Gysbert Opdyck
1635
In 1629, there were around 300 people living on Manhattan island, which increased to 400 by 1639. Gysbert Opdyck arrived in 1635. A missionary visiting in 1643 wrote “on the island of Manhate, and in its environs, there may well be for or five hundred men of different sects and nations: the Director General told me that there were men of eighteen different languages.” New Amsterdam was as diverse then as it is now. His lot in New Amsterdam was at what is now 15 Stone Street, just to the west of Broad Street. He also owed, albeit temporarily, Coney Island – which is shown in the map above and, in the map below as in many others, as a small island detached from Long Island.
In the records, his name is variously spelled Ghijsbert op den Dijck, op Dyck, and Gilbert Updike in English. Gysbert was from Wesel, situated on the Rhine river to the Southwest of Amsterdam. He was baptized in the Willibrord cathedral on September 25, 1605, by his parents, Lodowick and Gertrude. Gysbert’s immigration to New Amsterdam is understandable in the context of the Spanish invasion of Wesel in 1614. Many residents took refuge in the Netherlands. Lodowick was still alive in 1615, when Gysbert was 10. As foreign refugees in a new country, and with commercial fortunes having been hurt by war, it is easy to see how passage to the New World would be both intriguing and easy given the relatively recent Dutch foothold on the Hudson River.
The first record Gysbert appears in are the minutes of the Amsterdam Chamber in May 1635 when it was noted on May 10 that “Willem Riewertsen is engaged as skipper on the SEVENSTER to go to New Netherland,” on the 15th that “Simon Jansen Durgerdam engaged as mate on the SEVENSTER,” on on May 24 “Gysbert op den Dyck engaged as assistant supercargo” which, by definition, is an officer on a merchant ship in charge of the commercial concerns of the voyage. It was also written that “in case he should be needed on land, he shall also serve there, and is engaged at 18 guilders per month, and upon such further conditions as the commissioners for New Netherland have set down in the book.” Later, back in Holland, on September 27, 1636 it was noted in the Amsterdam Chamber that “the ship SEVENSTER from New Netherland, which sailed past.” The May 1635 sailing, and Gysbert, are also noted in a letter from Kiliaen van Rensselaer, in Amsterdam, to Wouter van Twiller, on Manhattan, dated May 24, 1635 and sent aboard the ship, SEVENSTER. He wrote: “They send no commis with this ship, but late this evening engaged Gysbert op den Dijck as assistant.”
Clearly, Gysbert is traveling strictly as an employee of the Dutch West India Company and with simply a position on the ship, and no specific position in New Netherland – only “in case he should be needed on land.” This wasn’t unheard of, and is seen later that year in October: “The father of Petrus Stuyvesant, commys, or supercargo, at Fernando Norunho, requests that his son, going from there to Pernambuco (Brazil) may be advanced to whatever position he may be able to fill.” Hence, the future Director was once in the same situation. Gysbert appears to have stayed for, on December 25, 1637, Kiliaen van Rensselaer wrote to Jacob Albertsz Planck, “I am sending you through the kindness of Commander Pietter Minuijt (Peter Minuit), who has made accommodation for them in his ships….Do not neglect to keep a daily journal of everything that happens in the colony. When my cousin comes he will copy it all and relieve you. Enclosed are two letters to Ghijsbert op den Dijck which I have left open. You can copy them and at the same time inquire about the slate hill, also take notice of other things which it contains. Then seal them and have them delivered to him unless you go to see him yourself.” Then, writing to him again on December 29, 1637: “Sr. Adam Bessels, coparticipant in my colony, writes the two enclosed letters to you to have the slate hill, which I assigned to Ghysbert op den Dyck in the presence of Minnuyt, named Bessels Berch. Please favor him therein if it is at all promising, otherwise call one of the farms of Symon Walichsz and Cornelis Maesen, Bessels Berch, as aforesaid, and the other Tripebuch, also after one of my participants.” This makes it appear that Gysbert, at some point, had – or contemplated having – lands and enterprise in Bevervyck.
