David Provoost was baptized 11 Aug 1611 in the Oudekerk, Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands, the son of Wilhelmus Provoost and Jenne Eerdewijns. He had three brothers, two older, Guilliame and Elijas, and one younger, Benjamin, and two sisters, one older, Maijke, and one younger, Janneke. As a young man, David arrived for the first time in America, in the service of the West India Company but later returned home.
David married Margriet Gillissen ten Waert 10 August 1637 in Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands. Margriet was baptized 17 Dec 1617 in Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands. She was the daughter of Gillis Jochimsz and Beijken Schuts. She had four older sister, Margriet (died young), Agniet (who married David's brother, Elijas), Barbara, and Elijsabeth, two younger brothers, Jochem (died young) and Jochem, and one younger sister, Cornelia. At the time of their marriage, David was a winedealer living on the Heerenmarkt in Amsterdam and Margriet was living in the Harnde alley in Amsterdam.
David and Margriet moved to New Netherland in about 1635. Here, David served as a commissary of provisions for the West India Company in 1638 and, in the winter of 1639-40, he was appointed as an inspector of tobacco. He, however, lost his place as a commissary. In 1643, they were still living in New Amsterdam, when David was granted a lot there.
David was commissioned "to take possession of the Mouth of the Fresh River in the sound having under his command about fifty or sixty soldiers", building a fort in what is now Connecticut. Controversy came in 1646, when the Dutch accused the English at the Colony of New Haven of encroaching on their territory. An argument ensued in which the English complained that the Dutch at Fort Good Hope had harbored a runaway slave and that, when the English sent a watch to retrieve her, David Provoost had "resisted the guard, drew his rapier against them, and broke it on their arms; after which he withdrew into the fort, where he defended himself, successfully, against these invaders, of what he considered, his just jurisdiction."
After about seven years at the fort, David and Margriet returned to New Amsterdam, where David became a notary public, in which capacity he served until his death. In 1653, he was a sergeant in the Burgher Corps of New Amsterdam. He was made the first schout (sheriff) of Breukelen (now Brooklyn) and remained so until 1656. He also served as an attorney. According to his grandson, he "was an Extraordinary writer and penman", excelled in cartography, received a liberal education, and "spoke Latin, French, & Dutch Equal". David died 12 May 1657, according to his grandson, David Provost, presumably in New Amsterdam.
David and Margaretta's children:
1. William Provoost, born before 1639 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland. [1]
2. Margaret Provoost, born in New Amsterdam, New Netherland, baptized 24 Feb 1641 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland, married Pieter Janszen Scholt 21 Nov 1661 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland.
3. David Provoost, born at Fort Good Hope, baptized 31 Sep 1645 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland, married Catherine (Tryntie) Laurens 29 Jul 1668 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland, listed by Valentine as one New York's principal merchants at the end of the 17th century (see p. 219).
4. Benjamin Provoost, twin, born at Fort Good Hope, baptized 17 Jun 1646 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland, married 1) Sara Barents 11 Jun 1670 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland and 2) Elsje Alberts 5 Nov 1671 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland.
5. Elias Provoost, twin, born at Fort Good Hope, baptized 17 Jun 1646 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland, married Cornelia Roos 3 Nov 1672 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland, died between 1674 and 1686 [2].
6. Barbara Provoost, born at Fort Good Hope, baptized 15 Aug 1647 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland, probably died before 1653.
7. Samuel Provoost, born at Fort Good Hope (now Hartford, Connecticut), baptized 22 Nov 1648 in New Amsterdam.
8. Jonathan Provoost, born in New Amsterdam, New Netherland, baptized 25 Mar 1651 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland, married Catharina Van der Veere 7 Dec 1679 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland.
9. Barber Provoost, (female), born in New Amsterdam, New Netherland, baptized 30 Nov 1653 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland, married Jan Auckesze Nuys 29 Jul 1673 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland.
10. Gillis Provoost, born in New Amsterdam, New Netherland, 26 Mar 1656 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland, married Maria Hibon 9 May 1680 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland.
Sources:
1. Fernow, Berthold (ed.), Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 Anno Domini, Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1976.
2. Brassard, Theodore (comp.), Baptisms at the Reformed Dutch Church of New Amsterdam (1639-1730), Nottingham, NH: http://www.altlaw.com/edball/dutchbap.htm, 2000.
3. Records of the Reformed Dutch Church in the City of New York: Church Members' List.
4. Records of the Reformed Dutch Church in New Amsterdam/New York: Marriages.
5. Provoost Manuscript, New York, 1749 (a handwritten manuscript copied by John Provoost from his uncle David Provoost's notes).
