Dike, New Castle County, Delaware. 2014 John Milner associates. On file at the Delaware Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs, Dover.

35

Reconstruction with sod during restoration at Zwartendijksterschans. Photo courtesy Hans van Westing.

Fall 2017

59

Site of Ft. Casimir on current land form. century. Our testing suggests the earlier living surface and topsoil were removed from this portion of Bull Hill, and nineteenth- and twentieth-century structures were later erected on this landform (Result on file at DHCA).

he may have witnessed the storm and the reconstruction episodes.

After consulting with Oscar Hefting and Hans van Westing of the New Holland Foundation, we decided that a large test trench running perpendicular with the projected defensive line would be the optimal excavation strategy. Also, the trench followed up on the promising results Ned and Louse Heite found in their testing thirty years ago.

of lead have proved to be testament of the English attack in 1664. One is a round of spiked shot, and the other is a grenade or mortar shell. The lead proved to be a flattened musket ball. It is possible the musket ball and the grenade may be the evidence of an infantry assault on the fort. The spike or bar shot could have been fired from a threepound cannon or Minion, from the flagship Guinea in the attempt to ignite the fort into flames during the attack.

The Test Trench: Beneath the topsoil, the base of the western section of the trench appeared to be sterile, with no features present. When it started to dry out, however, some stains became visible. Once the modern sewer pipes were removed, two parallel trenches appeared that were a little more than three feet apart. They were filled with post molds of circular, triangular and quadrilateral forms. The bases of these features were in a basin shape that is common for a trench with set posts. No artifacts were observed in any of the associated soils. If these features were later nineteenth century garden fences or other landscape features, one would expect to find a number of artifacts in the associated soils. As the soils were clean, the palisade lines were early features.

A filled ditch paralleled the trenches to the south. We troweled into the ditch feature, and through nineteenth- and eighteenth-century levels. Then, at 3.4 feet below the surface, another soil change was observed where the excavators found a white pipe clay pipe bowl, cast into shape indicative of the mid-seventeenth century.

Other artifacts dating to the period of New Netherland were recovered. Bricks, plate fragments, and a shard from a Roemer came to light. Two rusted objects and a chunk

Additional Investigations Windmill Lot: On the other side of Second Street, a vacant lot was planned to be developed. Known as the LaGrange lot from the historical information, it appears this lot was located inside or adjacent to Fort Casimir, and it may have been the site of an early windmill. We found the topsoil to be fairly shallow, averaging about six inches in depth. This zone appears to be the modern living surface, containing artifacts from the late nineteenth century to the twentieth

New Dike: In 2014, the Town of New Castle required a larger dike to protect the historic district from storm events. John Milner and Associates conducted additional radar survey on Bull Hill, and the dike plans were altered to ensure the remains of the fort were not impacted. The survey and testing did identify the old shore line and a possible potter’s field, and most of these were enclosed by twentieth-century fill.

No archaeological deposits dating to the seventeenth century were found in these additional testing campaigns.36 Future Work: In 2016, the New Castle Historical Society has been awarded a grant from the American Battlefield Protection Grant (ABPP) to investigate the British assault in 1664. The project will investigate the Bull Hill environs as a battlefield. Our 2012 excavations established this site was a battlefield with the recovery of a grenade, bar or spike shot, and a spent musket ball in a small section of trench. This could be one of the earliest battlefields in the region, to receive this grant.

Fall of New Amstel: The Duke of York assigned to Colonel Richard Nicholls the mission to enforce the duke’s claim and royal warrant on the lands of New Netherland.

Nicholls assembled a task force in Britain and sailed to New England with the nominal mission of supplying the English colony.

36

Ibid.

Potter’s Field?

Potential Historical Surface Industrial Period Fill New Dike Footprint

Results of GPR Study by Catts and Leach 2014.

60

de Halve Maen

The force then sailed to New Amsterdam and the surprised Petrus Stuyvesant yielded against the overwhelming odds. Once they surrendered, the English soldiers and sailors were denied their customary plunder as per the rules of war of the time. Later, Nicholls dispatch a task force of two ships and 130 men under Sir Robert Carr to “reduce” the Dutch in the Delaware Valley. Nicholls instructed Carr to first win over the Swedes and Finns, then to neutralize the Dutch farmers with a promise of citizen rights and safety of property.37 It was Stuyvesant’s design that Fort Casimir would rely on a strong contingent of citizen auxiliaries to augment the garrison. As soon as news of the fall of New Amsterdam arrived, Governor Alexander d’Hinojossa held a muster to prepare. The garrison numbered around thirty men, while ninety citizens emerged from the environs.

Nicholls was well aware of d’Hinojossa’s illicit trade with the Chesapeake planters and he used it as a rationale for the conquest. Perhaps he was aware of the harsh and self-centered rule of d’Hinojossa which resulted in the widespread alienation of the populace with the current council.

His instructions proved to be an effective

Above: palisade line.

Right and below right: Cannonball recovered from ditch.

Below left: Cross shot from the Alerny shipwreck, late sixteenth-century.

GPR anomalies of interest

Approximate trench location

strategy.

On October 1, 1664, the English ships arrived off of New Amstel and announced their intensions. The following morning, d’Hinojossa ordered his gunner to prepare a feast of three chickens and a ham. Accompanied by four soldiers, the governor and Sir Robert Carr met and strolled on land outside of the fort. In a half an hour d’Hinojossa refused the offered terms and returned to the fort, ordering the soldier to arm and the gunners to load with shrapnel.38 At eight in the morning, 130 soldiers and sailors landed under the command of Lieutenant Carr and Ensign Stocke. It is unknown where they landed. By afternoon, the townspeople and local farmers agreed to surrender to the English and accept their terms. At 3:00, the two ships, Guinea and the William and Nicholas, fired two volleys at the fort, forcing the defender to find cover. Governor d’Hinojossa refused to fire back at the ships. The soldiers and sailors maneuvered around the fort to the rear of the “farmhouse of the fort” and climbed over the rear wall of the fort, fighting hand to hand with the garrison.

D’Hinojossa and his inner circle, schout Garrett van Sweringen and Pieter Alrichs, jumped over the wall and ran, eventually making it to Saint Mary’s City, Maryland.

Inside the fort, three men of the garrison lay dead, and ten were wounded.39 As Fort Casimir fell by conquest, the soldiers looted the company property.

While Sir Robert enjoyed the plunder with his officers, the common soldiers were not so fortunate. Several weeks later, Colonel

Nicholls fumed in his letter of October 28: Within the Fort a considerable Cargo is found, & some part plundered, but I fear the rest is in Hucksters hands . . . Sr. Robert Carr, who acted as a private Captain, to assume to himself the power not only of appropriating the prize to himself, but of disposing the confiscations of houses, farms & Stocks, to whom he doth think fit, not converting them to the maintenance of the Soldiers, whose Necessities there, are so great, that many of them are run from him into Maryland . . .40 Research Design: To understand the battle we need to reconstruct the terrain for a KOCCOA or military terrain analysis. Only when this study is done can we truly comprehend the decisions that were made 350 years ago. We need to identify the key elements of the military landscape, then find the evidence for how they were used.

The term KOCCOA is an acronym for Key terrain Observation Cover Concealment Obstacles Avenue of approach and withdraw, which summarizes the aspects of the analysis. In identifying the key terrain, one discovers any local feature that dominates the immediate surroundings by relief or by some other quality that enhances attack or defense. Holding key terrain can 37

Nicholls letter, uncovered by Jaap Jacobs.

39

Weslager, 193.

39

Ibid.

40

Letter from Mr. Nicholls, October 28,1664.

Fall 2017

61

Ft. Casimir Munitions.

battlefield area, six to ten one by one meter excavation units can be placed in yard lots surrounding the fort area. This will aid in the reconstruction of the battlefield terrain by a geomorphologist. All of the observations collected above will feed a KOCCOA analysis.

Grenades or mortar shell from the bottom of the trench.

enhance the observation a force may have.

It also leads to the use of cover, which in turn lead to effective concealment, and creating defensive obstacles. In contrast, the avenue of approach or withdrawal are be the routes with minimal obstacles that allow a force to maneuver through a battlefield.41 As Fort Casimir itself defined and controlled most of these aspects in this analysis, it is imperative we find its footprint. In general, a metal detector survey would be useless, as most of the area is covered in modern fill, where metal is abundant.

The best place to start would be a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey of the parking area. Based on historical record, this area known as the “Fort Lot.” Despite severe nineteenth-century landscape alteration, there may still be extant archaeological features associated with the fort present beneath the pavement. Based on the shallow depth of the possible palisade line, these features may be very close to the present ground surface and just beneath the paving. As the southeastern bastion of the fort contained a powder magazine, this subterranean feature may have survived all the land alteration that occurred over the past three centuries. If this feature can be found and identified, the precise location of the fort may be reconstructed. Following the GPR results, several excavation units will be placed to search possible features in this area.

