E-familytree.net is my personal genealogy hobby site.
The data contained here has been gathered through 20 years of genealogy. It contains
everyone I know who are connected to European Royalty or Nobility. Some small
part of it is my original research, but most of it has been shared with me.
It is important to understand:
This is SPECULATIVE DATA. Most of it is unverified. Use it for hints and pointers, but DO
YOUR OWN RESEARCH!
You can leave a comment on each page here. If you want to be notified
when this site changes, you can leave contact information here. I can
always be reached at the mailing address above, or by email at genealogy at e-familytree dot net.
This website updated on May 24th, 2013.
1). 147 Source Media Type Film
4). The Vosburgh Family Then and Now
5). International Genealogical Index R
7). Ancestors of Gary Coleman Welch
1). He resided at Rensselaerwyck, Albany Cnty, NY in1649 He was a Carpenter bridge builder abt. 1650 Was building a house in 1652 & offered it up for sale in January 1657 ProbateHis will probated 02 28 1688 in Columbia Cnty,NY Killed by Esopus Indians abt Sept. 21,1659. From Early Immigrants to New Netherland Biographies Settlers of Rensselaerswyck 1630 1658 http www.rootsweb.com nycoloni biosett.html 2 Abraham Pietersz Vosburgh Vosburch, Vosburch, Vosbergen, Vosberghen Was in the colony in August 1649, and from Easter 1651 is charged with f16 a year for a house lot, north of the patroon s house. Sept. 30, 1656, he and Hans Jansz, from Rotterdam, jointly leased a mill on the creek south of the farm occupied by Jan Barentz Wemp, for six years, at f100 a year. The name of Abraham Pieterson Vosburgh appears in the records, as asettler in the colony of Rensselaerswyck as early as August, in the year1649 beginning with Easter in 1651 he paid rent to the Patroon of 16florins a year for a house lot, north of the Patroon s house. In the Oath to the Patroon taken by all the householders and free men of theColony, November 25, 1651, we find among the names, Abraham PieterszVosburg. On April 15, 1652, he was given permission by the Court tocontinue building his house, notwithstanding the location. On the sameday, Abraham Pietersen Vosburgh and Derrick Janssen were apointedsurveyors of buildingsthey were sworn in two days later. The duties ofAbraham Pietersen Vosburgh as surveyor of Buildings also appear to haveincluded the surveying of land he held this office up to 1654 andprobably later. He was by trade a carpenterand he contracted with theauthorities to build the first bridges at Beverwyck. March 17 1654, awarrant was issued to the treasurer, in favor of Abraham PiertersenVosburgh, carpenter, to the amount of 200 florins, for buiding twobridges. May 19, 1654, he was fined for not finishing the bridge overthe Second Kil. That he experienced difficulty in completing hiscontract is shown in the Court Minutes, for on May 30, 1654, he statedthat work on the bridge over the Third Kil would be begun in eight days.Further difficulties in the completion of the work took place in June,and he was compelled to employ Andries De Vos as his attorney to protecthis interests. September 2, 1654, a warrant was issued by the treasurerin favor of Abraham Pietersen Vosburgh for his work on the two bridges inBeverwyck. But this did not settle the matter by any means, because aslate as May 1, 1655, the Court granted him delay in paying his fines fornot completing the work on time. Through his occupation as carpenter and bridge builder, Abraham became asawmill operator and owner. Hans Jansz enchuys, or Hans Jansz fromRotterdam, conducted several sawmills in the colony. On September 30,1656, Han Jansz and Abraham obtained a ease of the water power on thecreek south of the farm of Jan Barentsz Wemp. the lease commencedJanuary 1, 1657, and ran for six successive years rent 200 guilders of200 good merchantable boards and two paif of fowls eacy year. Acondition of the lease was that the lessees were not to sell liquor tothe Indians. A sawmill was erected on the creek, which was in lateryears known as Wynant s Kil. Hans Jansz was more or less of a silentpartner in this enterprise at least his name never appears again therecords in connection with it. On August 26, 1658, Abraham Pietersen Voschborgh brought a suit against Wynant Gerritsen Van Der Pole hecomplained about Wynant Gerritsen s absence from the sawmill and that hehaed not put in his full time at work there, according to their contract the case was referred to arbitrators for settlement. On January 29, 1657, Abraham proposed to sell his house and lot inBeverwyck to the highest bidder. The lot was 10 rods deep and 4 rodswide it was next to Thomas Clabbort Chambers lot. This paper isimperfect and unexecuted and there is no evidence that a sale was made but it is important as it shows that Thomas Chambers was his neighbor,this being the Thomas