The Early History of Kingston
& Ulster County, NY
by: Marc B. Fried

Appendix 2
Analysis of Historical Problems

The 1614 Esopus Fort:
Origins and Historiography of a Myth

In his History of the State of New-York, Joseph Moulton wrote:

It has been asserted that about this period [1617] some Hollanders settled among the Esopus Indians, . . . [others settling at various other places in New Netherland in 1618 and 1620]. It is nevertheless extremely problematical, whether . . . [by 1620] any Dutch family was settled in the country which Hudson discovered. . . Agents of the company may have resided at the abovementioned places to promote trade, cultivate harmony, and learn the language of the Indians. But the foundation of a permanent colony had not been comprehended among the ambitious plans of the Hollanders.

Moulton thus accepted in a general way the possibility of an early post of some sort at Esopus housing agents of the United New Netherland Company, but this acceptance represents merely a passing reference to, and open mind concerning, assertions contained in some unnamed and possibly oral source.

In the History of New Netherland, Edmund B. O’Callaghan sought to substantiate Moulton’s vague allusion by citing a February 9, 1665 reference to what seemed to be an early fort at Esopus: The English seizure of New Netherland in 1664 prompted the assertion by the deputies of the States General (as part of lengthy observations on the lately received letter of Sir George Downing, ambassador from Great Britain) that the possession of the province by the Netherlands

exceeds forty and fifty years, which is the longest time that a title by possession can be acquired; for, it is over forty that we are in possession of the town of New Amsterdam with its forts, and more than fifty years since we are in possession of Forts Orange and Esopus the one and the other with the lands and countries depending thereon.

The circumstances surrounding this appeal by the deputies suggest that the latter may well have been inclined to overemphasize and exaggerate the age and extent of Dutch commercial activity and settlement in New Netherland. Therefore even an explicit statement on their part would have to be treated very cautiously in the absence of any confirmatory evidence of an impartial nature. Furthermore, it cannot even be shown that the deputies were pretending to claim that a fort had existed at Esopus for over fifty years. As one local historian, Benjamin Brink, pointed out, the authors of the paper were more likely claiming simply that the Netherlands had been fifty years in possession of, and commercially active in, the region and territory where Forts Orange and Esopus were now, at the time when the paper was written (1665). Fort Orange had obviously not been held for "more than fifty years," for it had existed only since 1624. A fort was built near the mouth of the Rondout Creek in 1660, eight years after Thomas Chambers became the first white man to purchase land from the Indians of Esopus. This is the fort or "redoubt" that gave its name to the creek. It is the earliest fort at that locality of which there is any reliable record, except of course for the fort or stockade built in 1658 to enclose the Esopus settlement itself, to which stockade the States General deputies may well have been referring.

The previously quoted assertion of the deputies is the ultimate source for all responsible discussions aimed at demonstrating that a fort may have been built at Esopus about 1614. Brodhead, a more critical and analytical historian than O’Callaghan, did not think the 1665 paper of the States General to be very good evidence, in light of other evidence tending to disprove the claim. Yet, the claim was restated by State Secretary Joseph B. Carr, in 1881. Jonathan W. Hasbrouck and Nathaniel B. Sylvester gave uncritical support to the States General deputies’ observations, and Kingston historian Marius Schoonmaker followed suit. As will be seen later, some authors have felt inclined to elaborate, giving details concerning the supposed fort and its occupants. Such statements are invariably unsupported and are based on too literal an acceptance of the 1665 statement, and on oral statements or original conjecture.

Weighted against the brief and questionable assertion contained in the deputies’ observations is the imposing silence of all the remainder of the records concerning New Netherland. Nowhere else in any of the Dutch records is there allusion to an Esopus fort, trading post, or settlement antedating the Chambers deed of 1652.

The records that relate to the earliest period of New Netherland history include the Historiscb Verbael, a semiannual news register published in Amsterdam by Nicolaes van Wassenaer during the early seventeenth century. In this work the erection and abandonment of Fort Nassau (1614, 1617) at present-day Albany is related, but nothing is said of any fort or trading post at Esopus. The only mention of Esopus by van Wassenaer is in a description of the Indians of New Netherland, the author stating that "near one place, Esopes, are two or three tribes." 0 Van Wassenaer also gave considerable attention to events in and descriptions of New Netherland during the period 1624-30. The forts and settlements on Manhattan, at Fort Orange, and on the South (Delaware) River were described and their stories told. Nothing was said about Esopus.

In de Laet’s New World (published 1625), Fort Nassau is once more mentioned. Nothing is said of any Esopus fort. Again, the building of Fort Nassau is referred to in historical summaries contained in letters of Peter Stuyvesant to the general court of Massachusetts (April 20, 1660)2 and to Richard Nicolls (September 2, 1664). No early fort at Esopus is mentioned. The absence of any fort or settlement there is further confirmed by the existence of many records bearing mid-seventeenth-century dates and describing the past activities of the Dutch West India Company in New Netherland. Nowhere is any mention made of trading being done at any redoubt or trading post at Esopus. A letter of the Dutch West India Company to the States General, dated October 25, 1634, speaks of the erection of "one or more little forts" in New Netherland "even before the year 1614," but this statement is so vague and uncertain that no case can be made from it. The company was not founded until 1621 and was not active in New Netherland till 1623-24. It cannot be regarded as an authority on New Netherland history of the 1614 period.