We propose excavations along the line of the possible palisade trenches, in order to follow these to a corner or end point.

This work would be completed by both supervising a machine of the nineteenthand twentieth-century layers followed by

more careful hand-excavation of the earlier strata.

In addition, we need several test units into the ditch feature located southwest and northeast from the 2012 trench. The goal would be to follow the filled in ditch feature and palisade line. As the site is not threatened, a judicious sample is recommended, not complete excavation of these features.

Beyond the fort, we intend to reconstruct the earlier seventeenth-century topography.

To find any possible buried surfaces in the

Interpretation: In time, the results will be interpreted to the public through a walking tour, a display, and publications.

The New Castle Historical Society and the Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs can partner for educational outreach and public involvement. This component can be present at many levels. In the first year, a tour guide that can interact with the public during the excavations can be present.

Next, a brochure or walking tour of the Fort Casimir and New Amstel can be developed.

Then an exhibit may be developed for the display space of the Arsenal of the Historical Society or in the New Castle Courthouse Museum.

It is possible the section of ditch and earthen wall observed in the 2012 investigations are remains of the battery constructed under the supervision of Sven Skute for the renamed Fort Trinity. If so, they are the one of the few tangible remains of New Sweden that survives to this day.

41

ABPP website

British Assault on Fort Casimir 1664 (speculative movements) drawn on the map “New Castle Upon the Delaware at the time of William Penn” by Leon DeValinger, 1932.

Fort Casimir

British Landing force under Carr and Stocke

62

British ships: Guinney and William & Nichols shelling the fort

de Halve Maen

Preserving a Sense of Place: The Story of Manhattan’s Dutch Past Told in Bronze

by Glen Umberger

T

HE HUMAN MIND is prone to forget. We forget where we left our car keys. We forget the name of the person we just met at that cocktail party.

We forget to take out the trash. We also forget our history: where we came from; what our predecessors accomplished (and those things of which they were proud); and who lived in this place before we did.

Architecture is designed to help us remember. We construct impressive public buildings and towering skyscrapers to define the genius loci of the city. We install memorials, erect monuments, and place bronze tablets to mark places of significant historical events or to commemorate honorable persons: such works of commemorative architecture are permanent expressions of memory reserved for future generations who will have no personal recollection of that which is being commemorated. While the city can change over time, commemorative architecture is specifically designed to be a physical link to our collective memory and by its nature is immune from physical change. It serves a pedagogical function and with proper understanding inspires members of society to something greater.

It marks a specific place and says, “stop; look; something important happened here that must be remembered.”

The ancients had their own methods to preserve memory through architecture.

The Egyptians erected their pyramids and obelisks, the Greeks built their temples, and the Romans raised their triumphal arches. Beginning in the nineteenth century, New York continued this tradition by producing grand works of commemorative architecture inspired by the ancients; some notable examples include the Prison Ship Glen Umberger received an M.F.A. in architectural history from the Savannah College of Art and Design in 2015 and a B.A. from the University of Delaware in 1990. He is the Manager of Special Projects at the New York Landmarks Conservancy and is an Adjunct Instructor at NYU School of Professional Studies, Division of Languages & Humanities where he teaches courses on New York City’s history and architecture.

Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Monument in Riverside Park (1901).

Martyr’s Monument in Fort Greene Park, Brooklyn (Stanford White, 1908), the Washington Square Arch in Greenwich Village (Stanford White, 1892), and the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Monument in Riverside Park (Stoughton & Stoughton, 1901).

Accordingly, the built environment of New York is replete with many fine exemplars of classically-inspired monuments.

Yet, not all commemorative architecture is of the monumental variety. Some of the most interesting, and hence most vulnerable, are the numerous small markers, plaques, and tablets that are typically hidden in plain sight, discovered only through careful observation.1 They are important keepsakes that were left to us by proud New Yorkers of the past, many of which were generously donated with private funds in the hope that the stories they told would remain in the perpetual memories of all who would call the city home. Regardless of size, the quest to build a work of commemorative architecture is an admirable endeavor.

What, however, happens when its original meaning is lost to time and memory?

What happens to the noble intentions behind the grand marble triumphal arch when it has faded into the bustling streetscape?

What happens to the memory function of the obelisk (and the war hero buried beneath) when it is ignored by passersby and isolated by busy streets and ill-designed pedestrian plazas? Or, what happens when the building to which the bronze tablet is affixed is demolished?

A Box, a Building, and a Bronze Tablet: Late last year, in preparation for the Holland Society of New York’s upcoming move, a wooden crate was discovered in the archive room containing what appeared to be an old commemorative bronze tablet (see following page). Andrew Terhune, president of the Society, reached out to me and presented me with three questions: What is it? Where did it come from? And, what should be done with it? These three simple questions led me on a fascinating path of rediscovering a remarkable old building and a forgotten piece of New York’s Dutch history.

The old building was the former Aldrich Court, a Romanesque revival edifice that was once located at 41–45 Broadway in Lower Manhattan. Designed by the architectural partnership of Henry Walmsley The Historical Marker Database is an excellent resource for discovering these “bite-size bits of local, national, and global history,” accessed September 26, 2017, https:// www.hmdb.org/.

1

Fall 2017

63

Broadway, published by the Evening Mail and Express in 1899.

Youngs and William Arthur Cable, Aldrich Court was a groundbreaking ten-story office building when it opened in 1886. Not only was it tall (it was the first tall building to appear along the section of Broadway between Bowling Green and Trinity Church at Wall Street), it was beautiful, with a colorful façade of quarry-faced Oxford bluestone for the basement, surmounted by two stories of Wyoming bluestone and capped by several stories of red brick with matching red terracotta trim.2 In describing Aldrich Court for his guidebook of New York, Moses King called it “exceedingly handsome and imposing,” and further noted that its entrance “is one of the handsomest in the city.”3 Not everyone agreed. Youngs and Cable’s Aldrich Court had its critics, including one particularly harsh assessment published in the Real Estate Record and Builders’ Guide: [i]n spite of its shortcomings we have noticed that this basement is decidedly the best part of the building . . . [and] except the basement there is nothing to call for admiration. We do not know who the architect is, but we regret to say that his work betrays both want of training and want of thinking, and furnishes solemn warning against intrusting [sic] a work so important to an untrained and unthinking designer.4

Aldrich Court, 45 Broadway: It was on this building that the Holland Society of New York installed a bronze tablet in September 1890 that commemorated the Dutch explorer and trader, Adrian Block.

Under his command, the Tyger, which had been loaded with a shipment of beaver pelts bound for Amsterdam, caught fire and burned while moored in New York harbor in November 1613. Block, along with his crew, were stranded on the island of Manhattan, and spent the winter in makeshift huts that were erected with the aid of the local Lenape inhabitants. The following spring , a new vessel, the Restless [Onrust] was constructed, also with the assistance of the Lenape. The tablet marked the location of his temporary settlement during the winter of 1613–1614.

Like Aldrich Court, the Block Commemorative Tablet was featured in various publications of the time, including Tales of Old New York: The Indian and Dutch Periods published in 1914.6 In describing the story of Adrian Block’s 1613–1614 sojourn in Manhattan, the authors provide an illustration of the tablet (reproducing only its text) but they fail to identify the tablet’s location. Likewise, a description of the Block story in Manhattan found in the Journal of Education not only mentions the basic facts of the story, but also includes the specific location, “at the present 41 Broadway.” The author adds, “[t]he Holland Society has placed fine tablets on

most of the important sites in this area,” including the one commemorating Adrian Block.7 Most interestingly perhaps is an illustration of the Block tablet (only its text) in a 1920 article, “Old Time Tobacco and Cigar Trade on Manhattan.” The article begins with the thesis that “[h]istory and tobacco are old associates. In various ways, since the days of Adrian Block, the tobacco trade has existed and grown on Manhattan Island.” While Block was primarily known as a trader and explorer, the article asserts that “early Dutch settlers were famous consumers of smoking tobacco” (Block among them) and that tobacco was stored in a warehouse that once had been one of the “four little houses that Adrian Block built.”9 Nearly three hundred years later, Aldrich Court stood on the site of these “four little houses” with the Adrian Block Commemorative Tablet prominently displayed just above street level on the building’s colorful façade. In spite of the historic association with the Dutch, both the building and the Sara Bradford Landau and Carl W. Condit, Rise of the New York Skyscraper 1865–1913 (New Haven, 1996), 149–50.

2

3

Moses King, King’s Handbook of New York (Boston, 1892): 768–769.

“Aldrich Court,” Real Estate Record and Builders’ Guide 39, no. 990 (March 5, 1887), 288.

