Marriage 1 Grietjen VOOGHT b: 1642 in Kingston, Ulster, NewYork
Children
Grietje Artze TOCK ( TACK) b: 29 May 1663 in Kingston, Ulster, New York
Marriage 2 Annetje ARIAENS b: Abt 1642 in Amsterdam, Noord Holland, Netherlands
AAERT PIETERSZEN BUYS VAN BEEST compiled by Emily Stowell
Aert Pietersen Tack was probably born ca. 1620 and definitely in Etten, Barony of Breda, Brabant, The Netherlands, as is known from 'The Early Records of Albany, Notarial Papers' which recorded on 23 October 1660, a transaction where by he paid part of an inheritance from his grandfather Teunis Crynen to a Jan Hendrix van Bael, trader at Rensselaerswyck, at the same time empowering that man to collect the inheritance for him from his brother, Cornelis Pietersz Tack, dwelling in Etten. This document states that A.P. Tack was residing at that date in Rensselaerswyck, and he made his mark, indicating that he was illiterate.
His name first appears in the New Netherlands in 1637, when he is called variously Aert Pietersz, 'Jongen' (the boy), or Ariaen Pietersz, 'Soldier', as he was apparently stationed with the small garrison at Fort Orange for about six years beginning in 1637...
On 4 March, 1649, Aert Pietersz defaulted when called to appear at court in Rensselaerswyck. He was summoned again on 8 July, 1649, at the instance on Domine Megapolensis and asked to state whether or not he was willing and intending to keep a promise to a certain Blanche Ael (called by the translator, 'the fair Alida.') 'Aert Pietersz promises to wed her at the first opportunity.' Since no church records for the early period in Albany have ever been found, there is nothing to indicate whether or not he kept this promise, but the whole history of this man indicated that he was a glib and charming rascal whose words were more convincing than his deeds.
On 13 June, 1659, (according to 'The Court Minutes Of Fort Orange, Vol. II') Andries Herbertsen appears in court to act as attorney for Aert Pietersen, plaintiff, demanding forty three whole beavers of Jochim Kettelheym, defendant, who admits the debt. Andries asked security before the man leaves, 'as Aert Pietersen intends, with God's help, to depart for the fatherland and will then know where he can get his money.' Jochim is given fourteen days to pay, his house being bound as security.
According to these same records, this case is continued the following year when Aert Pietersen sues Cornelis Teunesen on 8 September, 1660. On 14 Sept., 1660, in the case of Aert Pietersen versus Cornelis Teunesen Bosch, the plaintiff demands payment of nine beavers which the defendant had agreed to pay for Jochim Kettelheym. C.T. says, 'Get it from Jochim Kettelheym, If he fails to pay, I will stand surely.' A.P. tried to prove that C.T. Bosch had agreed to pay. On 28 Sept., the court orders C.T. to pay A.P.
This man in Renssalaerswyck in 1660 is clearly identified as Aert Pietersz Tack by the previously-mentioned notarial document in which he arranged to have his inheritance collected for him in Etten, Brabant. This also certified that he is also the A.P. Buys van Beest of the shipping records and of Harlem, as Buys is located in the Barony of Breda, Brabant, as is Etten. The man must have returned 'to fatherland' shortly after settling the suit and arranging for the collection of his inheritance, perhaps feeling he should expedite it in person.
The next record of him is that of his return aboard the 'Beaver' May 1661, with Wife and child. On this passenger list... his name is recorded as Aert Pietersen Buys van Beest and wife and son. The wife would be Annetje Adriaensen, the son Cornelis, who was baptized in Wiltwyck by Domine Hermannus Blom 14 August, 1661. Possibly he was born on the journey, although it is unclear whether the ship departed The Netherlands or arrived in New Netherlands in May. The baptismal record lists the father as Aart Pietersen Tack, the mother as Annetje Adriaensen.