6. Slok, Hendrik O., "The Provoost Family in the Netherlands", New York Genealogical & Biographical Record, Vol. 113, No. 1, Jan 1982, pgs. 1-9.
7. Fernow, Berthold (ed.), Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 Anno Domini, Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1976.
Appeared David Provoost, from A(msterdam), Winedealer, age 25 years assisted with Jannetie Eerdewijns, his mother, residing on the Heremarct and Margrieta Jelis, from A(msterdam) age 20 years, whose guardian Anthonis van Danwaer for him and her brought Johan van Wedelinckhoven, has consented, assisted with her sister Barbar Jelis, residing in the Harnde alley. The 1637 marriage record of David Provoost and Margriet Gillissen at Amsterdam:
David Provoost Margrita Yelus
Baptism Date Parents Child Witnesses Records of Baptisms of the Reformed Church at New Amsterdam.
1641 David Provoost Margariet Gerrit Wolphertz,
24 Feb Jacob Van Curlaer
and his wife Hester Jans1645 Mr. David Provoost David De Hr. Willem Kieft-gouverneur,
31 Sept(?) Michiel ter Oyken-fiscael,
Agnietje Arents1646 Mr. David Provoost Benjamin Corn. Van Tienhoven-secrts.,
17 Jun and Olof Stephenszen Van Courtlant,
Elias- Anneken Loockermans,
twins Jillis Van Brug,
Aren Koos and his wife1647 David Provoost Barbara Jan de La Montagne,
15 Aug Marritie Snyers1648 David Provoost Samuel Johannes de La Montagne,
22 Nov Engeltje Jans1651 David Provoost Jonathan Rachel Van Tienhoven
26 Mar1653 David Provoost Barber no witnesses
30 Nov1656 Mr. David Provoost Gillis Jean de La Montagne,
26 Mar Maria KipsSource: Brassard, Theodore (comp.), Baptisms at the Reformed Dutch Church of New Amsterdam (1639-1730), Nottingham, NH: http://www.altlaw.com/edball/dutchbap.htm, 2000.
26 dicto. Pieter Janszen Scholt, Uyt den Hage, en Grietje Provoost, Uyt 't Vlacke bosch. Records of the Reformed Dutch Church in New Amsterdam/New York Marriages
(26, same month as above (Nov 1661). Pieter Janszen Scholt, of the Hague, and Grietje Provoost, of the Vlacke bosch.)Eodem. David Provoost, j. m. Van Kanitteret, en Tryntie Laurens, j. d. Van Amsterdam.
(Same day (29 Jul 1668). David Provoost, young man of Kanitteret (Connecticut?) and Tryntie Laurens, young daughter of Amsterdam.)11 dicto. Benjamin Provoost, j. m. Van Hertfort in N. Engelant, en Sara Barents. j. d. Van Haerlem.
(11, same month as above (Jun 1670). Benjamin Provoost, young man of Hertfort (Hartford) in New England, and Sara Barents, young daughter of Haerlem.)Eodem. Benjamin Provoost, Wedr. Van Sara Barents, en Elsje Alberts, j. d. Van N. Jorck.
(Same day (5 Nov 1671). Benjamin Provoost, widower of Sara Barents, and Elsje Alberts, young daughter of New York.)3 Novemb. Elias Provoost, j. m. Van't huys te hoop in Engelandt, en Cornelia Roos, j. d. Van N. Jorck.
(3 Nov (1672). Elias Provoost, young man of the house of hope in England, and Cornelia Roos, young daughter of New York.)29 dicto. Jan Auckesze Nuys, j. m. Van Amsterdam, en Barber Provoost, j. d. Van N. Jorck.
(29, same month as above (Jul 1673). Jan Auckesze Nuys, young man of Amsterdam, and Barber Provoost, young daughter of New York)7 Dec. Jonathan Provoost, j. m. Van N. Yorke, en Catharina Ven der Veere, Wede. Van Frans Van der Meulen, beyde woonende alhier. 26 dicto.
(7 Dec (1679). Jonathan Provoost, young man of New York, and Catharina Ven der Veere, widow of Frans Van der Meulen, both living here. 26, same month.)9 May. Jillis Provoost, j. m. Van N. Yorke, en Maria Hibon, j. d. Van N. Breuckelen, beyde woonende tot N. Yorke. 9 June.
(9 May (1680). Jillis Provoost, young man of New York, and Maria Hibon, young daughter of New Breuckelen (Brooklyn), both living in New York. 9 June.)Source: Records of the Reformed Dutch Church in the City of New York: Marriages.
28 Feb 1672, Tryntie Laurens, h.v. David Provoost. "The Book of Members or Register of the Members here since the year 1649..."