Chambers who was one of the early settlers atEsopus Wildwyck or Kingston . The laslt events in the life of Abraham are found in the documentsrelating to the early hisstory of the Esopus settlement. After a hostiledemonstration by the Esopus Indians, Direcotr Stuyvesant visited theplace in the month of June, 1658. The following is from his journal covering the visit Four carpenterscame also on the 18th, engaged by Mrs. de Hulter to remove hr house,barns and sheds within the stockadeand on the 19th three more, whoom Ihad asked and engaged at Fort Orange to make a bridge over the Kil. Theywere aso to help the others remove their buildings, for which they hadasked me before my departure for Fort Orange. While there is no mentionof the name of Abraham Pietersen Vosburgh at this time, there is a strongsupposition that he was among the carpenters that came from Albany thisis strengthened by the fact that Director Stuyvesant went to Albany fromEsopus as we were much in need of a few five and six inch planks forwork according to his journal. The outlying settlers withdrew withinthe stockade for better protection, and no further severe encounters withthe Indians took place until Septmber, 1659. The documnetary history ofwhat transpired in that month is somewhat obscure the facts, however, asfar as they relate to Abraham are definite and clear enough to admit nodoubt. Thomas Chambers engaged eight Esopus Indians to break off corn ears forhim, while he was gathering his crops for the winter. On Saturday, afterthe day s work, he unwisely gave them a quantity of brandy, probably as areward for good service during the week. The Indians retired a shortdistance away, and after drinking the brandy they beacame noisy andquarrelsome the supply being exhausted, they tried to obtain more brandyfrom Chambers, but were unable to do so. The debauch continued wel oninto the night, and after a time, soldiers were sent out from the fort toascertain the cause of the disturbance. When the reconnoitering partyapproached the Indians, for some unexplained reason they became alarmed possibly by the rustling of the bushes in the wind and thinging thatthey were being attacked, they fired upon the drunken savages, and one ofthe Indians was killed. As a direct result of this ill advised andapparently unprovoked night attack, Abraham lost his ife. The EsopusIndians, always warlike and troublesome, were quick to revenge themselvesupon the settlers. The next morning, Sunday, they began to makethreatening demonstrations, and a dispatch was preparaed to be sent upthe river to Albany, to notify the Vice Director of the turn affairs hadtaken. After dispatching the letter to the General, on a yacht hired forthe purpose, by Jacob Jansen Stoll and Thomas Clabbert, the escort party,while returning to the Fort, were surprised by the Indians, and at thetennis court near the strand they allowed themselves to be takenprisoners. There were 13 men in the party that was captured. TheSergeant with 5 soldiersThomas Clabbert, Jacob Jensen Stoll, orJacob Hab who was badly wounded, A carpenter, Abraham by name Pieter Dircks and his man Evert Pelt s Pels boy and Lewies theFrenchman, who was killed. In a letter from Vice Director La Montagne toDirector Stuyvesant, dated September 26, 1659, he states that the capturetook place at the Esopus last Sunday the 21st instant. about two o clockin the afternoon and in the list of those captured the name AbrahamVosburgh appears in the place of Abraham, the carpenter. The next day, Thomas Clabbert was exchanged for a savage, and one soldierescaped during the night, leaving 10 in captivity. An account of certainCatskill Indians, giving their story of the origin of the affair iswithout date, but states that Thomas Chambers is free again, 5 havebeen cut in the head with a hatchet, one has been shot dead, the Sergeantis still living with 2 others. It is prpobable that the prisoners whowere scalped were put to death shortly after their capture one historiansays that they were burned at the stake, but I have not found thedocumentary evidence to support this statement, and it seems unlikelythat Stuyvesant would have left such an outrage as this pass unmnetionedin his dispatches. A letter to Director Stuyvesant from Ensign Smidt ofthe garrison at Esopus, dated November 1, 1659, states that as a resultof the good efforts of 2 Mahikander Indians, 2 prisoners were returnedto the Fort on the first of this month. They were a soldier namedPieter Lamertzen and a free man named Pieter Hillebrantzen. Again in aleter from Ensign Smidt to Vice Director La Montagne, dated November 3,1659, he says It is true we have got back two prisoners, but they keepthe boy yet and have killed all the others. The boy of Evert Pels wasstill in captivity as late as February 24, 1660. According to tradition,his life was saved by an Indian maiden whom he afterward married, and itis said that he refused to be exchanged or ransomed. The letter from Ensign Smidt reporting the uprising of the Indians atEsopus, gives the date of the capture as September 20th. But accordingto the calendar, September 21st was Sunday, and the last date isundoubtedly correct. September 21, 1659, is also assumed to have beenthe date of the death of Abraham Pietersen Vosburgh, as it cannot havebeen more than a few days from that, in any event. Look up Andries deVos