In 1639, Gysbert is the commissary at Huys de Hoop (House of Hope), or Fort de Goede Hoop (Good Hope), situated on a small plain on what is now called the Park River, a subterranean river that was created as a creek of the Connecticut River to flow under Hartford (today near the confluence of Sheldon St., Charter Oak Ave, and appropriately-named Huyshope Ave.). The Dutch had set up a trading post at this location in 1623 and constructed the fort in 1633. In 1636, Rev. Thomas Hooker led a hundred followers from Cambridge, Massachusetts to a location directly across the river from Fort, directly threating the outer border of the New Netherland territory. Confrontations began long before Hooker arrived. David de Vries, artillery master from Amsterdam, arrived by boat in June 1639 to find Gysbert with 15 soldiers facing English colonists across the river in a settlement that contained a church and 100 houses. The English also plowed the land around the Dutch fort.
Daily tensions with the English, which all but surrounded Fort Good Hope, continued and the following “remonstrance” was given to the Director and council by Gysbert:
That we, on the 23rd April, 1640, did tell and notify Mr. Hopkens, the English Governor on the Fresh river of New Netherland, that we proposed ploughing, for the Company, a piece of land lying behind Fort Hope, as it was our purchased and paid for ground, forbidding him, Mr. Hopkins, or any of his, to attempt doing anything on the aforesaid piece of land; who gave for answer, that ’twas their ground, inasmuch as they and not we, had bought it from the right owners, and that the Pequatoos never owned the land, which he will prove by a chief of the Morahtkans, who dwelt near the Pequatoos, and that the owners had fled away to seek assistance from their people. Whereunto we, Opdyck, and the other servants of the Company, made answer, that the lands, many years before their coming, were taken possession of, and payment in full made to the right owners, which was also approved of by the residents. Mr. Hopkins said: Show your right; we shall show ours; also, that he sought to deal in friendship with us; which, Opdyck said, was our intention, but that he, meanwhile wished to have the use of the land, it being our ground. To this he, Hopkins, and the other English, would never agree.
Also, that the English constable on the Fresh river did, on the 24th April, 1640, come with ten or eleven men, each being armed with a thick stick, to our people, who were busy ploughing on the Honorable Company’s ground, who, with blows and shouts, so frightened our horses that were drawing the plough, that, from terror, they broke the ropes and chains, and ran away. And whereas we had that day notified the Governor not to molest us on the Honorable Company’s land, we, in an hour after the constable came to us, resumed ploughing without hindrance.
On the 25th April, 1640, the English, in the night, sowed with corn the land that, in the day, Opdyck had caused to be ploughed, against which Opdyck protested, delivering a written protest to the Governor, who would not answer it as ’twas in Dutch, saying: I can also protest, and that we were not acting right; asking, likewise, that Opdyck should show the Company’s title to the land; also, that the English sought to live in friendship with our people, but if we came with force, they should use force against us, and that their King would fully maintain them as our Prince of Orange would us. Thereupon, Gysbert Opdyck gave for answer: He was not bound to show them any title, but if they had anything to say, they should deliver it to him in writing, and he would forward it to the Honorable Director.
Moreover, that we very well knew that his Majesty of England did not require them to wrong another in his property. In the afternoon, Opdyck had barley sown in the ploughed field, but the English drove the people off. Whereupon Opdyck himself went thither, but the English, who were standing on a ridge, would oppose our people, and sought to prevent them sowing our own land, which was ploughed by our men. Meanwhile, Evert Duyckingh ran past the English with a hat full of barley; whilst sowing, an Englishman struck him on the arm with a club, so that he could not move; another cut said Duyckingh in the head with an adze stuck in a long handle, so that the blood ran down his face and clothes. Whereupon we were forced to depart, but Opdyck said: You do us wrong and violence.
In the night of the 30th May, one of the Company’s mares that was going astray, was taken by the English and brought in their pound without our knowledge. A man came afterwards, who told us that the Governor’s servant had taken it because the horse had eaten their grass. If Opdyck would pay the damage, they would restore the animal. To which was answered, that the ground and grass were ours; that they had nothing to do with our horses, and should bring them back whence they were taken.
On the 21st June, 1640, Gysbert Opdyck being come from the Manhattans, and about an hour at home, the English carried off, in the twinkle of an eye, a cow and calf, and drove them to their pound.