It should be inserted at this point that Annet, the daughter of Aerjan Jans and Geertjen Jans was baptized in the Oude Kerk of Amsterdam in Holland on 29 August, 1645. Whether Aert had married her previous to his brief return to the fatherland or brought her over as a bride I cannot say for certain at this time, although an Arent Janssen, house carpenter and wife and daughter did come over in 1657 on the 'Draetvat'. If these were Annetje and her parents, her father died shortly afterwards, as her mother is married a few years later to Jan Lammertsen from Bremen. Annetje appears on the baptismal records as witness at the baptism of Eduart, son of Grietie Theunis and Jan Gerritsen at Fort Amsterdam's church shortly after their ship arrived. The mother was on the ship passenger list with them, but not the baby's father. Annetje appears also to have had a brother Dieck Adriaensen, who was killed 7 June, 1663, in the massacre at the New Village. Their relationship is indicated by numerous associations of the names in court and other records.
There was a great upsurge of emigration from the Netherlands to New Netherlands in the years 1658 through August, 1664, when the English took over the colony. There is considerable confusion resulting from the large numbers who went back and forth across the Atlantic as though it were a picnic rather than the ordeal it must have been, but the Dutch were a hearty, seafaring people. Also adding to the confusion is the fact that most of these families are associated with two or more places in the colonies rather than just one. Aert Pietersen Buys occurs on a list of names of 30 settlers in Harlem in 1661, although he is clearly the same man as the Aert Pietersen Tack on the 24 October excise tax list for the sum of six flornes as a property owner in Wiltwyck, the Esopus (Kingston area)...
... Lot #31 in the newly-laid-out village of Wiltwyck to be the property of Aert Pietersen Tack. His name appears on the excise tax list for the village of Wiltwyck on 24 October, 1661, showing him to be either less bibulous than most of his associates, or stingier with his numerous hired hands. As the village was forced to build up its defenses against the worsening threat of the Esopus Indians, he is also frequently mentioned in records of building of the 'curtains' and palisades, his house being situated on a corner lot at the edge of town against the barricade.
The village was granted a charter for local government and court in 1661, and the court records for the next three years include the name of Aert Pietersen Tack for too many times to detail all the cases involved. Although his first appearance in court is 14 February, 1662, as witness to a fight, his frequent subsequent involvements with court invariably concern debts, first to him and, increasingly, owed by him to others. In 1662, as creditors pressed him on all sides in Wiltwyck, he returned to the court of Rensselaerswyck to collect 81 schepels of oats owed to him there by Aert Jacobsen.
He does not appear in court, as do most of these patriarchs of fine old Dutch-American families, for brawling, drunkenness, name-calling or defiance of authority. Rather, from the first suit he brought on 28 February, 1662, to collect a payment of oats from Aert Jacobsen, through the many suits brought against him by others for unpaid debts or unfulfilled contracts, there emerges the picture of a man who easily charms others into making generous loans, obligingly promises to live up to his commitments, postpones the day or reckoning as long as possible, finally on 21 December, 1662, 'cons' the village rich man, Dr. van Imbrock, into loaning him a large sum with his next season's crop as security, then disappears, abandoning wife and family to reap this bitter and many-times-over-mortgaged harvest.
Reading between the lines, we can flesh out a man who returned from collecting his inheritance in the Netherlands, set up as a big-time operator, hired numerous laborers to till his new lands, won the respect and confidence of the community, all the while he had been borrowing to finance his wheeling and dealing. Workmen under contact with him ran away or sued for back wages, new creditors kept cropping up and, about the time he might have learned that another child was on the way, he mortgaged his next year's crop and quietly slipped from the scene.
Then began the long ordeal of his abandoned wife Annetje (or Anneke) Adriaens, as creditors began to summon her to court to answer for his debts. Whether she was pregnant at this time and bore a daughter in the summer will probably never be absolutely proven one way or another. What is known is that a child, Grietje, was baptized on 16 August, 1663, the parents being named in the church records as Aart Pietersen Tack and Grietjen Vooght! The witnesses were Jacob Jansen (that would be van Etten or 'the Brabanter', Aert's hired man) and Barber Andries, wife of Tierck Claesen de Witt.
What a trauma that entry has caused to genealogists down through more than three hundred years! They finally wore a hole in the document while poking into the old puzzle, obliterating the exact date, which had fortunately already been recorded in 'The History of the Kuykendall Family' by Dr. George Benson Kuykendall. 'The Mystery of Grietjan Vooght' appeared in the 'Ulster Genie' for March, 1978, proposing a logical explanation: 'The deserted mother, Annetje Adriaensen, was too distressed to present her daughter for baptism, which her mother Grietjan Jans did as guardian, and named her granddaughter after her.'