26 Feb 1673, Elias Provoost.Source: Records of the Reformed Dutch Church in the City of New York: Church Members' List.
Vol. I, Page 81, 7 Apr 1653 From the New Amsterdam Court Records
Tomas Griddy, pltf., demands that Borger Jorisen, deft. be ordered to return the 4 oxen, hired by pltf. and forcibly taken out of the stable by deft., as he suffers great thereby now that the spring farmwork is to be done. Borger Jorisen shows in writing, that he has tried by every reasonable offer to settle the differences between himself and pltf. and that thro' pltfs. obstinacy he, deft., has suffered great trouble and damage on his farm. He requests, the Courtwill appoint a Committee to decide the case. Pltf. asks, that to end the casethe Court will give sentence or dispose of it according to their discretion. The Court refer the civil matter between Tomas Griddy, as pltf., and Borger Jorisen, as deft., to Allard Antony, one of the bench, David Provoost and Robert Clercq, who are hereby authorized finally to decide the civil matter as best as they can or else report to the full bench.Vol. I, Page 88, 14 Jul 1653
Same pltf. [3] v/s David Provoost, deft. Deft. in default.Vol. I, Page 89, 21 Jul 1653
Jacob Kip, pltf., v/s David Provoost, as attorney for the estate of Jan Damen dec'd, deft., demands on behalf of the estate of Crynen for goods bought at auction 38 fl. 13 st. with costs of lawsuit. Deft. admits the debt. The Court condemns deft. to pay pltf. the demanded sum with costs in 14 days.
David Provoost, pltf., v/s Carel van Brugge, deft. Deft. in default.Vol. I, Page 116, 8 Sep 1653
Jacob Kip, pltf. v/s David Provoost, deft. Deft. in default. Pltf. producing a certain judgment rendered against David Provoost, dated 21 July last past, requests of the Court act of authorization to put the said sentence into execution. The Court acknowledging, that the request is conformable to law and reason, hereby authorize pltf. to levy execution on deft. through the Officer.Vol. I, Page 133, 1 Dec 1653
Samuel Touw requests that David Provoost, here present, deliver him a copy of such affadavit as was made before him as Notary by W. Harck and others against him. David Provoost delivered to him copy thereof in Court.Vol. I, Page 141-2, 22 Dec 1653
Thomas Schondtwart, pltf. v/s Antony Jansen, deft., says that deft., whose daughter he has married, refuses to give him, what he had promised, and is therefore, according to the written demand, due him. Burgomasters and Schepens having heard the demand and answer concerning the father's promise, refer the same to David Provoost and Hendrick Kip to examine into the dispute, its origin and progress, and the same by all practicable means to settle and finally decide, and the said arbitrators are impowered, if necessary, to associate a third person with them, to whose award parties shall be obliged to submit without power to institute any further suit.Vol. I, Page 146-7, 24 Dec 1653
David Provoost appeared in Court, and reported in the case of Antony Jansen and Thomas Sudder, wherein he together with Hendrick Kip was appointed by Burgomasters & Schepens arbitrator, that they had not been able to settle the dispute, or to reconcile the parties.Vol. I, Page 149, 12 Jan 1654
Govert Loockermans, pltf. v/s Richard Bridnel, deft.
David Provoost appears as Attorney for deft. in a case of attachment of a sum of fl. 90:15 in the hands of William Harck. Deft. exhibits a certain petition after examination of which, the Court declares the attachment valid, and deft. is ordered to appear personally at the next Court day to give the Court further information of the matter, when something else shall be done therein.Vol. I, Page 150, 12 Jan 1654
David Provoost delivered on this day into the Court the papers in the suit of Anna Van Vorst, deft. ads Pieter Kock.Vol. I, Page 154-5, 26 Jan 1654
David Provoost appeared in Court and requested on the part of Anna Van Vorst, deft. v/s Pieter Kock, as the papers in the suit have been furnished to the Court, that their W. would please to render judgment or verdict. The request having been heard, it is resolved that Commissioners be appointed to examine the papers in the suit, or an Extraordinary Court shall be held thereon.