On the 22nd June, 1640, the English Governor in the Fresh river [sent] two men to Opdyck, on the demand of the Honorable Director, Willem Kieft, and consented to give up the horse, cow and calf, if we would pay the damage done by them to the grass; whereunto the Commissary gave for answer : If they would give back the cattle belonging to us, they could do so, but he did not intend to pay any damage, as they had sought their food on our purchased land, and no damage had been done.
On the 28th June, 1640, an English clergyman took a load of the hay which the Company’s servants had cut; wherefore the Commissary served him with a protest, at the house of the Governor, who was not at home.
On the 15th of August, Peter Colet, the steward, and other of the Company’s servants, whilst cutting the Company’s grain, were driven off by the English, who said ’twas their grain, and that they had sown it. Whereupon Opdyck protested at the house of Deputy-Governor Haines, who answered that he had nothing to do with any protest, and that they knew it.
After these endless, though minor, confrontations, Gysbert resigned as commissary. He returned to New Amsterdam and proceeded to sail back to Holland on the WATERHONT, as recorded in the council minutes on October 25, 1640. (original & translation) Perhaps this was related to family business matters back in Wesel, as is seen later in 1649 when he gives power of attorney for the same. David Provoost took over as the commissary at Good Hope.
Gysbert returned to New Amsterdam in 1641 on the ship DEN BRANDARYS, along with a letter from Kiliaen van Rensselaer to Willem Kieft dated October 8, 1641. Kiliaen wrote:
“I have since learned from my nephew Wouter van Twiller that your honor is a great lover of fine horses, which I presume are not wanting there, and thinking that a fine saddle looks well on a fine horse to show off the rider to better advantage and that suitable saddles can not be had in that country, I have with the advice of my aforesaid nephew discovered one which I hope will be pleasing, useful and convenient to you. I send it to you in the care of Gysbert op den Dyck and kindly request you to accpet it as a first sign of gratitude for the favors bestowed upon me. I hope that it will arrive without damage. I have had it sewed in canvas with everything that belongs to it and addressed to your honor with the mark of the colony, as in the margin. This young man has asked me to recommend him to your honor, and although I do not doubt but that he will have a stronger recommendations from various other people, even from the directors, I could nevertheless not refuse to do this hereby. I beg your honor to excuse me for this and to be assured that I have tried to avoid it as much as I could; sometimes these things must be done on account of other recommendations and sometimes on account of importunities. Your honor need not pay any more attention to this than the person’s capacity and your honor’s opinion of him will warrant. I think that this young man has a good disposition; he served the Company in that country from the very beginning and did not take sides with any faction but properly respected and obeyed his superiors, which I have no doubt now that he is so much older and more experienced he will do better than ever.”
This recommendation is interesting to the extent that Gysbert was already well-known to Kieft, who began as the Director in 1638. Perhaps this was Gysbert attempting to advance his position – to something other than Good Hope – through the support of one of the founders of the Dutch West India Company and a major patroon in the new world.
Kiliaen van Rensselaer writes Willem Kieft again on June 8, 1642: “I noticed also that those who complain the most about disorder are frequently themselves the cause of it. I sent you by the ship DEN BRANDARIS a good saddle with its belongings, but whether it is the fault of the skipper or of Gysbertus opdendijck, it has been returned to me…I therefore send it to you herewith once more, also a rapier with baldric and belongings, of which our De Megapolensis has the list and an order to hand them to you because of the gratitude which I owe you.”
Despite the saddle mix-up, the van Rensselaer endorsement seems to have worked, as Gysbert appears on September 12 and November 18, 1642 as Commissary of Provisions for New Amsterdam. Around this time period, he also appears very frequently in the records as a court witness.