2). Owned land in Oak s Bluff area of Martha s Vineyard which was first Dutch, then New York, then Mass. Know as the litegatious Geerty in the book, Histroy of Old Kinderhook, she was often in court to collect monies and goods owed her late husband and then her children and her self, also because of squables with neighbors. GEERTRUY PIETERSE COEYMANS Although Abraham Pietersen Vosburgh met his death in the prime of manhood, and probably when under the age of forty years, his family was not destined to become extinct. The task of raising his three sons, who became progenitors of the thousands bearing the name Vosburgh in this country, fell to his widow, Geertruy Pieterse, a sister of Barent Pieterse Coeymans, the miller of Norman s Kil. The story of her life as it comes down to us is gleaned principally from the Fort Orange Court records. Her name appears before the Court many times, both as plaintiff and defendant. The causes of the suits were often trivial and many of them are not alluded to here Geertruy was perhaps too zealous in preserving her rights, and in so doing she seems to have made more enemies that friends. The life of the early settlers was not an easy one under the most favorable conditions. She was left a widow with four or five small children, all under the age of ten years she had to fight her way with this burden in a community where hard manual labor was almost the sole means of livelihood. Her husbands estate consisted of a partnership in the sawmill at Wynant s Kil, with Wynant Gerritsen Van der Poel, which was more or less encumbered with outstanding accounts, some being assets and some being liabilities. Her husband kept a book of accounts to which reference is made in one of her suits in the Kingston Court records. As she was robbed of the sheltering arm of a husband, it is not surprising that Geertruy resorted often to the Courts as her only means of protection. She did not marry again, within a year or two, as was usually the custom with the early settlers, but remained a widow for nearly ten years and fought her battles unaided. Her second marriage, with Albert Andriessen Bratt was short lived and ended in divorce. The name of Geertruy Pieters, wife of Abraham Pietersen Vosburgh, first appears in the Court records on September 1, 1654, when she did not appear although summoned for the third time. On December 17, 1658, she brought an action against Annetie Lievens, wife of Goosen Gerritsen, for payment of some coronets or chaplets which she loaned defendantthe latter pleads that she and Maria Wesselsen being bridesmaids, borrowed the articles in common they are ordered to pay the bill between them. On June 15, 1660, Adriaen Jansen from Leyden, attorney of the widow of Abraham Vosburgh, brought action against Wynant Gerritsen for delivery of a sawmill judgement for the plaintiff. On November 8, 1661, she sued Jan Van Breemen in the court at Kingston for payment for 200 boards to be delivered at Wildwyck Kingston . This may have been an old account for boards that were sold by Abraham Pietersen Vosburgh, but it is not possible to determine this from the court records. The next suit, brought also in Kingston, on October 31, 1662, shows that she was still collecting debts due her husband. The defendant was Marten Harmensen. Complainant demands payment of the amount of 53 gldrs 8 st. originating from debts for liquor as per bill shown by her, and which she says has been taken from her husband s book. On March 20, 1663, Geertruy Pieters, widow of Abraham Vosburgh, et al, leased to Wynant Gerritsen Van der Pbel, her half of the sawmill south of Jan Barentsen Wemp s farm, for a term of four years. A valuation of the property appears in Notarial Papers, Vol II, page 393. Translation from the Dutch To day the 6th of November 1663 have Willem Bout and Pieter Meesen Vrooman , accompanied by , at the request of Wynant Gerritze and under instructions of the magistrates of the Colony of Rensselaerswyck, visited, inspected and valued according to their best knowledge the Sawmill and the dwelling house belonging to Wynant and to the Widow of Abraham Vosburgh in partnership, as the same stands at present. They value the mill and the dwelling house which were in very bad shape at twelve hundred and fifty guilders in Sewant, Wampum List of Tools belonging to the partnership . 