Quite possibly, but why do we find no other instances of similar usage in the records? Also, it should be noted that the Dutch word 'vooght' may be translated as guardian and the name Voocht or Vooght appears frequently in the records of both New Amsterdam and Wiltwyck. For example, see the Theunis Voocht named on the excise list in 1661 in Wiltwyck, and a man whose first name is Voocht had been on the records on New Amsterdam long enough to have had a daughter of marriageable age. This is not offered as proof that the child Grietje was not Annetje's own daughter, and their names continue linked through the records for many years thereafter, indicating such relationship. However the truth, it is Annetje who emerges as heroine of this story, whether for carrying on bravely in face of desertion during pregnancy, or as a remarkable woman who may have chosen to raise her husband's bastard as her own loved child. However it may have been, no credit reflects on her fly-by-night husband.
Annetje's troubles began almost immediately following Aert's disappearance around Christmas time. With the tension mounting with the Esophus Indians, it may be that they were at first thought to be responsible for his disappearance. Certainly, Annetje had plenty to be distressed about, and it showed quickly in her behavior. In late January of 1662 and through February, she as embroiled in an out of court in altercations with Hendrick Jochemsen and his wife. This man had come over on the Beaver with Aert and Annetje. She admitted accusing him of keeping false accounts and selling diluted brandy, but she hadn't liked his wife's calling her a 'whore'. 'I'll consider you to be a whore until you prove to me that I keep false books,' he retorted. At the next court session, it appears that he had sold her bricks, and she complained that there were four hundred too few. By March, Hendrick was demanding vindication, but the court, evenhanded in its Dutch justice, fined all concerned for using 'vile and nasty language in court,' the guildrs levied going to the fund for the poor.
There was a slight interruption in the suits brought against her by Aert's creditors, as the populace was forced to stop their customary bickering for a while by the terrible massacre that fell upon Wiltwyck and the New Village nearby (Horley), on 7 June, 1663. Apparently Annetje and her son escaped harm, but Jan du Parck was wounded in her house, and her brother Dirck Adriaensen was shot and killed on horseback as he tried to flee toward Wiltwyck with a warning from the New Village. Following the massacre and while the Esophus War with the Indians was still in progress, the child Grietje was born; to whichever woman, it must have been and ordeal for the abandoned young woman.
If we can presume Annetje's own baptism to have taken place shortly after her birth, she would been only sixteen when she came over with her middle-aged husband and infant son in 1661, much younger than usual in Dutch marriages of the time. Yet, she was already a businesswoman in her own right, as was fairly typical in Dutch culture of the period, which accorded women a more important role than any other culture until modern times. ... mentions Annetje Tacks as owner of a shop to illustrate the fact, and the Kingston Court Records bear this out. Although no details illuminate the nature of her business, the records do indicate that the business was her own, not her husband's.
All during the summer and fall of 1663, the villagers were cooped up within their palisades, forbidden by the village authorities to go to gather the harvest without military escort. Since there were not sufficient soldiers to provide adequate protection, and since survival during the coming winter depended upon the crops being garnered, many villagers defied this edict and suffered fines or even imprisonment as a consequence. At this period, Jacob Jansen de Lange (also called the Brabanter or Van Etten), one of Aert Pietersen Tack's several hired men, stood by the young woman by gathering the harvest for her, refusing to pay the fine, and going to jail for disobeying the ordinance.
Soon the court cases mounted again, more and more people suing Annetje for her husband's debts. These included his workmen, among them Jacob Jansen. Added to all the old debts were new ones for the harvest workers and the food she had to provide them during harvest season. What a blow it must have been to her when Dr. van Imbrock brought suit for the entire harvest. No wonder Jacob Jansen decided to get his bid for back wages in before all the fruits of his labors were dispensed to previous creditors Annetje probably had not been aware of.
At this point, Annetje, being ordered not to use any of the crops, told the doctor in court he could take everything if he would just take over paying her husband's debts as well. She, for her part, was prepared to leave Wiltwyck. It was at this same court session, 23 Oct., 1663, that Jacob Jansen de Lange defaulted for the third time and was fined 'in absentia' for breaking the ordinance. On 30 Oct., the Council of War and the Commissaries governing the village under martial law, ordered Jacob Jansen sent to jail. It is to Dr. van Imbrock's credit that he paid Jacob's fine to the Schout; perhaps he felt some obligation, since there would have been no harvest to secure his loan, had Jacob not gathered in defiance of the edict. Jacob was freed on November first.