David Provoost requests also, on the part of Thomas Suddert, that Burgomasters and Schepens will please to make a decision in the case between the sid said Suddert and Antony Jansen. And whereas D. van Schelluyne, Attorney for Antony Jansen, has not delivered in the answer to the declaration, and the Court does not know, whether he has not appealed to the Supreme Council from the judgment at Gravesend, it is apostilled: Postponed until further information.Vol. I, Page 163, 16 Feb 1654
David Provoost appeared in Court with the son-in-law of Jacob Swart, who was sent to him, as he himself is insolvent and requests, as the abovenamed Jacob Swart has sold to Jan the Smith, a runaway, a certain dwelling-house, payment of which is yet due to him, that their Worships of the Court would please to take the same into consideration when convenient and that this may be provisionally noted. The aforesaid Provoost also prays despatch in the suit of Anna Van Vorst deft. v/s Pieter Kock. Item, in the dispute between Thomas Suddart and Antony Jansen, which is postponed to the next Court.Vol. I, Page 220, 24 Jul 1654
Walewyn van der Veen, pltf. v/s Pieter Van Couwenhoven, deft., says, that deft. owes fl. 587. 6. to B: Van de Water decd.; namely for three distinct transactions. One, for cargoes fl. 511. whereof remains a balance fl. 396. 18; 2ndly, an item being a balance of a note in favor of Joh: de Peyster for fl. 151 payable in beavers. 3rdly, an item according to the books of B: van de Water, decd. of fl. 47. 8, whereon 2 beavers are paid, remain fl. 31. 8. Amounting together to the aforesaid fl. 587. 16...Secondly, deft. says, that he bought the goods for the note in company with David Provoost decd. and has paid his part to B. Van de Water himself. Pltf. demands receipt for payment. Deft. says, he has the receipt but cannot find it, but can prove it. Johannes de Peyster being heard thereon in Court, declares that Pieter Van Couwenhoven told him, he had a receipt, but has no knowledge that he has paid, but that D. Provoost gave an attestation thereof, which purported that he, D. Provoost, declared, according to the best of his knowledge, that he had heard B. Van de Water say, that Pieter Van Couwenhoven paid him, without naming the sum...Vol. I, Page 230, 24 Aug 1654
David Provoost, pltf. v/s Joost Carelsen, deft., demands payment of fl. 8 for school money. Deft. confesses the debt; but says that Michiel Poulisen deducted the same from his rent and he thought all along that it had been paid. Parties being heard, deft is condemned to pay pltf.Vol. I, Page 234, 31 Aug 1654
Joost Carelsen, ptlf. v/s Mary d'Karman, deft., demands payment of fl. 8, which he is condemned to pay to D. Provoost and which is deducted in his rent. Deft. says, she paid pltf. his rent in full according to receipt; and that she paid D. Provoost 8 gl. schoolmoney herself in the presence of the ptlf. The Court order, that parties shall appear beforethe Board on the next Court day with D. Provoost, senior, in order to be heard on the premises.Vol. I, Page 353, 6 Sep 1655
Isaack de Foreest, pltf. v/s David Provoost, deft., says, he purchased now about two years since from deft. and paid for a certain rent charge, on the part of his wife, to be received in Holland, and as the same has been returned unpaid, and the said rent charge has been resold by deft. to another, and he is endeavoring to pay him by another of this year, so he requests payment of damages incurred by him through nonpayment. Deft. promises to deliver to pltf. the rent charge of this year in place of the preceding, and offers to pay him the damage he might have sustained thereby, according to the decision of arbitrators. With which pltf. is content. The Court commissioned Joh. D'Peyster and Sieur Govert Loockermans to reconcile the parties in their case, or otherwise to report their opinion in writing to the Board.Vol. I, Page 403, 22 Nov 1655
Daniel Litschoe, pltf. v/s David Provoost, deft. Deft. in default.Vol. I, Page 407, 23 Nov 1655
Mr. Gillebert, pltf. v/s Jacob van Couwenhoven, deft. Pltf. appeared with his interpreter, David Provoost, in Court...Vol. II, Page 59, 6 Mar 1656
The case in question between Pieter Jansen and Huybert Jansen Stock being considered, and parties demanding expedition, either by arbitration or judgment, the Court refers them to David Provoost and Joost Teunisn. Van Noorden to settle the difference if possible or to report in writing.Vol. II, Page 256, 8 Jan 1657
Margritta Gellissen, widow of David Provoost, decd., pltf. v/s Warnaer Wessells, deft. Pltf. requests in writing, whereas the deft. agreed with her decd. husband, that he should pay fl. 100. for the excise of wine and beer, which she should tap in one year in Long Island, and which she made good to the deft. by a/c. and whereas they were driven off by the trouble with the Indians and had tapped only three quarters of a year, and had drawn in that time not as much wine or beer as the year's excise amounted to, that deft be condemned to return to her, according to the promise made to her decd. husband, the fl.25. which he had over and above received, the rather as the others who had agreed, did not, according to Acte, pay more the three quarters of a year. Deft. acknowledges to have promised the pltf's decd. husband to deduct 1/4 of a year, if the Honble. Director General and Council would make an