4

Irma and Paul Milstein Division of United States History, Local History and Genealogy, the New York Public Library. “Broadway, West Side. Morris St. to Exchange Alley.” New York Public Library Digital Collections, accessed September 26, 2017. http://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e4-842b-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a9.

5

Albert Ulmann and Grace C. Strachan, Tales of Old New York: The Indian and Dutch Periods (New York, 1914), 21–22.

6

Mary F. Hall, “New York,” Journal of Education 57, no. 23 (June 4, 1903), 357–58.

7

“Old Time Tobacco and Cigar Trade on Manhattan: When Things were Different in New York,” Tobacco 69, no. 21 (March 25, 1920), 166.

8

9

Ibid.

41–45 Broadway in Lower Manhattan.

Designed by the architectural part nership of Henry Walmsley Youngs and William Arthur Cable, Aldrich Court was a groundbreaking tenstory office building when it opened in 1886.

Yet, in spite of such a disparagement, Aldrich Court was featured in various contemporary publications including Both Sides of Broadway: From Bowling Green to Central Park, New York City, published in 1910 and in the Pictorial Description of

64

de Halve Maen

West side of Broadway from Morris Street to Exchange Alley with 41–45 Broadway dominating the middle of the block. From the Evening Mail and Express (1899).

Adrian Block tablet mounted on the wall of 41 Broadway. tablet would soon fade into the background as the modern city was transformed around them.

In the winter of 1969, the New York Times published an article about the building, then just known by its street address, 45 Broadway, noting that it is the “acknowledged site of the first construction of a ship by Europeans in this country.”10 The occasion was an historic one. The eighty-three-year-old building erected on the site where Block’s crew constructed the Restless was losing its last tangible connection to New York’s maritime history. As Federal shipping agencies, including the Maritime Administration, were moving out of the building in favor of more modern facilities at the newly completed Federal Building on Foley Square, they were “[leaving] behind a long and romantic association with the spot where Capt[ain] Adriaen Block and his stranded crew of the Dutch ship Tiger set up temporary headquarters in 1613.”11 The Times recalled how Aldrich Court, renamed for its new owner, the Hamburg-American Line in 1906, was seized by the United States Gov-

ernment in 1917 during World War I, and since that time had been home to several Federal agencies. The article included the last known photograph of the Adrian Block Commemorative Tablet in situ.

Sadly, Aldrich Court’s days were severely numbered. In 1982, an application for a new building permit was filed with the Department of Buildings for a new, thirty-one-story office building to be erected at 41–47 Broadway. The modern tower, designed by Fox & Fowle, would cost the building’s owners $3,570,000.00.12 The New York Times reporting on the general development in the Wall Street area at the time pointed out that the new project at “45 Broadway will have a buffbrick [sic] façade and ribbon windows, according to the architect, the firm of Fox & Fowle, and will be esthetically compatible with the older buildings around [it].”13 The Times also reported that the developer, Howard Ronson’s new buildings (55 Broadway, 40 Broad Street, 45 Broadway and 175 Water Street) were “example[s] of the type of project the British have favored—modest in floor sizes, choice in location. It is the downtown equivalent of the ‘sliver’ building, using the air rights from a neighboring parcel.”14 Before Aldrich Court met its fate with the wrecking ball, someone had the foresight to carefully remove the Adrian Block tablet from the building’s façade, crate it, and return it to the Holland Society of New York.

No documentation has been found as to the identity or motivation of the remover(s) nevertheless, it is truly remarkable that the bronze tablet was salvaged and returned to its donor, ninety-two years after its original installation on Broadway.

development, New York was at the forefront: “if there is another municipality in the world in which there is so much house destruction for the purpose of reconstruction, then it has escaped our observation.”16 The Record and Guide makes these observations and adds that “[o]ld New Yorkers dwell on these changes with pride.”17 It is evident that while New Yorkers thrived on change, they were at the same time not overly concerned about the loss of historic architecture in the name of progress.

Even so, the Record and Guide points out that “[e]ven the memory of men who are still young the changes have been great . . . but they are fast dying out.”18 Such a statement infers that there were some in New York who recognized that the city was too speedily sweeping away its history and that a day was soon coming when New Yorkers would no longer remember the city’s past.

One such group was the Holland Society of New York. Chartered in 1885, the Society’s mission, in part was “to collect and preserve information respecting the history and settlement of New Netherland by the Dutch, [and] to perpetuate the memory and foster and promote the principles and virtues of the Dutch ancestors of its members, etc. . . . ”19 Early in the Society’s history, an

New York City in 1890: The Real Estate Record and Builders’ Guide described New York City in June 1890 as “certainly the most rapidly improving city on earth.”15 Reporting at a time when all major cities throughout the United States were experiencing brisk

Real Estate Record and Builders’ Guide 45, no. 1161 (June 14, 1890), 878.

10 George Horne, “Battery Building Recalls Days of the Intrepid Crew of the Tiger,” the New York Times (February 23, 1969).

11

Ibid.

Office of Metropolitan History, “Manhattan NB Database 1900–1986,” accessed December 15, 2016, http://www.

MetroHistory.org.

12

13 Alan S. Oser, “Development Returns to Wall Street Area,” the New York Times (August 8, 1982).

14

Ibid.

15

16

Ibid.

17

Ibid.

18

Ibid.

19

de Have Maen 58 no. 4 (Winter 2015), 69.

Fall 2017

65

effort was made “to perpetuate the memory . . . of [their] Dutch ancestors” by commissioning a study of notable historic events for possible commemoration. A Special Committee on “Tablets” was established to recommend the placement of markers on sites of historic interest in the area that had been the settlement of New Amsterdam.

According to the chairman of the committee, Alexander T. van Nest, the study was “confined to the selection of certain events as have been associated with some definite, as well as ascertainable, place or locality in the City” (emphasis in original).20 Van Nest concluded his final report of the Committee’s findings to the Society, dated December 26, 1889, with these words: I have selected the sites named as appropriate to receive recognition at the hands of the Holland Society, not that they were more noted than some others of the same period, but because, while they were themselves historic sites, I have, in addition, been enabled, with reasonable certainty, to establish a connection with them a definite place or locality where tablets could be suitably erected.

These tablets were conceived to remind modern New Yorkers that there was something important to be remembered at the specific spot where they were located, even if there was no visual connection to what had been there before. The Record and Guide noted at the time that “it is well that the Holland Society has taken to labeling such few spots within our limits as are consecrated by the incidents of our early history.”22 While the Van Nest report identified eight such locations for commemorative tablets, only five were executed.23 The frontispiece of the Van Nest report included the “Buildings Standing at Present on the Several Sites,” “where the tablets could be placed.” The locations were as follows: 4 Bowling Green (the “[t]ablet should be placed on one of the shipping buildings or on Government building, if located there”) commemorating Fort Amsterdam; 45 Broadway (“[t]he best place to put the tablet would be on the south part of Aldrich Court Building”) commemorating Adrian Block, commander of the Tiger; 73 Pearl Street as the site of the Stadt Huys; the building located on the northeast corner of East 13th Street and Third Avenue (“which was built . . . about seven or eight years ago . . . owned by Rutherford Stuyvesant,” ) commemorating Gov. Petrus Stuyvesant’s Pear Tree; and 115 Broadway on the site of

Adrian Block Commemorative Tablet prominently displayed just above street level on 45 Broadway’s colorful façade. the historic De Lancey house (“afterward known as the City Hotel”) at the Boreel Building.24 Additional descriptive information of the tablets were also included in the van Nest report, most notably, [t]he tablets were designed and the drawings furnished by Mr. Thos.

Tyron, Architect of 39 Union Square, West, as an act of sympathy with the undertaking, and, if they are used by the Society, he should have the privilege of superintending the putting up of the tablets. He is willing to give his personal services free of charge to the Society in this matter, if they simply reimburse him for his actual expenses in connection therewith.25 Thomas Tryon (1859–1920) who trained at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects and Member of the New York Architectural League. His beautifully executed sketches of the proposed tablets were used as illustrations for the van Nest report, though the bronze tablets that were produced differed slightly from Tryon’s original designs.26 In late September 1890, the New York Times reported the news that “[v]ery quietly the Holland Society’s agents have, during the past few days, been marking out the old landmarks and sites of buildings long swept away connected with the early history of New-York City.”27 The Times highlighted the location of these tablets and noted the fact that they “[were] valued at about $300 each.”28 Just a few blocks away from the Adrian Block tablet at 45 Broadway is the bronze marker that commemorates the location of Fort Amsterdam, built in 1626. Like the Block tablet, this one was installed in September 1890 and it too has a rather remarkable story of survival.