In December, Albert Gerretsen demanded payment of 338 guilders from Annetje, and Provisional Schout Matheus Capito ordered her to pay. In late February, Dr. van Inbrock demanded the sale of Aert's horse 'Blackie' at Annetje's expense, the proceeds to be awarded him on Aert's debt. That same day, Paulus Cornelisen sued her for 241 guilders, 10 stuyvers in seewan and eight bevers.
In March of 1664, van Inbrock sued a Thomas Harmensen, who declared that he should collect the debt from Annetje Adriaens because she owed him for guarding her shop. It also appears that he had been helping with Aert Pietersen'd harvest, and that Annetje had not provided his board as required. In early April, Albert Gerretsen was back in court for payment noting that Aert's barn had been advertised for sale. Between him and the doctor, there seems to have been a tug-of-war to see which could squeeze a drop of blood from the poor turnip. When Jan Cornelisen van der Hyde put in a claim for Aert's horses in late June, he was told by the court that he must proceed according to law in the matter of settlement of the absent man's estate.
By this time, it had developed that A.P. Tack had debts to a prior creditor, Jan Barentsen Wemp, who seems to have lost his life shortly after the massacre. The widow, Maritie Meynders was held captive with one child by the Indians. After her release, she sent Jan Cornelisen van der Hyde and Paulus Cornelisen to act as her attorneys in May. At that point, Annetje had already petitioned the court commissary to inventory her husband's estate, 'he having absented himself and she wishing to pay his debts.' She subsequently petitioned to be relieved of the responsibility of paying her husband's debts, preferring that his property be taken over, appraised and sold by the courts, fair division of what spoils there were to be made by the court itself. She had an inventory made.
So matters stood when a stranger appeared in the village. The court convened in special session 10 July, 1664, to hear his suit. As successor to Jan Barentsen, he insisted that the latter's loans be Aert Pietersen proceeded all others and that he, therefore, had prior claim. Partly to protect the community's interest, but probably also because A.P. Tack still seemed to have the confidence and good will of his former neighbors, there was reluctance to proceed without giving the defector a chance to appear in person to defend himself.
However, the stranger, one Sweerus Teunissen, urged immediate sale of the estate; he pointed out that leaving horses, cattle and grain in the fields in those troubled times was a great rick to the creditors. It seems that some of the animals didn't even belong to Aert, but were had on a six-year loan only. He prevailed. The court appointed Evert Pels and Aert Jacobsen to appraise the grain and cattle in the fields and set July 14th as the date for eht sale or 'vendue'.
On that date, Thomas Chambers, one of the oldest and most highly regarded settlers, objected to the sale, insisting that he had not been present on the 10th to protest taking such a drastic step before Tack had been condemned by due process. Another extraordinary court session was held, but Sweerus' arguments of the risks involved again prevailed. The sale proceeded, but prices offered that day were deemed inadequate and the sale postponed until the true value could be realized.
Meanwhile, where was Aert Pietersen Tack? What had he been up to all this time? Bigamy, that's what! ... Aert must have sailed for fatherland again very soon after he mortgaged his future crop to Dr. van Inbrock in December, 1662. A brother Jan Pietersen Buys van Beest, sailed on the Rosetree in March, 1663 from Amsterdam to take up residence in New Harlem on Manhattan. Since the eastbound ships, riding the Gulf Stream via a northern route, often took less than half the time of those westbound, Aert might well have gotten home in time to speed his brother's departure. Perhaps he returned on the same ship serving on the crew, since his name is not among the passengers.
An 'Evert Tack from the Barony of Breda' is listed on the manifest of the Faith, outbound for New Netherland in January, 1664. At first it appeared that this might be our A.P. Tack, alias Buys van Beest but then another record cropped up to challenge this assumption. Riker, reporting the reaction of the citizens of New Harlem in the Summer and fall of 1663 to the news of the Esopus massacre, tells how they formed a militia to defend their village and even sent a small force to the Esopus to assist in the campaign to recover the hostages. They are Aert Pietersen Buys, Jan Pieterssen Buys and Cornelis Aerts Buys. Aert is listed as a private and owner of a musket. One may guess that he did not volunteer for the force sent to the Esopus
So, here is another conundrum. If Aert's son Cornelis Aerts Tack, baptized at Wiltwyck 14 August, 1661, is the son of his wife Annetje Adrians, as clearly indicated on the baptismal record, who is this Cornelis Aerts, old enough in 1663 to be a militiaman? Even then, Annetje was only about eighteen. Could Aert have had another son of the same name, perhaps the product of his seduction of 'the Balanche Aet' in Beverwyck in 1649? If so, the youth, at fourteen, would have been just old enough to shoulder a musket with the rest of New Harlem's defendants.