abatement in his promised rent, and should their Honours make a deduction according to the petition which he has presented and to which he has yet received no answer, he promises to make her also restitution; maintaining that he is not bound to deduct if he obtain no deduction or abatement; acknowledging truly that others had not paid more than for 3/4 of a year, inasmuch he could not get any more. Whereupon were delivered the following opinions:-The Honble. Olof decides, that the deft. shall return the fl. 25. to the pltf. and should the others pay in full, then the pltf. shall reimburse. The Honble. Verbrugge decides, if it be true, that an abatement was made to others, that restitution must also be made to the pltf. The other Magistrates concur in the opinion of the Honble. Verbrugge in this wise;-if the Honble. Company makes an abatement to the deft. and accords a deduction from the excise, he shall then make restitution to the pltf. in proportion to the others.Vol. II, Page 357, 21 Mar 1658
Hans Vos, residing at Fort Orange. Appears with Jacob van Corlaar in Court stating to the Burgomasters, that he had requested the Director General and Council by petition exhibited in Court, that he may have again his wife's little boy, begat by Arent van Hattum and bound by said Van Hattum to the abovenamed Corlaar for the term of four consecutive years, as the time is expired. On which petition the Director General and Council refer him to the Court of this City, of whom he makes the same request. Jacob van Corlaar answers, that Arent van Hattum bound this boy to him on condition not to give him to any person, than to himself. Whereupon he is asked if there be any written contract of it made? Answers, Yes, and that it was written by David Provoost decd. And whereas the abovenamed David's papers remain with the Notary de Vos, Hans de Vos and Jacob van Corlaar are ordered to proceed with a written order to the Notary de Vos abovenamed to enquire for the contract...Vol. IV, Page 221, 23 Mar 1663
Asser Levy appearing in court says, he has attached the rent belonging to Cornelis Pluyvier in the hands of David Provoost's widow to the sum of fl. 120. and requests that the attachment be declared valid and he be allowed to lift the same in order to have the house repaired, which is falling. The Wl. Court order him to summon Cornelis Pluyvier.Vol. VII, Page 160, 3 May 1657
Jacob Kip is ordered to pay the sum of one hundred guilders for the lot granted to the widow of David Provoost decd.Source: Fernow, Berthold (ed.), Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 Anno Domini, Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1976.
Pages 180-2, Year 1638
"Willem Kieft, the third Director-general of the New Amsterdam colony, arrived at the Manhattans on 28 March 1638, in the Herring, one of the Dutch West India Company's ships...His first step, on his assumption of the reins of Government, was to organize a council of which he should retain the entire control...Among the other officers and servants of the company, we find mention made of Claes van Elslant, David Provoost, commissaries of provisions...The following were the salaries of some of the above officers:...commissary of stores, 36 gl. per month"Page 211, Year 1639
"Claes van Elslant and Wybrant Pietersen were removed, in the course of the winter, from office as inspectors of tobacco, and commissaries Jacob van Curler and David Provoost appointed in their stead; but the latter subsequently lost his place as commissary, on charges of neglect of duty, and being incorrect in his accounts, and was succeeded by his assistant Mauritz Jansen."Pages 375-81, Year 1646
In the mean time another controversy had sprung up with the people of New Haven, which diverted the attention of the Dutch, for the moment, from the encroachments of the Swedes. Some of the inhabitants of that colony had purchased land from the Indians, between twenty and thirty (Dutch) miles up the country, towards the northwest, some twenty miles east of the North River, and about sixty miles from Fort Orange, and built a trading-house there. Director Kieft, who was jealous of every movement of his English neighbors, wrote in strong terms to Governor Eaton, claiming this place as a part of New Netherland, and protesting against such a settlement. He accused the New Haven people with entertaining an insatiable desire to possess that which belonged to the Dutch; with having, contrary to his protests, against the law of nations, and in contravention of ancient leagues between the kings of England and the States General, indirectly entered the limits of New Netherland, and usurped divers places therein. And, he continued, " because you and yours have of late determined to fasten your foot near the Mauritius River, in this province, and there not only to disturb our trade, of no man hitherto questioned, and to draw it to yourselves, but utterly to destroy it, we are compelled again to protest; and by these presents do protest against you, as against public breakers of the peace and disturbers of the public quiet." He concluded by threatening that if the New Haven people did not restore the places they had usurped, and repair the losses which the Dutch had experienced, the latter would manfully recover them by such means as God should afford, holding the English responsible for all the evils that might ensue.