Kieft stirred up trouble with the Indians in early 1643, much to the dismay of longtime residents, who recognized the need for peace and commerce. Kieft hired John Underhill to raise troops and attack tribes on the northern shore of Long Island Sound. In retaliation, Indians invaded the colony in force in late 1643. This attack resulted in the August 20 murder of Anne Hutchinson, on the outskirts of the colony in present-day Pelham, New York, and the murder of John Smith, Richard Smith’s brother, both of whom lived in Mespath (present-day Queens) on Long Island. Richard fled with his family from their Mesoath settlement to the safety of New Amsterdam. It is here that Richard’s daughter, Katharine, our ancestor, married Gysbert on September 24, 1643 and the records of the Dutch church record them as “a bachelor from Wesel, a maiden from Old England.” At some point before 1645, and likely before his marriage, Gysbert was granted a lot in Manhattan: “We, Willem Kieft, etc. Have given and granted to Olof Stevensz, commissary, a lot for a house and garden located on the island of Manhattan on the road between the lots of Gysbert Op Dyck and Harmen Meyndertsz….Done at Fort Amsterdam in New Netherland, 5 September 1645″ (original & translation)
Skirmishes continued around New Netherland, and tensions were high. They are seen boiling over in the City tavern on Mar 17, 1644 in an event that included Gysbert:
“Before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, secretary of New Netherland, appeared Nicolaes Coorn, 38 years of age, Hans Kirstede, about 32 years of age, Jan Jacobsz, about 30 years of age, and Gysbert op Dyck, 37 years of age, who on the requisition of Cornelis van der Hoykens, fiscal, jointly attest, testify and declare, in place and with promise of a solemn oath if need be and required, that they, the deponents, on the evening of the 15th instant, were invited with their wives to the public tavern of Philip Gerritssen, innkeeper, where about an hour after supper there came in Jan Onderhil with his lieutenant, Bacxter, and the drummer, to whom the above mentioned Philip Gerritssen said: “Friends, I have invited these persons here with their wives; I therefore request that you will betake yourselves to another room where you can be furnished with wine for money.” They finally did so after many words. Having been gone a short time, said Jan Onderhil and his company, who had then been joined by Tomas Willet, invited some of our, the deponents’, company, to have a drink with them, which was done. Gorge Bacxter, by Onderhil’s orders, came and requested that op Dyck would please to come and join them, which he refused. Whereupon he, Onderhil, and his companions with drawn swords knocked to pieces all but three of the mugs which hung from the shelf in the tavern, as may be seen by the marks which remain in the shelf and by the cuts and hackings in the posts and doors; furthermore endeavoring by force, having drawn swords in their hands, to come into the room where the invited guests were. This was for a long time resisted by the landlady with a leaded bludgeon and by the landlord by keeping the door shut, but finally Jan Onderhil and his aforesaid companions, in spite of all opposition, came into the room, where he made many unnecessary remarks, Captain Onderhil having his sword in his right hand and the scabbard in the left, the blade about a foot out of the scabbard, which said Jan Onderhil, holding his sword as described, said to the minister: “Clear out of here, or I shall strike at random.” Presently, some English soldiers came likewise, to assist him, we suppose, whereupon the above mentioned Onderhil and his companions became guilty of gross insolence, so that the fiscal and the guard were sent for and, these having arrived, the English and the above mentioned Onderhil were ordered to depart. They refused to do this, saying to the minister: “If the director comes here, ’tis well; I would rather speak to a wise man than to a fool.” And in order to prevent further and more serious mischief, yes, even bloodshed, we broke up our pleasant party before we had intended. All of which we declare to be true. Done this 17th of March anno 1644, in Fort Amsterdam. Jan Jacobsz, Niclaes Koren, Gysbert op Dyck, Hans Kierstedt” (original & translation)
On May 24, 1644, Gysbert was involved in a land transaction, and on July 27, his daughter Elizabeth was baptized (10 months after the wedding) – with witnesses Kieft, Van Tienhoven, Hendrik Huygen. The land transaction was significant – it was Coney Island:
“24 May 1644 – We, Willem Kieft, etc…have given and granted to Gysbert op Dyck, the whole of Conynen Island, located on the east side of the bay running into the North River, with the marshlands thereto belonging; on condition that in case it should be deemed necessary or advisable, the Company reserves the right to establish fisheries upon said Conynen Island where most suitable; also a piece of land located near Conynen Hook extending N.E. from Conynen Hook; it lies with its S.E. point to or near the seashore and on its wet side a kil comes in on the east side of Conynen Hook…..Done at Fort Amsterdam in New Netherland, 24 May 1644” (original)
Gysbert had arrived in New Amsterdam three years before Kieft and had served him well enough at Good Hope, and in charge of provisions in New Amsterdam, for Kieft to be at the baptism of his first child. Gysbert was living on Manhattan by 1645 when a patent to Olof Stevensz van Cortland is noted as being next to Gysbert. (original) It’s not surprising then that Kieft made Gysbert one of the 1645 Eight Men, who were selected to advise the Director and the Council every Saturday. This was the second group of Eight (the first of which resigned in disgust at Kieft) and included Gysbert Opdyck, Richard Smith, Francis Doughty, John Underhill, George Baxter, Jacob Stoffelsen, Jan Evertsen Bout, and Oloff Stevensen van Cortlandt. In 1645, much of the focus was still on the Indian conflict.