7 upper 9 unde 4 1 I long saw, 1 short saw, I set iron 1 saw set 7 old saws,l 1 heap of old iron. Geertruy Vosburgh and Wynant Gerritsen were unable to agree in their partnership, and on February 4, 1668 9, the court decided in relation to the case of Wynant Gerritsen Van der Poel vs. Geertruy Vosburgh, either that they come to an amicable settlement, or that the saw mill owned in partnership, be sold at auction. On May 10, 1671, Geertruy Vosburgh sued Wynaht Gerritsen for pay for the mill formerly owned in partnership and on July 31, the partnership accounts were brought into court. On October 18, 1674, Geertruy, late widow of Abraham Pietersen vosburgh, sold to Wynant Gerritsen Van der Poel her half of the sawmill in the Colony of Rensselaerswyck, on the east side of the river, standing on the Kil, opposite Philipp Schuyler s bourwey, and south of Jeronimus Ebbinck s bourwey. This ended the transactions relating to the sawmill on Wynant s Kil. Land in Albany was patented to Geertruy Vosburgh on September 6, 1667, being described as follows Lot No. 3, 36 12 x 6 rods, on the west side of Pearl Street, about 150 feet north of State Street. on November 6, 1685, she sold this lot to Johannes Beekman Lot bounded south by Johannes Beekman, north by Luycas Gerritsen et al, west by Omy La Grangie and Jan Byvanck, and east by the street. On August 6, 1683, Geertruy Vosburgh contributed to the support of the new Minister at Albany, Dominie Godfridus Delius, two pieces of eight. Geertruy Pietersen Vosburgh married about 1669, Albert Andriessen Bratt of Norman s Kil, who was a widower. On January 13, 1669 70, Geertruyt Vosburch asks that the marriage contract with her husband may be enforced and that he may be reprimanded for his extravagance so ordered. May 2, 1670, Resolved to order a division of the property between Geertruy and her husband. July 27, 1670, order to sell the property of Geertruy Vosburgh and her husband, for the purpose of division. On October 24, 1670, the governor gave an order for the separation of Albert Andriese and Geertruy Vosbur4h becausestrife and differences hsth arisen between them. July 31, 1671, Geertruy Vosburgh sued Aelbert Andriessen for arrears of alimony. August 13, 1672, Geertruy Vosburch asks for satisfaction of demands on her former husband, Aelbert Andriessen referred to the judgement of August 25, 1671. After her divorce, Geertruy continued to use the name Vosburghin fact as far as the evidence in the records is concerned, itis probable that she never used the name Bratt at any time. This whole unfortunate matrimonial venture can hardly have occupied more than a year and a half. In 1676, Geertruy Vosburgh sued Jan Tyssen Goes for trespass on some land at the Half Moon, at Kinderhook. This was probably the same land that she occupied there for her eldest son, Pieter. Reports of this suit appeared at least three times in court, but owing to shortness of time, the documents were not translated. After 1681 and possibly before that year, Geertruy Vosburgh was a resident of Kinderhook she probably lived with her eldest son, Pieter. Translations of two court actions follow. While the events are of trivial importance, they still throw an interesting light on the everyday occurrences in the lives of the early settlers at Kinderhook. July 5, 1681. Pr. Borsie, from Kinderhook, plaintiff, VS. Geertruy Vosburgh,defendant. Plaintiff says that defendant has accused his wife of theft of her chickens and that she has proofs of it the accusation . Defendant says that some of her chickens remain with the plaintiff that is to say, Geertruy s chickens are in the plaintiff s yardbut she denies having accused her of theft. The Hon. Court, having heard the case, threw it out of court, as being too unimportant to be dealt with, and condemns both parties to pay the costs. September 5, 1682. Andries Jacobse Gardenier, plaintiff, vs. Geertruy Vosburgh, defendant. Plaintiff complains that one of his pigs has been bitten to death, on the land of Geertruy Vosburgh and that her land lies open unfenced . Plaintiff asks for damages. Defendant denies that she has caused his pig to be bitten to death and says that her land is not open. The Court orders that the plaintiff s demand be dismissed, as there is no proof. Plaintiff to pay the costs. Both these cases show that Geertruy was a woman of sharp wits and well able to look out for herself, when appearing in court. She had evidently profited by her long experience in other cases, and had learned most legal tricks. The closing years. of Geertruy Vosburgh s life were spent at Kinderhook, surrounded by the families of her sons, whom she saw become men of affairs in that community, and in their success in life she must have felt that her early struggles and trials were well repaid.
If you want me to let you know when I change
the website, please signup here (no more then once a quarter!)