To this letter Governor Eaton replied by the return of Lieut. Baxter, Kieft's messenger. He utterly disclaimed all knowledge of such a river as the Mauritius, and denied having, at any time, formerly or latterly, entered upon any place to which the Dutch had any known title, or, in any other respect, injured them. He admitted that they had recently built a small house within their own limits on "Paugussett River, which falls into the sea in the midst of the English plantations, many miles, nay, leagues, from the Manhattoes, from the Dutch trading-house, or from any port on Hudson's River," but that they had not built, even there, until they had first purchased a title from the true proprietors. Governor Eaton next alluded to the injuries and outrages which the people of New Haven had received, both at the Manhattans and on the Delaware, at the hands of the Dutch; he declared that, notwithstanding all these injuries and the very unsatisfactory answers Kieft had hitherto given to their various complaints, the New Haven colony had, as he conceived, done nothing repugnant to the law of God, the law of nations, nor to the ancient confederation and friendship between their superiors at home; and concluded by assuring the Director, that he was ready to refer all differences between his people and the Dutch, for due examination and adjudication, to any authorities, either in this country or in Europe, feeling satisfied that his majesty, King Charles, and the English parliament, then assembled, would maintain their own rights against all unjust encroachments, and that even Kieft's superiors would, on due and mature consideration, approve the righteousness of the course pursued by the New Haven people.
The commissioners of the New England colonies met at New Haven shortly after this, when the above correspondence was duly laid before them. The people of Hartford embraced the occasion of bringing forward, at the same time, several accusations against the Dutch, who had "now grown to an insufferable boldness" on the Connecticut, where they still maintained a distinct establishment and an independent government at Fort Good Hope; while the Hartford colony, on the other hand, claimed obedience to its laws from the inhabitants of that post, which, they averred, was established within English territory. The Dutch were likewise charged with having inveigled an Indian slave, who, having become liable to public punishment, had fled from her master to the Dutch fort, where she was protected, notwithstanding she had been demanded by her master as his servant, and by the magistrates as a criminal. It was insinuated that she was retained for purposes of wantonness, and as "such a servant was part of her master's estate, and a more considerable part than a beast," they insisted that she be restored, for their children would not long be secure if this were suffered. With this conviction, the Hartford authorities had already dispatched a guard to recover the woman, even by force if necessary. David Provost, the Dutch commissary, had, however, resisted the guard, drew his rapier against them, and broke it on their arms; after which he withdrew into the fort, where he defended himself, successfully, against these invaders, of what he considered, his just jurisdiction.
These complaints having been duly heard, the commissioners considered it their duty to address Director Kieft concerning them, which they did at some length, expressing, at the same time, their great desire to examine carefully into the various differences so long existing between their confederates and the Dutch, in order that peace may be preserved. They reminded him that the governor of Massachusetts had written to him, some three years before, regarding the difficulties on the Fresh River, to all which he had returned an ignoramus, with an offensive addition which would be left to his better consideration. They next recapitulated the recent occurrences at Fort Hope, and declared that if the commissary had been slain in the proud affront which he had given, his blood would have been on his own head. Governor Eaton's answer to Kieft's protest they considered fair and just, and then expressed a hope that it would give satisfaction, and that they should receive such a reply to their own dispatch, by the return of their special messenger, as would testify to them his agreement with them "to embrace and pursue righteousness and peace."
In the course of the following week, the messenger returned with the answer of the Director-general and council, "To the most noble and worthy Commissioners of the Federated English met together at the Red Mounte, or New Haven, in New Netherland," couched in strong and indignant terms. The inhabitants of Hartford, they asserted, had deceived the commissioners with false accusations, as could easily be proved, as well by English as by Dutch testimony, and other authentic documents, if it were proper now to do so. A few particulars out of such a mass would, however, suffice, "as by the claw they may judge of the talons of the lion."
The Director-general then proceeded to rebut the several charges contained in the commissioners' letter. He maintained that the shedding the blood of the Dutch, of which the inhabitants of Hartford had been guilty, and the selling the company's cattle, proved sufficiently the equity of their proceedings. "And therefore your prejudgment, supported by this oath, Credo coxtius, as if you would say, Amen, Amen, seems wonderful to us, and contrary to the modesty requisite in such an assembly, which should always keep one ear for the other party." He denied that the woman who had been detained at Fort Hope was a slave. "She was neither taken in war, nor bought with a price." She was placed with the Director-general by her parents, to be educated. Notwithstanding all this, he promised that she should not be wrongfully detained; but whether her master should be indemnified, or she restored, he insisted that she should be baptized before she be allowed to marry. As for the attack of the Dutch commissary on the watch at Hartford, he considered that as watches were for the defence of towns against enemies, and not for the purpose of preventing friends returning to their own houses, the most prudent policy would be, to commit such a trust to men of experience, and not to ignorant boys, who, when they once find arms placed in their hands, think they may also lawfully cry out:-etiam nos poma natamus. "Certainly," continues the Director-general, "when we hear the inhabitants of Hartford complaining of us, we seem to hear Ęsop's wolf complaining of the lamb, or the admonition of the young man who cried out to his mother, chiding one of her neighbors, 'Oh, mother, mother! revile her, lest she first commence attacking you.'" As for the answer of those of New Haven, it was such, he said, as he expected. "The eagle always despiseth the beetle-fly." He continued, notwithstanding, determined undauntedly to pursue his own right " by just arms and righteous means," and wound up with these emphatic words:
"We protest against all you Commissioners met at the Red Mount, as against breakers of the common league, and also as infringers of the special rights of the Lords the States, our superiors, in that ye have dared, without express commission, to hold your general meeting within the limits of New Netherland."