It is tempting to deduce that there were really two Aert Pietersen -- Tack of the Esopus and Buys of New Harlem, but there is far too much evidence to show they were one and the same man. If there were not so many other clues linking them together, the one document made by ' Aert Pietersen Tack' in Resselaerwyck 23 October, 1660, unequivocally identifies his as from Etten, the Barony of Breda in Brabant, grandson of Teunis Cryen, deceased in Etten, the Barony of Breda, Brabant, and brother of Cornelis Pietersz Tack, dwelling in Etten. Buys is definitely another place name in the Barony of Breda. Did Aert ever keep is promise to the court in Rensselaerwyck 'to marry "the Fair Alida" at his first opportunity'? Records of Manhattan continue through ensuing years to show a Cornelis Aerts Buys, while Cornelis Aerts Tack also can be traced in the Kingston area and occasionally in the Manhattan records.
Was the 'Evert Tack" who left Amsterdam for America in January 1664, our Aert returning from still another trip to fatherland or was he, perhaps, another brother? The name has so far not been located on other records. Did Aert Pietersen Tack bring his new wife back with him from Amsterdam? None is listed for 'Evert,' but the name following his on the ship manifest is that of 'Lysvet Arens, from Amsterdam, and child'. This woman is not identified as either 'maiden', 'wife', or'widow', as is usual for a woman with a child on these lists. However, any connection is pure conjecture.
We must return to Aert's deserted wife in Wiltwyck to pick up the thread of his story. Annetje seems to have lost no time after discovering what had become of her ne're-do-well mate. She was off at once to New Amsterdam to present her case to the colony's highest tribunal, bigamy being a charge far too serious to be left to adjudication by the Wiltwyck Court of Schout and Schepens. Director General Stuyvesant was away at Fort Orange at the time, so she took her petition to a court presided over in his absence by Nicasius de Sille. The translation of this courts record... follows:
"(August 21, 1664) Shews in all humility, Annetken Adriaens, having married one Aert Pietersen Tack, who has not hesitated to marry another woman at Amsterdam, in Holland, as has been shown more fully to your honors by petition and the affidavits attached thereto, for which reason the honorable fiscal, Nicasius de Sille, ex officio, has caused the said Aert Pietersen Tack to be summoned on three regular court days, the last time having been on Thursday last past, to appear on a suitable day before you honors to hear the marriage contracted between the petitioner and the aforesaid Aert Pietersen Tack declared dissolved and the petitioner placed in her former free state, in which matter the aforesaid Aert Pietersen Tack has until this day remained contumacious, having failed to appear to justify himself, therefore, the petitioner turns to your honors with the humble request that your honors may be pleased, for the reasons above mentioned, to declare the marriage contracted between the petitioner and the said Aert Pietersen Tack dissolved and the petitioner placed in her former free state and authorized to marry another man, with condemnation that Aert Pietersen 'Verte'(top lines on p. 292 destroyed)
your humble ( )
Endorsed:
Petition der Anneken Adrjans
contra Aert Pietersen Tack (one or two lines destroyed)
for which reason Anneke Adriaens, his lawful wife, has requested of your honors letters of divorce and permission to marry another person, whereupon, before consenting thereto, the fiscal was ordered on July 31st last to have the aforesaid Aert Pietersen Tack summoned three times by the ringing of the bell to appear in person to hear and to answer, if he can, such complaint and demand as the injured party and the fiscal as her attorney shall make, which summons not only was proclaimed by the beating of the drum in the village of New Haerlem, and whereas nevertheless Aert Pietersen Tack failed to appear and remains contumacious, finding himself unable to defend, justify or purge himself; therefore, the fiscal, nomine offiocii, concludes that the first wife, Anneke Adriaens, must be granted letters of divorce and permission to marry another man, and furthermore that the fiscal and all other officers of justice should be authorized to arrest the defendant, Aert Pietersen Tack, and to confine him here in a proper place of detention, to be taken to the place where it is customary to execute justice, in order to be severely flogged with rods, having two distaffs above his head, and further to be branded with two marks on his back and to be banished from this province. Done at Fort Amsterdam, the 21st of August, 1664.