Fort Amsterdam was erected at the southern tip of Manhattan Island in the early seventeenth century and served as the religious, economic and municipal center of New Amsterdam. Within its fortifications of the fort stood the first permanent church building in Manhattan along with warehouses, military barracks and the home of the director of the Dutch West India Company. Immediately to the north lay

66

Bowling Green, or “the Plain,” according to the Dutch: later, it became the city’s first public park and the site of a famous public protest in the summer of 1776 during which the leaden equestrian statue of King George III was unceremoniously dethroned.

Fort Amsterdam, later known as Fort George was demolished after the American Revolution and the site of the fort was, like most of New York City, redeveloped several times over the next one-hundred years. In 1890, the south side of Bowling Green was home to a row of modest three and fourstory brick townhouses that by this time 20 Alexander T. Van Nest, Report to the Holland Society of New-York by Alexander T. Van Nest, Chairman of the Special Committee on “Tablets” to be Placed on Sites of Historic Interest in the City of New-York (December 26, 1889), 3. This report was reprinted in the 1890 Yearbook of the Holland Society of New-York, 15-36.

21

Ibid., 3–4.

Real Estate Record and Builders’ Guide 45, no. 1161 (June 14, 1890), 878.

22

23 An additional tablet was installed outside of “New Amsterdam,” on the corner of East Twelfth Street and Third Avenue, commemorating Petrus Stuyvesant’s pear tree.

24 See Van Nest, Report to the Holland Society of NewYork.

25

Ibid, 5.

Little is known about Thomas Tryon though according to Brief Biographies of American Architects Who Died Between 1897 and 1947, he was once in partnership with Arnold W. Brunner (Brunner and Tryon). A review of New Building Permits issued in Manhattan (1900–1986) Tryon is only referenced once as architect for an eight-story brick and stone office building at 147 West 36th Street: it was not constructed. Office for Metropolitan History, “Manhattan NB Database 1900–1986,” accessed August 10, 2017, http:/ www.MetroHistory.com.

26

27 “Holland Society Tablets,” the New York Times, September 30, 1890.

28

Ibid.

de Halve Maen

had already been converted from residential to commercial use, mainly housing offices for the shipping companies operating on the nearby waterfront.

Number 4 Bowling Green, located in mid-block in the center of “Steamship Row” was chosen by van Nest (most likely because it was in the center) to be the location of the commemorative tablet recognizing the site of Fort Amsterdam. The tablet’s inscription reads: The Site of Fort Amsterdam.

Built in 1626 Within the Fortifications Was Erected the First Substantial Church Edifice on the Island of Manhattan.

In 1787 the Fort was Demolished and the Government House Built Upon this Site.

This Tablet is Placed Here by The Holland Society of New York September 1890.

It is interesting to note that the inscription is a bit different than what is recorded in the Van Nest report and in the initial designs of Thomas Tyron, the architect responsible for the 1890 tablets. Tyron’s first version read as follows: Erected by the Holland Society of New York March, 1890 The Site of Old “Fort Amsterdam” Around Which So Much of the Early History of The Island Centres.

Fort Amsterdam was Built in 1626 And Demolished in 1787 To Make Room for

The Fort Amsterdam tablet remains in the main public room of the former U. S. Custom House.

The Old Government House.

The First Substantial Church Edifice in New York Was Erected Inside this Fort.29 While the earlier version provides a more florid telling of the history of the Fort, the later revision may have been to accommodate a smaller or perhaps cheaper tablet.30 Steamship Row, including number 4 Bowling Green, met the same fate as Aldrich Court about 1900 when the entire block (including Whitney Street) between Bowling Green and Bridge Street, State Street and Whitehall Street was cleared for a new Custom House. Again like at Aldrich Court, someone had the foresight to carefully remove the bronze tablet from the façade of number 4 Bowling Green and place it in storage. The new United States Custom House (Cass Gilbert, 1907) was opened in October of 1907 and the Fort Amsterdam tablet was reinstalled, according to contemporary reports, “[i]n the main public room on the first floor, on the east wall, is a tablet which was on the building which preceded the Custom House.”31 It remains in that location today.

The 1890 set of tablets also included one that according to the American Philatelist was “[a] handsome memorial tablet of goodly dimensions, and cast in solid brass, has lately been placed in a conspicuous position upon the front of the seven-story brick structure occupied by offices and known as the ‘Boreel Building’ at 115 Broadway, New York.”32 The tablet affixed to the façade of the Boreel Building (Stephen Decatur Hatch, 1879) commemorated the site of Lieutenant Governor De Lancey’s House, at the corner of Broadway and

Map of the area of State Street and Whitehall Street cleared for the new U.S. Custom House.

Cedar Streets. During New York’s colonial period, it was used as a rendezvous for the Sons of Liberty and later became a resort for British military officers.33 According to a 1901 report in the Real Estate Record and Builders’ Guide, “[t]he Holland Society some years ago placed a tablet on the present building,” and noted the inscription:34 The site of Lieut. Governor De Lancey’s House Later of the “City Hotel” It was here that the “non-importation agreement” in opposition of the Stamp Act was signed October 31st 1765.

The Tavern had many proprietors by whose names it was successively called. It was also known as the “Province Arms,” the “City Arms,” and “Burns Coffee House or Tavern.”

This Tablet is Placed Here by the Holland Society of New York, September, 1890.35 29

8.

Van Nest, Report to the Holland Society of New-York,

30 The text from the March 1890 version was mistakenly used in the article by Walter H. Van Hoesen, “Society’s Tablets Mark Historic Sites,” de Halve Maen 27, no. 3 (October 1952), 5, 31 American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society, Nineteenth Annual Report, 1914, of the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society to the Legislature of the State of New York (March 24, 1914), 98.

32 Robert S. Hatcher, The American Philatelist 5, no. 2 (February 10, 1891), 20.

33 “The Boreel Building,” Real Estate Record and Builders’ Guide 67, no. 1719 (February 23, 1901), 319.

34

Ibid.

The American Philatelist thought that the inscription may be of particular interest to philatelists. According to Vocabulary.com Dictionary, “[t]he Greek ateleia meant “exemption from payment,” an exemption that was marked by a stamp. So a philatelist is literally a person who “loves stamps.” The world of the philatelist is a strange and tiny one. It makes one wonder why someone starts collecting stamps in the first place.” Accessed September 28, 2017. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/philatelist.

35

Fall 2017

67

As with the other 1890 commemorative tablets, this one is also included in King’s Handbook of New York (1893) and Valentine’s Manual of the City of New York (1917). But, this one too differs from the original design proposed by Thomas Tyron. The earlier version, dated March 1890, presents the same textual information though in a much more simplified format and it was this version that was included in Walter H. Van Hoesen’s de Halve Maen article, “Society’s Tablets Mark Historic Sites.”36 Again, following the pattern of Aldrich Court and Number 4 Bowling Green, the twenty-six-year-old Boreel Building met its demise in 1905. The Record and Guide documented the demolition and provided a description of the new building for the site, yet curiously, no mention is made of the Holland Society’s De Lancey House commemorative tablet.37 The new United States Realty Building (Francis H. Kimball, 1906) was erected on the site of the former Boreel Building at an estimated construction cost of $3,000,000.38 There is evidence, however, that the tablet survived the demolition of the Boreel Building; in the collection of the Museum of the City of New York is a photograph dated April 23, 1933, of the tablet in situ at the United States Realty Building, 115 Broadway.39 From this record, we know that the text of the executed commemorative tablet again differs from what was originally proposed by Thomas Tyron and

recorded in the Van Nest report.40 Once again, like in the cases mentioned before, someone removed the tablet from the old building prior to its demolition and later reinstalled it on the new building. Unfortunately, the documentary evidence begins and ends with the April 1933 photograph. There is no record of its installation, removal, disposal or possible relocation and in February 2017, an unsuccessful site inspection was conducted at 115 Broadway to determine where the tablet had been installed pursuant to the 1933 photographic record: the tablet’s fate remains a mystery.

A warehouse formerly located at 73 Pearl Street at Coenties Slip was the site of a commemorative tablet marking the location of city’s first city hall (Stadt Huys). The New York Times reported that the unassuming six-story building “occupie[d] one of the most historic sites on Manhattan Island, for there stood, soon after the settlement of New Amsterdam, the tavern erected by Governor Kieft about 1641, and which, twelve years later, became the Stadt Huys, or official City Hall, of the little city.”41 The Times also noted that “[o]n the building now at 73 Pearl Street, the Holland Society placed a bronze tablet several years ago commemorating the ancient Dutch Stadt Huys.”42 Photographs from the 1930s show the tablet in place facing Pearl Street (page 66).

That tablet still existed in 1952 when a photograph of the warehouse, with the subject tablet mounted about the front door, was included as an illustration in Mr. Van Hoesen’s de Halve Maen article. Unfortunately, like the De Lancey House tablet at 115 Broadway, the trail then goes cold.

The warehouse was demolished around 1980 when the site was cleared for the new Goldman Sachs Headquarters building at 85 Broad Street (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, 1983) and it appears likely that the tablet was lost at that time.