“This day, being the 24th of May 1645, came here a chief named Witaneywen, sachem of Mochgonnekonc, situate on Long Island, with forty-seven armed Indians, who offered their services to the government, whereupon the Director convened these underwritten persons: Fiscal van der Hoykens, Monsr. La Montagne, Captain Onderhil, Ensign de Leuw, Commissaries Oloff Stevensen and Gysbert Opdyck, and of the Selectmen Jan Eversen and Jacob Stoffelsen, when said sachem submitted his proposal, and it is resolved that he shall embark in one of the Company’s sloops, and sail to the place where he is to land his spies to discover the enemy; they are to report the enemy’s whereabouts, and he shall then endeavor to beat them with all his force, and after the work is performed, he is to return here and he shall be reqarded as he deserves. The Director is to provide them with the necessary rations in the sloop, etc.
Before us the Director and Council of New Netherland appeared Wittaneymen, sachem of Mohgonnekonck, declaring to be empowered by his bretheren…to walk in a firm bond of friendship with us and promised that the Christians should experience at the hands of his people, or of those abovenamed villages, nothing but every kindness, and as a proof of their good disposition, they offered to go against our enemies, which he has done, and brought a head and hands of the enemy, and has agreed with us to aid our people from henceforth against the Indians our enemies, which we have accepted. In ratification of this treaty, we have given a present to the abovenamed chiefs, with promise to molest them so long as he and the abovenamed villages remain in their duty, but to show them all possible friendship. In testimony of the truth the original is signed by us, confirmed by our seal and handed to the chief, the said seal being pendant thereto, the 29th of May, 1645, in Fort Amsterdam, in New Netherland.”
A peace treaty was signed on August 30, 1645:
“They shall not be allowed to come with arms to the houses of the Christians on this island of Manhatans; neither shall we come to them with guns, without being accompanied by an Indian who can warn them…Thus done in the fort, under the blue canopy of heaven, in the presence of the council of New Netherland and the entire community called together for the purpose,, in the presence of the Maquas ambassadors, who were requested to assist as mediators in this peace negotiation…The original was signed with the mark of…Willem Kieft…Richard Smith…Gysbert Opdyck…the mark of Aepjen, sachem of the Mahikans…the mark of Auronge, the mark of Sesekenins. “
With Indian affairs more settled, attention turned back to the English encroachment on Dutch borders. A resolution was made on June 6, 1647 to maintain Fort Hope because its abandonment would lead to English occupation. Sadly for Gysbert, who now had a family on Manhattan, his prior knowledge of the fort and the diplomatic issues made him the choice candidate. On June 20, 1647:
“Whereas for the maintenance of the house The Hope, situated on the Fresh river of New Netherland and within the limits of this province, it was resolved and concluded on the 6th of June last to send a fit and faithful person thither in the stead of Commissary David Provoost; therefore, we have resolved and concluded to send thither Gysbert op Dyck, former commissary of provisions, who served as commissary there for the honorable directors and therefore is acquainted with all the circumstances; which said Op Dyck shall provisionally reside there, in order to take care and have proper supervision of everything.” (original & translation)
It’s not known how often he traveled back and forth between Fort Good Hope and New Amsterdam. He was at the fort on May 26, 1648, when he gave power of attorney to David Provoost to sell his account. (original & translation) He was back in New Amsterdam, while still in service at commissary at the fort, on August 19, 1649 when he gave power of attorney to a person back in Wesel to collect money presumably related to his family’s estate:
“Before me, Jacob Hendricksz Kip, clerk, In the absence of Cornells van Tienhoven, the secretary, appeared the worthy Mr, Gysbert op Drck, at present In the honorable Company’s service as commissary at the house d’Hoop In New Netherland, who In the presence of and before the undersigned witnesses declared that he constituted and appointed, as he hereby does constitute and appoint, the worthy Hendrick van Schendel, city schoolmaster at Weesel, his attorney to ask, demand, collect and receive in his, the principal’s, name, in the capacity aforesaid, from the worthy Jan Hannes, merchant residing at Wesel, the sum of five hundred guilders with the interest thereof since the year one thousand six hundred and forty-one to the date of payment, as appears by the annexed note. On receipt of this sum by the above named worthy Hendrick van Schendel, or his order, he shall have power to execute a discharge in full; to substitute one or more persons; if necessary, to institute legal proceedings, in all things doing as the case may further require. He, Mr. Gysbert op Dyck, promises to hold valid whatever shall be done and transacted by the above named, his attorney, or his substitute, in the case aforesaid, even though the matter require more ample and more specific authority than is herein mentioned. Thus done, and the original record hereof signed by the above named Gysbert op Dyck this 19th of August 1649, in Fort Amsterdam.” (original & translation)
Gysbert makes an appearance in the 2004 book, The Island at the Center of the World, by Russel Shorto, in a description of the replacement of Kieft by Stuyvesant: “Stuyvesant alighted from his ship in September of 1650, pegged up the quay, no doubt greeted Gysbert op Dyck, the commander of the Dutch fort, and greeted his four fellow statesmen.” Unfortunately, Shorto’s statement is incorrect and confuses Fort Amsterdam with Fort Good Hope. In September 1650, Gysbert was likely still at Fort Good Hope, and he was never the commander of Fort Amsterdam.
1653 saw a broader, global Anglo-Dutch war and, on June 27, 1653, John Underhill went to Good Hope and posted on its door: “I Jo. Underhill do seize upon this hous and lands thereunto belonging as Dutch goods claymed by ye West India Company in Amsterdam enemies of the Commonweal of England, and thus to remaune seized till further determined by ye said Court.” All the drama surrounding the fort was resolved in July 1654 when the peace treaty between Holland and England gave the fort to the latter.
Gysbert remained busy. He was active in some land purchases and sales in 1653 for properties on “Cow Neck” which is today Sands Point and included the present-day harbors of Manhasset and Hempstead. On July 19, 1655, he was witness to an Indian deed with Stuyvesant. And on November 6, 1656, we went to the New Amsterdam court for permission to “tap”: “Gysbert op Dyck appears in Court requesting permission to sell wine and beer by the small measure, as he hired the house next to the City Hall and is occasionally asked to lodge strangers and to sell them wine and beer. Whereupon question being put, the petitioner’s request was granted.” On December 21, 1656, he was appointed as a Court Messenger and allowed a yearly salary of 150 guilders from the Director and 50 guilders from the City. He was a defendant in court on August 27, 1658 for payment of a debt, to which he answered “he will pay, but that the Burgomaster must have some more patience, and that his wife and children lie sick.” On May 24, 1661, he was in court suing his grandson, Richard Smith, Junior for 99 guilders, to which Smith said Gysbert owed him 744 guilders, to which Gysbert said that Richard Smith (senior) needed to speak to him and the Court ordered both sides to settle with each other. Later that year, on August 25, 1661, at the age of 56, he tried to raise capital by selling Coney Island. The council minutes that day record:
August 25th, 1661
To the Noble, Very Worshipful Director-General and Council of New Netherland.
Humbly shows Gysbert op Dyck, and old servant of the Company, but now out of the service that his Honor, Director William Kieft, gave and granted to him, the petitioner, a certain small island, lying between the Stroomkil and Coney Island, now called Gysberts Island, which the petitioner could not occupy without danger from the Indians on account of its distance. The inhabitants of Gravesend have higherto used the said island as pastureland for their calves and are still using it so to-day; with the knowledge and approval of your Honors they are willing to by said island from your petitoner for the benefit of their village; therefore your petitioner, being now out of office and needing the necessaies of life, respectfully turns to your Honors and humbly requests permission to convey the said island to the village of Gravesend. Which doing I remain.