The esoepes or grooete eesoepes is briefly mentioned in the log entries of the ship Rensselaerswyck for March 31 and June 4, 1637. But there is nothing in the references to indicate that the name at those dates designated anything more than a geographical location.

In his History of Ulster County, New York, Nathaniel B. Sylvester quoted the unpublished notes of Jonathan W. Hasbrouck (deceased) as follows: "‘In July, 1637, one Jacobsen, of Rensselaerwyck, hid at Esopus to avoid a fine of twenty beavers.'" Because the statement deals with a period antedating the 1652 land purchase of Thomas Chambers, it deserves attention. The fact is that Hasbrouck was off by twenty years, for a check of the Fort Orange court records of July, 1657 shows that "Harmen Jacobsen Bambus, who owes... 20 beavers and fl. 150, ... absents himself from here and keeps himself in hiding in the Esopus." It is apparent from an examination of Hasbrouck’s version in context that the error was not merely a typographical one of Sylvester or of the latter’s printer.

The first historian to attempt a thorough examination of the problem was Benjamin Brink. Brink had "for some years searched for any record to show whatever truth was in the claim. He had the assistance of those who had the records of the State of New York in charge, of those who in other years translated them, of historical societies and of others." His conclusion was that "nothing in the way of proof of a permanent resident, or of a post for defense or trade has yet appeared to show any date for beginning our history before the coming of Thomas Chambers in 1652.

Brink’s only shortcoming in this matter was that his discussion of the problem did not go nearly deep enough. His presentation was largely limited to an examination of the mid-seventeenth-century records (readily available in the first two volumes of Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York) descriptive of the past activities of the Dutch West India Company in New Netherland. It could easily be argued that, since the Esopus fort was supposedly built in 1614 by the United New Netherland Company, such records were largely irrelevant. Brink’s mention of the figurative maps was extremely brief. He noted van Wassenaer’s reference to Esopus but ignored his references to Fort Nassau and said nothing of the writings of de Laet and de Vries. He of course could know nothing of the important 1630 map of Minuit. His discussion of Catelyn Trico’s depositions was limited and somewhat strained, and he was not familiar with those references to Fort Nassau contained in the letters of Peter Stuyvesant, cited earlier.

Brink’s examination was nevertheless an important eye-opener. It might long since have resulted in a thorough investigation, but such was not the case: Mary I. Forsyth, in The Beginnings of New York: Old Kingston, the First State Capital and Francis J. Higginson, in "A Short Account of the Early History of Kingston, Ulster Co., N.Y.," repeated the claim without attempt at analysis, and furthermore supposed a 1610 fort of the East India Company to have antedated the one claimed for the United New Netherland Company. Judge Alphonso T. Clearwater, in Kingston:A Tribute, did likewise.

In A History of Ulster County Under the Dominion of the Dutch, Augustus Van Buren seems to have rejected the 1614 fort claim, but only inferentially. Without mentioning the paper of the States General, the statements by O’Callaghan, Sylvester, and others, or even the existence of the claim or theory regarding a supposed 1614 fort, Van Buren merely cited evidence leading to the conclusion that the first settlement at Esopus was made by Thomas Chambers about 1652-53. His presentation was in a few respects more complete than Brink’s, in other respects considerably less complete. His approach to the question was indirect and lacked candid discussion.

The next book to treat the subject was Southeastern New York, a three-volume work dedicating considerable attention to the history of Ulster County. The 1614 Esopus fort claim was uncritically repeated. Finally, Andrew S. Hickey’s book, The Story of Kingston, accommodated the early fort enthusiasts to an unprecedented degree with considerable descriptive information, all undocumented.

Aside from the question of a 1614 Esopus fort, the general topic of pre-settlement Esopus has never received the attention it deserves from local historians. Ruttenber’s evaluations of the paper figurative map and of de Laet’s description have been repeated, but never before have they been critically discussed, much less challenged. Yet Ruttenber’s own discussion was very brief. His location of Esopus on the figurative map was highly imprecise ("near a stream north of Wappingers’ Creek"), and he avoided specifically comparing de Laet’s location with the location indicated by the map.

It is clear that the various maps and documents covering the period 1614-52 do not support the idea of a fort having been built at Esopus in 1614. Yet, although many writers have discussed the question, few have challenged the existence of such a fort. In some respects, the persistence of the 1614 fort story should perhaps not be considered remarkable. It is, after all, attractive to think of Esopus as antedating Plymouth, and the research necessary for a thorough evaluation of the claim was considerable. The time has now come, however, for the 1614 Esopus fort to be laid to rest.

Return to Top