With this missile, the commissioners, as they well might, expressed themselves much dissatisfied. Director Kieft had, they insisted, left many of their charges untouched, while on others he was misinformed. The Indian girl, they maintained, had been taken in war, and for her misconduct had been handed over to the civil authorities; she had fled from these and taken refuge in the Dutch fort, where, as the Dutch commissary had admitted, she was defiled. Such a practice, the commissioners add, "we would condemn in one of ours with any unmarried, much more with an unbaptized Indian. What order you have taken that she be returned-what satisfaction you have given for this wrong, we hear not. We conceive watches are in all places set to prevent inconveniences and mischiefs which may be done by enemies, or disorderly persons, and in all places a soberly and comely answer is expected. He that draws and breaks his rapier on a watch, neither attends his duty nor his safety." The commissioners next refer to the points in their last letter, which Director Kieft had passed unnoticed, and expressed their doubts that he could, either by witnesses or otherwise, prove that they had been deceived. "Your other expressions-your proverbs or allusions," they continue, "we leave to your calmer consideration." As for the protest with which the Director-general had closed his dispatch, they observed that though it was harsh, it agreed with the general strain of his letter, and concluded by stating that they had more reason to be offended with his protest, than he had with their meeting at New Haven; as, for aught they knew, they could show as good a commission for the one as he could for the other.
Thus terminated Director Kieft's correspondence with the English colonies at the east. On a review of the whole, it will be admitted that, however good his case, the commissioners had the best of the argument on paper. By lack of per, and by an undignified style, the Director-general leaves an impression on the mind, at this distance, unfavorable to his ability as a diplomatist, as well as to his capacity for filling the high and delicate position which he was then occupying. It cannot, at the same time, be denied that the English afforded provocation sufficient to chafe a temper less irritable than that of Director Kieft, who, to his other troubles, had now the additional misery of feeling that his government was overwhelmed with debts to a large amount, which it was out of his power to meet, and for the means to liquidate which, he should be obliged to draw on the company in Holland, who were already too much dissatisfied with the manner in which he had administered the affairs of New Netherland, to honor any more of his drafts.
He took, however, the earliest opportunity to communicate the intelligence of the progress of the English encroachments at the northeast to the directors at Amsterdam, who contented themselves with instructing him to collect the most correct information, particularly as to the pretended right which the Indians had to sell to the English the soil situated within the Dutch limits in the direction of Fort Orange. He was further instructed to prevent the erection by the former of any tradingpost in that quarter, by all possible means short of such dangerous proceedings as might provoke a war, of which the directors seem to have already had more than enough; to watch, in the mean time, the actions of his neighbors, who seemed now intent on appropriating to themselves the whole of the Dutch possessions in North America, and to oppose all further encroachments on their part.Source: O'Callaghan, E. B., The History of New Netherland, or New York under the Dutch, Vol. I, NY: D. Appleton & Co., 1855.
Page 582
Names of Patentees Description of Grant Location of Grant Date of Patent Provoost, David A lot New Amsterdam 2 June, 1643 Pages 217, 221-3, Year 1653
The news of the war excited naturally some anxiety in New England, as to the policy which the Dutch would pursue in America. This feeling soon assumed a graver character, especially in the more western colonies, in consequence of intelligence communicated to Governor Haines of Connecticut, by Uncas, a Mohegan chief, that Director Stuyvesant was stimulating the Indians of Narragansett to cut off the English. Information of a similar nature was communicated by other Indians to the people of Stamford, under the jurisdiction of New Haven, who were assured "that the Dutch Governor did earnestly solicit, about a month previously, the Indians in these parts to kill all the English."...
Letters were received from the Director-general, one addressed to Governor Eaton, the other to the Governor of Massachusetts, both containing an absolute denial of the plot, together with offers either to come to Boston in person, or to send an attorney to clear his character. He demanded, at the same time, that some persons be delegated to enquire at the Manhattans into the truth of the prevailing rumors, and to receive his replies. This offer was accepted, and Mr. Francis Newman, magistrate of New Haven, Capt. John Leverett and Lieut. William Davis, of Boston, were appointed delegates accordingly...