Your Honors’ humble petitioner
Gysbert op Dyck
ANSWERED: The petitioner has to prove his title to said island, before a decision can be given on the main question. Date as above.
(original)
Gysbert evidently proved his title from Kieft’s patent dated May 24, 1644, and sold land on October 20, 1661 to merchant Dirck de Wolff, who was upset that the village of Gravesend was using the island for pasture, and mowing the grass. Gravesend, in turn said they had rights to it “especially as the said Gysbert op Dyck has never taken possession of said island or of any part of it.” Some legal gamesmanship followed, in which Stuyvesant claimed that “the so-called patent to Gysbert op Dyck, by virtue of which he has conveyed Coney Island etc to Dirck de Wolff, has never been signed by the late Director- General William Kieft and that it has been recorded in the Book of Patents by the then Secretary through a mistake or otherwise as of the 21th of May 1644, as if it had been signed and sealed by Director Kieft. Gysbert op Dyck has made an improper use of it, stating, that the original patent had been mislaid and thus he has deceived and misled the plaintiffs as well, as the Council and the Secretary, by whom this conveyance was passed. The Director-General and Council therefore and for other reasons, submitted by the defendants, deny the motion and demand of the plaintiffs without prejudice to their action and claim against said Gysbert op Dyck, and absolve the defendants from the compensation of costs in this case. Done at Fort Amsterdam in N. N.” (original, and judgement for DeWolff original)
It’s not clear what Gysbert owed back to DeWolff, but Gysbert appears shortly thereafter, in the records of Salomon Lachaire, the notary public of New Amsterdam, on April 10, 1662, where Gysbert asks:
“Gysbert Opdyck, an old servant of The Company and at present without any employment, and consequently incapacitated from closing the remnant of his old age in honorable competency respectfully showeth, that in order to obtain the same, your petitioner addressed himself to Your Honors last summer, requesting some office or benefice wherewith he could be able to gain an honest livelihood, when Your Honors promised him the petitioner the enjoyment of the first vacant situation; whereupon up to this time nothing has occurred. Therefore humbly turning again to Your Honors, he humbly prays to be favored with the office of Sheriff of Flushing, Middleburgh and Rustdorp, promising to comport himself therein.”
It’s unclear whether or not he got this appointment. While his comments indicate that he’s nearing his retirement, he is still busy commercially in early 1663, when he is in court in February and March suing Paulus Heimans for “the sum of forty guilders in beavers for a barrel of meat received from Jan Hutson, according to obligation dated 20 Nov. 1657” Heimans “denies that the mark signed to the obligation is his” and “The Court find that he marks is the defendant’s wife — which is not denied by the defendent, but he requests that his creditors may have patience until the money come into Court for his house and furniture, sold, when every one shall be paid and should they fall short, that then he may further provide. Burgomasters and Schepens having heard parties and seen the obligation condemn deft, to satisfy and pay the plaintiff according to obligation. “ Gysbert was still pursing the payment in September, when the court “order and require the Officer to lend a helping hand to the Marshal in levying the execution, which Gysbert OpDyck has obtained against Paulus Heimans in date 28 August last.”
Gysbert does not appear in the New Netherland records after 1663 and his wife, Katharine, died before her father, Richard, made his will on July 14, 1664 (died 1666) giving to his “grand children, the children of my deceased daughter Katharine, sometime wife to Gilbert Updike, one other fourth part thereof.” This phrasing makes it unclear if Gilbert was alive or not in 1664. What is clear is that Richard didn’t bequeath him anything, passing it instead to the children, who were the rightful heirs through Katharine. Elizabeth was married in Rhode Island in 1663 so she had to have been there earlier to have met her spouse – perhaps she went with her siblings and without either Gysbert or Katharine. The records above indicate that Gysbert remained in New Amsterdam until 1663, although he reportedly witnessed deeds in Rhode Island in 1659. Katharine’s death and the May 1664 English takeover might have encouraged him to finally move to Rhode Island, as the family tradition maintains.