You honors' servant
Nicasius de Sille
Note that Aert Pietersen Tack was summoned to appear before the court on three consecutive court days, the summons being by bell in New Amsterdam and by drum beat in New Haerlem, further evidence that Aert Pietersen Buys of New Haerlem and Aert Pietersen Tack of Wiltwyck and Fort Orange were one and the same...
Was the sentence of flogging, branding and banishment ever carried out? ...This sentence is far more severe than most ordered by New Netherland courts. It is typical Dutch justice, however, in that it makes ridicule as important as actual physical punishment. Two distaffs hanging over the head of the bigamist in the public flogging place, two brands for two brides would probably have proved more lasting punishment than any pain inflicted. Many of the Dutch colonists were saddled with derisive nicknames by such embarrassments, event though, in many cases, the sentences were never consummated. Most of the few death sentences in New Netherland were commuted at the point where the convicted man already felt the noose around his neck. Inhabitants were to scarce and precious to waste, and the lesson was usually learned
In Aert's case, records indicate that he continued living in New Haerlem in succeeding years; either the banishment was not carried out or he was later able to return. Quite possibly the sentence was interrupted by the circumstances of the times. About two weeks after Annetje was granted her divorce, English warships sailed into Manhattan's harbor and seized control of the colony, changing its name to New York. One can well imagine that, under such conditions, little matters like the punishment of a bigamist may have gotten lost in the general turmoil.
Perhaps Annetje was one of those who took the news of the capitulation to the English back up the North River (Hudson) to Wiltwyck. Certainly, it was fortunate for her that she secured the dissolution of the marriage when she did. There were few cases of divorce in the Dutch period, but she almost certainly would have been doomed to spend the rest of her life without a husband or living in sin (intolerable in that society), if she had depended upon the English legal system to release her. We can assume from the foregoing record that she had already chosen her second mate, Jacob Jansen van Etten, although their marriage did not take place until 11 Jan., 1665, the bans having been published 28 December and 4 and 11 January.
The fall was filled with further problems for them. Again she had trouble paying harvest workers. Jacob tried to help by going to work for the big landowner, Thomas Chambers but the court decided that he was not her servant to hire out, but Aert's, so that his wages were taken to help pay the latter's debts. 21 October found him suing again for some share of Tack's estate in compensation for two years of unpaid labor. In a suit that against him in November, he admits the debt but explains that he has been ill of fever and he pleads to be given time to collect his back wages from the estate before payment is required.
For a detailed account of the courts's sale of A.P. Tack's property, see pages 57 through 65 of the 'Kuykendall Families of America" Vol. 1... Tack's effects were less conspicuous for luxuries and more oriented to agricultural pursuits.
From the long list of Aert's belongings, Annetje was allowed to keep just 'a chest with old things,' and three or four items such as such as a pair of tongs, a dinner dish, a blanket and an old bed. Perhaps the bed found a place in her shop, as the dwelling was sold with everything else.
...As for Aert Pietersen Tack-Buys himself, he seems to have continued up to his old tricks. The 'Court Minutes of New Amsterdam' show that Niclaas de Meyer prosecuted an attachment against his goods on June 20, 1665, indicating that the property was located in New Harlem. He proves that A.P. Buys had executed a paper on 19 June, 1664, proving his indebtedness, and, Nicolaas is protesting that the village is putting their own claims against Tack's property before his. A.P. Buys had been a farm tenant of de Meyer's and apparently had absconded with some property while also in arrears for rent as well as in debt to the town.
Perhaps he had departed abruptly from New Harlem at the time that he was sentenced for bigamy the preceding summer. However, he was back in Harlem records in Oct., 1671, when he leased a farm at Frodam. In 1688, Elijah Barton was reported to be dwelling in a house formerly occupied by Aert Pertersen on the Manor of Fordam. " (57, pages 98-110)
Aaert Pieterse Tack 