The fifth commemorative tablet of the 1890 set was not installed in the area that had been New Amsterdam, yet it commemorated a very important piece of New York’s Dutch history: Petrus Stuyvesant’s Memorial Pear Tree. The famous pear tree was brought back by Stuyvesant in 1664 from his trip to the Netherlands and planted on his bouwerie, at a spot adjacent to the present day intersection of East Thirteenth Street and Third Avenue in the East Village.

It was to be a memorial that “[his] name might still be remembered.” By the time of the American Civil War, the tree was still there as “the oldest living thing in the City

68

of New York,” a claim made by Harper’s Monthly in 1862: shortly thereafter the tree had a fateful run-in with a wayward dray and its days were numbered.

This tablet, installed along with the others in September 1890 was prominently displayed at the East Village intersection where the pear tree had lived for two centuries. There is a photographic record circa 1917 of the tablet in situ at the former Pear Tree Drugstore on the corner of East Thirteenth Street and Third Avenue though the text is slightly different from Thomas Tyron’s plans. But this one too has a remarkable story of survival (even if Stuyvesant’s pear tree has been replaced by a modern one) at the East Village corner.43 The tablet would remain at “Pear Tree Corner” for nearly seven decades when the building to which it was affixed, the former Pear Tree Drugstore then known as Kiehl’s had fallen into such disrepair that it may have to be razed. At that time, Kiehl’s moved next door and the Rev. William J. F. Lydecker, a Holland Society member and interim pastor of St. Mark’s Church in-the-Bowery, believing that the building’s potential demolition meant that the tablet may be lost, arranged to have the tablet removed to the church for safekeeping.

In a letter dated January 29, 1959, to the Reverend Lydecker from Charles J. Schlesinger, owner of a corner building three blocks south from the Pear Tree Drugstore, Schlesinger advocated for the tablet to be placed on his building: St. Mark’s is so well known and contains so many things of historical interest that the Plaque may be lost amongst all the other mementos. It is within your province to decide whether or not we 36

Van Hoesen, 10.

“Farewell to the Boreel Building,” Real Estate Record and Builders’ Guide 76, no. 1969 (December 9, 1905), 898.

37

38 Office of Metropolitan History, “Manhattan NB Database 1900–1986,” accessed February 16, 2017, http://www.

MetroHistory.org.

39 Clayton L. Wallace, “Plaque on 115 Broadway, corner of Thames street, April 23, 1933” Museum of the City of New York, accessed February 15, 2017, http://collections.mcny. org/Doc/MNY/Media/TR3/0/8/f/a/MNY217639.jpg 40 c.f. Van Nest, 16–18, and Van Hoesen, 10. In this instance, we may be able to forgive Mr. Van Hoesen as it is quite possible that by 1952 the tablet in question was no longer extant.

41 “Buys Historic Site: Importers Take Title on Old Pearl Street Stadt Huys Plot,” the New York Times (June 22, 1920).

42

Ibid.

Moses King cites the location for the “Tablet at Third Avenue and 12th Street.” Moses King, King’s Hanbook of New York, 2d ed. (New York, 1893), 45.

43

de Halve Maen

Above: 73 Pearl Street with City Hall plaque in situ above the door.

Right: circa 1917 photo of the tablet at the Pear Tree Drugstore on the corner of East Thirteenth Street and Third Avenue. are “too late,” but we would deem it a great privilege if you could see your way clear to permit this Plaque to be installed on our building . . . where it would be seen by so many passers-by, now that the neighborhood is improving with the [IRT Third Avenue Line] Elevated down and many new apartments going up.44 Lydecker agreed and the tablet was reinstalled at the northeast corner of Third Avenue and East Tenth Street, even though the text of the tablet would cause some confusion as it was not, in fact “on this corner grew Petrus Stuyvesant’s pear tree.”

Nevertheless, the Holland Society knew where it was and albeit safe, it was in the wrong location, where it would remain uncontested until 1980.

In the spring of 1980, as the pear trees were blooming in New York City, the New York Times reported that a feud was brewing: “[t]his is about a pear tree, a plaque and a squabble.”45 The Times reported that the owner of Kiehl’s, Aaron Morse, who had recently bought the corner building where the tablet had been, was asserting that “[m]y corner is where the plaque should be.”46 Charles Schlesinger was “absolutely stunned” by this assertion and argued that it should remain just where it had been for the last twenty years, citing that he father collected Stuyvesant memorabilia (the tablet included) and “cared about the neighborhood.”47 Notwithstanding Schlesinger’s claims that possession is nine-tenths of the law, Morse was undeterred, showing a visitor evidence on his building of where the tablet had been installed in 1890 noting that “[t]he screws will fit exactly in the right places when I get it back.”48 Morse reached

out to the Holland Society but Richard Amerman, a former Society president went on record, “[w]e are taking a neutral position for now,” noting also that the subject would come up before the Society’s next Board of Trustees meeting. The central issue, which Morse aptly pointed out, “is truth versus untruth,” adding that “[t]he force of history will affect the final resolution.”49 Resolution would not come until 2003.

In the summer of 2003, Kiehl’s was able to expand their operations into the old corner building that Aaron Morse recognized as the rightful home to the tablet. The Company took the opportunity to rebrand the street corner “Pear Tree Corner” and held a ceremony that November, complete with a newly planted pear tree to commemorate the occasion: the tablet, however remained absent. It was not until 2005 when the Bendiner & Schlesinger building was slated for demolition that the tablet was relinquished by Charles “Duke” Schlesinger following negotiations with William van Winkle, then president of the Holland Society.50 Philip Clough, the president of Kiehl’s would see that the tablet was restored to its proper location. Contemporary reports told the tale of the conclusion of the tablet’s decades in exile: Kiehl’s had been trying for decades to get back the plaque, which had been affixed to its corner wall for 68 years beginning in 1890. ‘Philip Clough is very excited,’ said James van Buren, trustee emeritus of the Holland Society in a phone interview. ‘He has offered to pay for its removal and clean up.

He will see to it that it’s put in a good location.51

Today, an examination of the corner of East Thirteenth Street and Third Avenue shows the building currently occupied by Kiehl’s and to the left of the entrance, on the East Thirteenth Street elevation is the Holland Society tablet in situ.52 Walter H. van Hoesen’s account of these tablets in the October 1952 issue of de Halve Maen provides us with the various locations along with a brief description of the five bronze tablets, and makes a remarkable observation: “. . . Society records indicate that a group of officers and members made a visit to each place soon thereafter.”53 Clearly, these five bronze tablets were a source of great pride for the Society.

Others too were equally impressed.

Moses King included them in his second edition of King’s Handbook of New York City, published in 1893 listing them along with other notable “Historical Tablets Recently Placed in the Variously Designated Localities.”54 Likewise, the 1917 Valentine’s Manual of the City of New York features the tablets in a section dubbed “In Commemoration of Historical Events.” Inclusion in contemporary city guides proved that van Nest and his Committee was successful in promoting Dutch history in New York City.55 New York History Lost and Found: The architectural photographer and historical preservationist Richard Nickel once fa44 Letter from Charles J. Schlesinger to the Rev. William J. F. Lydecker, January 29, 1959, as quoted in Bonnie Rosenstock, “Peter’s Pear Tree Plaque is Going Home at Long Last,” The Villager 74, no. 45 (March 16–22, 2005). Accessed October 27, 2017. http://thevillager.com/ villager_98/peterspeartree.html 45 Ron Alexander, “Feuding Over a Pear Tree Plaque,” the New York Times (May 5, 1980). Accessed October 27, 2017. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1 980/05/05/111153882.html 46

Ibid.

47

Ibid.

48

Ibid.

49

Ibid.

Society Trustee Emeritus James M. Van Buren II made a crusade out of moving it to Kiehl’s.” See “Stuyvesant Pear Tree Plaque Ceremony,” de Halve Maen 78, no. 4 (Winter 2005), 78.

50

51 Bonnie Rosenstock, “Peter’s Pear Tree Plaque is Going Home at Long Last,” The Villager 74, no. 45 (March 16–22, 2005). Accessed October 27, 2017. http://thevillager.com/ villager_98/peterspeartree.html 52 “Petrus Stuyvesant’s Pear Tree,” The Historical Marker Database. Accessed October 2, 2017. https://www.hmdb. org/marker.asp?marker=102412 53

Van Nest, 5.

54

King’s Handbook of New York City, 45.

Henry Collins Brown, ed., Valentine’s Manual of the City of New York 1917–1918 (New York, 1918), 76, 80.