On the arrival of these agents at New Amsterdam, they proposed to General Stuyvesant to fix on some place, within New England, for the production of their evidence. But to this the Director-general, for obvious reasons, demurred. They then suggested Flushing or Heemstede, or both these places, and demanded power to summon such witnesses as they thought proper; that the local magistrates be ordered to administer the oath to these persons, and that no Englishman, Indian, nor any other who may testify, should be disturbed, during his residence under Dutch jurisdiction, for any testimony he might give. The Director and Council, "together with those representing the courts of justice in the colonies of New Netherland," replied to these propositions by avowing that, as they felt themselves guiltless of any plot against the English nation, they desired nothing more than that the matter be truly and thoroughly examined, the authors found and the accusation proved, so that the guilty may be punished, or the innocence of those accused established. They, therefore, assented willingly to the propositions, on condition that the examination of the witnesses be conducted in presence of Messrs. De La Montagne, "first counsellor," David Provoost and Govert Loockermans, "who all jointly, or in some measure, understand the Dutch, English and Indian languages." In case any man were found to stand to the accusation, he should be examined on interrogatories, "and according to the custom of our laws of New Netherland, touched [tortured] and heard in the presence of the gentlemen sent hither, of the Governor-general and Supreme Council, and those that represent the aforesaid particular colonies and courts of justice of this province." An order was annexed to this reply, commanding all magistrates to cite and bring before this joint commission all such persons as they shall require.
To this proposal the New England commissioners offered sundry objections. Those by whom it was signed, were not the persons with whom they were instructed to negotiate; the question of clearing himself of the plot seemed to be altogether changed by the Director-general; two of the commissioners named by the Dutch had rendered themselves justly incapable of such employment; and, finally, they objected to restricting the enquiry to New Netherland; from the whole of which they inferred, that the letter was got up for show and delay.Page 271, Year 1654
David Provoost, former commissary of Fort Good Hope, was the first sheriff of this district (Breukelen). He was succeeded in January, 1656, by Pieter Tonneman...Page 569
Muster roll of the several Companies of the Burgher Corps of New Amststerdam. 1653. 1.
(Albany Records, VIII.)
Captain, Arent van Hattem,
Sergeant, David Provoost
Corporal, Claes Carstensen,
Lance Corporal, Willem Pietersen,
Cadets, Claes Bordingh, Isaac Kip, Andries Kip, Andreis de Haes, Albert Coninck.
Privates.
Hage Bruynsen, (Erasure.) Jan Gerritsen, mason, Hendrick Egberts, Hans Stein, Teunis Fredriks, Andries Hopper, Ary Jacobsen, Harmen Bilderbeeck, Jacob Bakker, Thomas Lambertsen, Geurt Coertsen.Source: O'Callaghan, E. B., The History of New Netherland, or New York under the Dutch, Vol. I, NY: D. Appleton & Co., 1855.
David Provoost signed his name to a document at a meeting at Breuckelen on 7 April 1654:
"Davidt Provoost Not. Pub, and Scribe of said Place."Source: O'Callahan, E. B. (comp.), Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 1638-1674, 1868, pg. 160.
[1] William would have been born before the start of the New Amsterdam baptismal records now in existence. Both David Provost and Hendrik O. Slok include him as a son of David and Margriet. In addition, a Willem Provoost is mentioned in the New Amsterdam court records, living at the right time to be David and Margriet's son. Footnotes
[2] Death date based on the List of Members of the Dutch Church of this City, in the year 1686 (from the manuscripts of Domine Selymus), where "Cornelia Roos, weduwe van Elias Provoost" is listed as living on Smit Straat (later William Street, below Wall Street). (See Valentine, p. 340.) Also see the New Amsterdam marriage record: "den 10 dicto. Jacques Merie, j.m., Van Rochel, en Cornelia Roos, Wedr Van Elias Provoost, beyde wonende alheir. den 27 Nov." (Translation: the 10th of the same month (Nov 1692). Jacques Merie, young man, of Rochel, and Cornelia Roos, widow of Elias Provoost...) Elias was still alive in 1674 when he was listed on a list of owners in New York City at the final cession to the English. Elias and his brother, David, are listed as living on William Street, between Hanover Square and Wall Street (formerly Smith Street) and being of Dutch descent. Elias is living in a third class property and has an estimated wealth of $1,000 and David is living in a second class property with an estimated wealth of $3,000. Margaret Provoost was living on the east side of Broad Street, between South William Street and Broad Street (formerly a part of The Heere Graft and the Princes' Graft, also Dutch, with fourth class property and $1,500. (See Valentine, pgs. 326-7.)
[3] Jacob Kip
© 2014 by Michelle Boyd, All rights reserved.