55

Fall 2017

69

The New York Produce Exchange designed by George B. Post, 1884, demolished in 1957.

mously quipped, “great architecture has only two natural enemies: water and stupid men.”56 While Nickel was speaking in reference to the sweeping demolition of Chicago’s architectural legacy in the 1950s, New York at the same time was facing the wanton destruction of its own architectural gems, including Pennsylvania Station (McKim, Mead & White, 1910, demolished 1964), the Singer Building (Ernest Flagg, 1908, demolished 1968) and the New York Produce Exchange (George B. Post, 1884, demolished 1957).

But even with these losses, and countless others of equal historic, cultural and social significance, New York City’s vibrant past is being preserved in various architectural forms thanks, in part to the New York City Landmarks Preservation Law. The Law, enacted in 1965 was intended to allow the modern city to evolve, while retaining important elements of the built environment for posterity.57 A work of architecture embodies an aspect of history that is reserved for generations to come; it is a manifestation of the zeitgeist in which it was created. But when a building is lost to demolition, neglect or misguided alteration, we lose a tangible link to our past and our understanding of the time in which it was erected is dimmed. In the mid-nineteenth century, several books were written to highlight areas of historic interest (and notable buildings) in New York City, especially in Lower Manhattan, to remind modern citizens of the history of their city, reconnecting them to the city’s past. In the preface of an “historical sketch” from 1853, the author argued that since: [New York City’s] history is becoming less and less familiar to the multitudes that make up its vast population . . . the facts of the city’s history, as distinguished from that of the state or nation, are very imperfectly known to ordinary readers, even in the city itself. To bring

the subject within the reach of all, is the design of this work.58 The author begins recording the history of the city on September 3, 1609, when “a strange and unaccountable phenomenon was witnessed by the wandering savages who happened to be in the neighborhood of Sandy Hook,” that being the arrival of Henry Hudson aboard the Crescent [Half Moon].59 He continues outlining of the city’s history, illustrated by engravings of prominent public buildings and maps and ending with a prophetical description of the “character of the future city,” in which he believes that “[t]he New-York of 1900 will probably be a much less compactly built city than that which now occupies the southern extremity of Manhattan Island.”60 And while that prediction proved to be untrue of the city at the turn of the last century, the author recognizes that the future development of the city will require a thorough knowledge of her history.

Likewise, William Smith Pelletreau (1840–1918) wrote that the purpose of his book, Early New York Houses, published in 1900 was “[t]o preserve for future generations a correct representation of various places of interest which no longer exist, but whose history must ever be a valuable and interesting portion of the history of the city . . . [it] will be the means of exciting fresh interest in the study of local history.”61 Pelletreau believed, however, that “[o]ne of the failures of most our local histories is to designate exactly where an ancient building stood,” noting that “[i]f any one feels inclined to doubt this, let him endeavor to locate the site of almost any important building of the past from what he can find in printed books.”62 New Yorkers in the twenty-first century have a bit of an advantage over our predecessors when it comes to locating “exactly where an ancient building stood,” thanks in part to the efforts of the Holland Society

70

of New York. With the rediscovery of the Adrian Block Commemorative Tablet it was apparent that it had to be returned to its former home at 45 Broadway; it belonged there, on that spot. Following restoration, on September 14, 2017, the tablet was installed on the granite façade of the modern successor to Aldrich Court, 45 Broadway Atrium where it again marks the location of Block’s “four houses or huts.” It was rededicated at an unveiling ceremony on Monday, September 18, 2017, almost 127 years to the day of its original dedication and hopefully will “excite fresh interest in the study of local history.”

The built environment can serve as the bridge between the ancient and the modern; the past and the future; the forgotten and the remembered. It can sustain memory and inspire civic pride. It can be a source of inspiration to those who view it and teach those yet not born the lessons of the past. Historic preservation is not just about preventing the destruction of significant buildings. It can take other forms including the protection of memorials, monuments or other forms of commemorative architecture from being altered, defaced, moved, willfully neglected or otherwise destroyed. But in the dizzying pace of life in the twenty-first century, especially in the sensory overloaded New York City, these architectural treasures are especially vulnerable: they can be easily overlooked, often misunderstood, or forgotten entirely.

Nevertheless, they are an important part of our history, culture and civilization; they hold the collected memory of society.

So, modern-day New Yorker, take a moment to look up at the marble monumental arch; stop for a minute or two at the granite obelisk; pause and read the inscription on the bronze tablet—someone left them there for you to remember.

56 Richard Cahan, They All Fall Down: Richard Nickel’s Struggle to Save America’s Architecture (New York, 1994), 89.

57 New York City’s Landmarks Law was signed in April 1965 that, according to the New York Times, “created a preservation commission with teeth, to guard the city’s memory.” See “New York City’s Landmarks Law at 50,” the New York Times (April 17, 2015). Accessed September 29, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/18/opinion/newyork-citys-landmarks-law-at-50.html?mcubz=1&_r=0 58 New-York: A Historical Sketch of the Rise and Progress of the Metropolitan City of America (New York, 1853), 5–6.

59

Ibid, 13–14.

60

Ibid, 338.

61

Pelletreau, Early New York Houses,vii.

62

Ibid, viii.

de Halve Maen

Jacob Leisler Institute Acquires de Halve Maen Files.

I

N THE PAST few months, The Holland Society Trustees have found it desirable to transfer its collections to numerous new homes. Among these transfers have been the files of the Holland Society’s journal de Halve Maen to the Jacob Leisler Institute for the Study of Early New York History in Hudson, New York.

De Halve Maen first appeared in October 1922 as a newsletter consisting of a single sheet of sturdy orange paper folded into four pages. Society Secretary Frederick R. Keator and Trustee Tunis G. Bergen began the newsletter as a means to connect Branch Members with Society events in Manhattan.

Following the Stock Market Crash of 1929, which took a toll on the Society’s finances, de Halve Maen replaced the Yearbooks as the Society’s major publication. Under the editorship of Wilfred B. Talman after 1932 the newsletter increasingly became the major publication for the Dutch colonial period in America. In 1943, the journal was expanded into the glossy magazine format it retains to this day.

Since 1990, the magazine has been under the editorship of Dr. David William Voorhees, who is also founder and director of the Jacob Leisler Institute. It is thus no surprise that when suggestions were made to dispose of the old de Halve Maen files, they were instead transferred to the Leisler Institute.

The Leisler Institute is a repository and research center devoted to colonial New

The archival reading and research room of the Jacob Leisler Institute for the Study of Early New York History in Hudson, New York.

York and East New Jersey under English rule. In the years spanning 1664 to 1773, the former Dutch colony’s diverse European, Amerindian, and African populations fused into a cosmopolitan population with ties throughout the Atlantic World. This 109year period in American history following the English takeover of New Netherland in 1664 remains largely neglected.

At the Institute’s core are the papers of Jacob Leisler, New York’s ill-fated rebel governor beheaded for treason in 1691. The Leisler Papers collection began in 1988 under the auspices of the New York University Department of History; endorsements of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) and the U.S. federal government soon followed in 1989.

Jacob Leisler’s 1689–1691 administration of New York is central to understanding the province’s subsequent political, economic,

The Jacob Leisler Institute’s archival records holdings room now houses the bulk of the Holland Society’s de Halve Maen files and hard copy issues.

and cultural life until the outbreak of hostilities with Great Britain in the 1760s. The Leisler collection contains records relating to five generations of Leisler’s immediate family from 1550 to 1770. These include court records and administrative papers from Leisler’s administration as well as family-related property deeds, trade transactions, and political writings.

Since the founding of the Institute, other collections relating to the Hudson River and Mohawk Valleys, Long Island, and East Jersey have been added. Among these collections are the papers of the late Dr. Eric Nooter and of local historian Mary Hallenbeck. These collections tell the story of French, German, English, New English, and African settlers as well as of the Dutch and Native Indian tribes and how they altered and enriched New York’s colonial culture and society. Immigration created tensions and new mythologies, and the Enlightenment and contrasting religious movements transformed ideologies. In the end, a dynamic society arose by the time of the American Revolution that continues to resonate in the twenty-first century.

The Institute’s library includes extensive genealogical files, original manuscripts, more than 4,000 document photocopies written in Dutch, German, French, English, and Latin, microfilms, rare books, prints, maps, and photographic and digital materials that cover the full extent of colonial New York. As new documents come on the market, the Institute encourages their acquisition through the generosity of interested

Fall 2017

71

donors. The Leisler Institute is preserving the memory of this fascinating period so we may more clearly understand our own world today.

The Jacob Leisler Institute is located in Hudson, New York, a small historic city in the bucolic Hudson River Valley. The Institute is easily accessible from New York City, Boston, and Albany by road and rail.

Hudson, with a dynamic contemporary culture centered amidst a historic and scenic countryside, provides a wealth of resources relating to the Dutch and English colonial periods, such as the Luykas Van Alen House, numerous Reformed Dutch

churches and historic sites, including the former Van Rensselaer and Livingston manorial landholdings. Moreover, located only thirty-five miles from the New York State Library, where the bulk of the Holland Society’s collections have been placed, it is an natural resource for following provincial affairs into the eighteenth century.

The Jacob Leisler Institute as an independent, nonprofit study center serves scholars and students of the period and teaches the necessary skills to preserve and interpret the period’s manuscript and material resources.

The collection, which continues to develop, is of interest to researchers from a wide

range of disciplines: history, geography, ethnohistory, economics, political science, demography, art history, and others. We encourage the public to use the Institute as an educational and archival center, and work with scholars to prepare papers, booklength manuscripts, and lectures from our holdings. The addition of The Holland Society’s de Halve Maen collection enhance the Institute’s resources. In addition, for the present, the journal will be prepared at the Institute’s offices.

For more information, visit the Jacob Leisler Institute webpage at www.jacobleislerinstitute.org/ or on Facebook.

Here and There in New Netherland Studies Connecting Dutch Heritage in the Hudson River Valley

O

N THURSDAY, October 19, 2017, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation— Division for Historic Preservation hosted a daylong working meeting in Staatsburg, New York, with historians, preservationists, museum professionals, and tourism specialists involved in New Netherland sites. The meeting, organized by Cordell Reaves, historic interpretation and preservation analyst at New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, was well attended by eighty representatives from institutions all over the state. Entitled “Connecting Dutch Heritage in the Hudson River Valley Corridor,” the focus was on efforts to interpret and promote Dutch heritage in the Hudson River Valley corridor and foster greater collaboration and plan programming for the coming year.

Holland Society Executive Director Odette Fodor-Gernaert and de Halve Maen editor David William Voorhees joined in the daylong discussions about the current state of colonial Dutch resources in the Hudson River Valley. The morning was filled with fascinating presentations by Deputy Commissioner for New York State Historic Preservation Daniel MacKay, New York State Deputy Commissioner for Cultural Education Mark Schaming, best-selling author Russell Shorto, Consul General of the Netherlands in New York Dolph Hogewoning, and food historians Peter Rose and Lovada Nahon.

Following a luncheon of traditional Hudson River Valley foods, the gathering split into smaller discussion groups. The general focus of the groups was on new research and how to bring it to the attention of the wider public. The meetings created a fruitful conversation about the exciting potentials of how New Netherland’s and colonial New York’s diverse and color-

Connecting Dutch Heritage discussion at Staatsburg, New York.

72

ful Amerindian, African, and European populations created the world in which we live today. The intention is to continue the discussion among all those who attended and bring greater attention to the Hudson River Valley’s rich cultural past.

Exhibition of Mid-Hudson Valley Kasten

H

ISTORIC HUGUENOT STREET in New Paltz, New York, hosted a special exhibition of mid-Hudson Valley Dutch-style eighteenth-century cupboards known as kasten from October 1 through December 17, 2017. Large, free-standing wardrobes, kasten were often the most valuable item owned by a family and central to domestic life in colonial New York.

The exhibit featured over a dozen kasten from both private and public collections in the region, including the Ulster County Historical Society, the Friends of Historic Kingston, and the Reformed Church of Kingston, New York.

The exhibition also includes a massive mid-seventeenth-century Dutch-made kussenkast with historic ties to the Elting family and Huguenot Street, on loan from the Historical Society of Newburgh Bay and the Hudson Highlands. A catalog for the exhibition is planned for release later this year. Funding for the exhibit was provided by a grant from the Peggy N. and Roger G. Gerry Charitable Trust and a private donation.

de Halve Maen

Society Activities Niagara Frontier Branch Meeting

T

HE NIAGARA FRONTIER Branch of the Holland Society of New York held its annual dinner meeting on Wednesday, September 20, 2017, at the Saturn Club in Buffalo, New York. Following dinner, Society President Andrew Terhune, who had joined the gathering, gave a presentation on recent and planned activities for the Society. David Bissonette, health, safety and security manager for General Mills at their plant in Buffalo, New York, then followed as the keynote speaker. Mr. Bissonette presented an insider’s view of the iconic Buffalo General Mills facility that makes Gold Medal flour and cereal products such as the well-known Cheerios brand. This plant is 110 years old, has been making cereal since 1941, and is located on land originally purchased from the Holland Land Company in the early 1800s.

Members, relatives, and friends attending the Niagara Frontier Branch Meeting included Glen Van Buskirk, David, Molly and Adrian Quackenbush, Walter, Connie, and Ted Constantine, Thomas Schoefield, Jeanne Spampata, Joseph and Grace Costantini, Ted Van Deusen, John and Rebecca Montague, Jad and Shelly Cordes, Richard Braen, Ditte Dehas, John Nitterauer, Tom and Rose Bailey, and Alex and Danielle Keogan.

Members of the Niagara Frontier Branch of the Holland Society pose for their annual official portrait at the Saturn Club in Buffalo, New York. on-site tavern, a reception hall and, of course, the mansion that is Berry Hill were all included. Saturday morning, following breakfast, Dr. Luck, a retired local school teacher with a font of knowledge about the house, its architecture, and life in antebellum Virginia, gave a tour of the house.

Through him the group gained a historical perspective of the plantation and its place in history. The rest of the day some members continued to explore the plantation while others ventured into South Boston. South

Boston was in the heart of tobacco country and held a tobacco festival in the 1930s that attracted as many as 150,000 people. World War II and the health dangers of smoking diminished the influence of tobacco, but South Boston is also the site of American General Nathaniel Greene’s 1781 crossing of the Dan River while retreating from Lord Charles Cornwallis’ superior English forces. This quaint city with an historic past is working to maintain its history.

Saturday evening the group enjoyed an

Virginia/Carolinas Branch Meeting

S

OUTH BOSTON, Virginia, was the site of the annual meeting of the Virginia/Carolinas Branch of the Holland Society of New York on September 22–24, 2017. Branch Members, their families, and guests met at Berry Hill Farm. Berry Hill is a 1844 plantation updated with hotel-style rooms by the French multinational insurance AXA Insurance Company in the late 1990s as a training base for their American agents. After 9/11, AXA did not wish to remain at the Virginia site and Berry Hill Farm became a hotel and wedding venue.

Eighteen members and their guests enjoyed a wine and beer reception on Friday evening while they explored some of the resort’s amenities. The indoor pool, sauna,

Virginia/Carolinas Branch Members on the porch of Berry Hill Farm, South Boston, Virginia.

Fall 2017

73

impressive dinner in the mansion followed by an excellent presentation by Society Member and furniture maker Tom Wessells on seventeenth-century Dutch furniture.

Attendees came from all the southern states that make up the branch as well as beyond. David and Pat Riker, for example, came from Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.

Other attendees included brothers Dick and Bob Voorhees from Gastonia, North Carolina, and Greensboro, North Carolina, Tom Wessells and Gayle Young from Newport, Virginia, brothers Dave and Jim Blarcom and their wives, Helen and Leigh, from Wesley Chapel, North Carolina, and Tega Cay, South Carolina, Bob and Molly Banta from Raleigh, North Carolina, Jim and Jean Gulick from Virginia Beach, Virginia, Jim and Helen Brown from Norfolk, Virginia, and Terry Ackerman and Monica Jones from Tryon, North Carolina.

Potomac Branch Meeting

A

FTER AN ABSENCE, the Potomac Chapter of the Holland Society of New York met in Washington, D.C., on October 6, 2017. The meeting was held at the beautiful Beaux Arts Metropolitan Club, one block from the White House. Members gathered in the Club’s Diplomat Room and the bar on the fourth floor catching up the latest before sitting down to a classic dining experience of myriad local dishes including Maryland Crab.

Dr. Dennis Pogue of the University of Maryland giving a PowerPoint presentation to the Potomac Branch Members on the history of colonial whiskey.

Branch President Christopher Cortright provided updates on the Holland Society that included the latest news from President Andrew Terhune as well as toasts; Members shared their views on latest membership changes and other news. John Van Wagoner, a member of the Metropolitan Club, longtime Holland Society Member, and past Potomac Branch President, was the gracious host of the event; his lifetime success as engineer and businessman allowed the event to take place in such a magnificent and impressive setting.

At the conclusion of dinner, Professor Dennis Pogue from the Architecture and Preservation Department of the University of Maryland gave a fascinating PowerPoint presentation on the history of colonial whiskey and George Washington’s distillery at Mt. Vernon. Dr. Pogue noted that the Dutch saw rum production as a commercial opportunity to supply spirits to the British soldiers who came to America during the French and Indian War.

From left to right: Glen Umberger of the Landmarks Conservancy, Holland Society President Andrew Terhune, Netherlands Consul General in New York Dolph Hogenwoning, and New York City Council Majority Leader Jimmy Van Bramer at the unveiling of the Adrian Block Tablet.

74

Attendees at the Potomac Branch Meeting included Betty Ann Kane, current Chairman of the D.C. Public Service Commission and past city council member, who is finalizing her Holland Society membership application now that daughters in the direct male line are eligible for membership. Also present were Phillip Zabriskie, son of past Holland Society of New York President Charles Zabriskie Jr., John Van Wagoner and his longtime friend Mary Gardner, John’s brother Richard John Van Wagoner and his wife, Caroline, and new Society Member Sarah Lefferts, who now carries on the membership tradition of her father, Roger DuBois Lefferts.

Adrian Block Tablet Installation

O

N MONDAY, September 18, 2017, the restored Adrian Block Bronze Commemorative Tablet was reinstalled at 45 Broadway (“Broadway Atrium”) by Tatti Art Conservation. A brief unveiling ceremony took place attended by Holland Society officers, city officials, and the Dutch Consul General at 11:00 a.m. The bronze commemorative tablet had been originally installed in September 1890 at the former Aldrich Court, 41-45 Broadway. When that building was demolished in 1982, the tablet was removed from the building and returned to the Holland Society, where it had remained in storage.

Earlier this year, the tablet was restored and plans were made to return it to its former location at the present 45 Broadway Atrium building. September 2017 marked the 127th anniversary of the tablet’s original dedication by the Holland Society of New York. In partnership with the Dutch Consulate and the New York Landmarks Conservancy, the Holland Society organized the reinstallation event.

de Halve Maen

In Memoriam David Folger Springsteen Holland Society of New York Life Member David Folger Springsteen passed away in Naples, Florida, on March 23, 2017, just shy of his eighty-fifth birthday.

Mr. Springsteen was born in Brooklyn, New York, on March 29, 1932, son of Nelson John Springsteen, a Member of The Holland Society, and Gwendolyn Marguerite Folger. He was descended from Casper Springsteen, who emigrated to New Netherland from Groningen in 1652. Mr. Springsteen joined The Holland Society in 1962.

Mr. Springsteen received a Bachelor of Science from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1954. He served as a lieutenant of the United States Air Force Reserves from 1955 to 1957, rising to the rank of captain. During this period he was an aeronautical research scientist at Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Cleveland, Ohio. Following his service in the Air Force, he received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard University in 1958.

Mr. Springsteen married Nancy Caroline Neller on October 22, 1955, in Neenah, Wisconsin. The couple had two children: Susan Folger Springsteen, and Linda Page Springsteen, both born in Brooklyn, New York.

Mr. Springsteen joined Chase Manhattan Bank in Manhattan in 1958. He served Chase as an assistant treasurer in 1961–1964, second vice president in 1964–1968, and vice president of the energy division in 1969–1971. From 1971 to 1974, Mr. Springsteen was employed as vice president of corporation finance at Stone & Webster Securities Corporation. In 1974 he joined, E. F. Hutton & Company, Inc., Manhattan. In 1978 he formed his own finance consultant company, David F. Springsteen Company of Greenwich, Connecticut. Mr. Springsteen retired in 1998.

Following his retirement, Mr. Springsteen spent his time between his homes in Grantham, New Hampshire, and Naples, Florida. In addition to his membership in The Holland Society, Mr. Springsteen

served on the board of directors of the Eastman Community Association of Grantham in 1992–1998.

Mr. Springsteen is survived by his wife, Nancy, daughters Susan S. Jamieson and Page S. Vanatta, and grandchildren. Mr. Springsteen was cremated. Services were private.

John Garret Nevius Holland Society of New York Life Member and former Treasurer John Garrett Nevius passed away on August 12, 2017, in Shaftsbury, Vermont, after a long illness. Mr. Nevius was born in Hartford, Connecticut, on May 8, 1961, son of Garrett Winder Nevius and Mary Ellis Peltz. He claimed descent from Johannes Nevius, who arrived in New Netherland in 1651 from Kempen, Overijssel. Mr. Nevius was elected to membership in The Holland Society of New York on October 9, 2008.

Mr. Nevius was raised in Farmington, Connecticut. He spent summers on Sutton Island, Maine. He graduated from the University of Connecticut and earned a master’s degree in geology and civil engineering from the University of Pennsylvania. He became a Licensed Professional Engineer. While working for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, he received a National Excellence Award and a Bronze Medal. He later joined the law firm of Anderson Kill, P. C., after earning a juris doctor degree from Pace University. At Anderson Kill Mr. Nevius became the founding chairman of the firm’s environmental law group. He lectured and wrote widely and was an adjunct professor at Pace Law School.

Mr. Nevius married Alison Anne Hess on August 26, 1995. The couple had two daughters, Anne Ellis Nevius, born on January 16, 1998, and Kathleen Winder Nevius, born on May 30, 2001, both born in Brooklyn, New York.

Mr. Nevius was active in Holland Society affairs. In addition to serving as the Society Treasurer, he served as the Chairman of the Law Committee, Chairman of the Nominating Committee, and Chairman of the Real Estate Committee. Holland Society President Charles

Zabriskie Jr. called him “a trusted and valuable advisor whose legal counsel was irreplaceable.”

Mr. Nevius was an avid numismatist, specializing in early United States half dollars. Mr. Nevius also designed and oversaw production of a medal for the Society.

Mr. Nevius is suirvived by his wife, Alison, daughters Kathleen and Anne, his mother, Mary, and his sisters Nancy Bacon, Christy Nevius, and Mary Lansing.

Peter Van Antwerp Ten Eyck Holland Society of New York Member Peter Van Antwerp Ten Eyck passed away on Sunday, August 6, 2017. Mr. Ten Eyck was born in Schenectady, New York, on October 6, 1924, son of Mills Ten Eyck and Edith Waterman. He claimed descent from Coenraet ten Eyck who emigrated to New Amsterdam from Moers, Germany in 1650. Mr. Ten Eyck joined The Holland Society in 1975.

Mr. TenEyck attended Schenectady, New York, public schools. He graduated from the Albany Academy for Boys in the Class of 1943. At Albany Academy, he was the captain of the AA football team.

In the summer of 1942 he lived on a Vermont farm, serving with the Volunteer Land Corps.

During World War II, Mr. Ten Eyck was part of the V-12 Program at Hobart College, but transferred to the United States Marine Corps, with whom he served in the Pacific Theater with the Sixth Division. In 1950 he graduated from Union College, Schenectady, New York, where he was a member of the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity and played guard on the 1948 winning football team.

On May 18, 1957, Mr. Ten Eyck married Margaret Rose Stevens in Greenville, New York. The couple had three sons, Mills Ten Eyck II, born on October 10, 1958, William Stevens Ten Eyck, born on September 1, 1960, and Peter Van Antwerp Ten Eyck Jr., born on May 3, 1963.

Mr. Ten Eyck began his career in banking with the Citizens Trust Co. in

Fall 2017

75

Schenectady. He retired as a Trust Officer with Key Trust in Albany in 1987.

He served as president of the Schenectady Chapter of the American Institute of Banking. Mr. Ten Eyck also served on the boards of the Pioneer Insurance Company, the Childs Hospital, and the Trinity Institution of Albany.

For seventy-four years Mr. Ten Eyck

was a member of the First Reformed Church of Schenectady. He was also a member of the Sons of the Revolution and a past member of the Kiwanis Club of Scotia, New York. Mr. Ten Eyck’s hobbies include golf, numismatics, and family history.

Mr. Ten Eyck is survived by his wife, Margaret, and his sons Mills II Ten Eyck

76

of Kansas City, Missouri, William S. Ten Eyck of East Greenwich, Rhode Island, a Holland Society Member and Peter Ten Eyck Jr. of Scotia, New York, also a Holland Society Member, and grandchildren Schuyler, Laurel, Rhys, and Aidan. A memorial service for Peter was held at the First Reformed Church of Schenectady.

Burial was in the Albany Rural Cemetery,

de Halve Maen

The Holland Society of New York

GIFT ITEMS for Sale

www.hollandsociety.org “Beggars' Medal,” worn by William

of Orange at the time of his assassination and adopted by The Holland Society of New York on March 30, 1887 as its official badge.

The medal is available in: Sterling Silver 14 Carat Gold $2,800.00 Please allow 6 weeks for delivery - image is actual size

100% Silk “Necktie” $85.00 “Self-tie Bowtie” $75.00 “Child's Pre-tied Bowtie” $45.00 “Lapel Pin”

Designed to be worn as evidence of continuing pride in membership.

The metal lapel pin depicts the Lion of Holland in red enamel upon a golden field. Extremely popular with members since 1897 when adoped by the society. $45.00

“Rosette”

Silk moiré lapel pin in orange, a color long associated with the Dutch $25.00

Make checks payable to: The Holland Society of New York and mail to: 708 Third Ave, 6th floor, New York, NY 10017 Or visit our website and pay with Prices include shipping