“Borderland” Are at Best Fuzzy and Contested Terms, It Is
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
STONE HOUSE DAYS: CONSTRUCTING CULTURAL HYBRIDITY IN THE HUDSON VALLEY by KENNETH SHEFSIEK (Under the Direction of Allan Kulikoff) ABSTRACT In 1678, a small band of French-speaking Protestant Walloon refugees from the Rheinland Palatinate established a community upon a nearly 40,000-acre patent in Ulster County, New York, within the Hudson River Valley. As the village founders—the patentees— and their families established their village within a Dutch cultural region within an English colony, they and their descendants were required to adjust simultaneously to two foreign cultures. This particular multi-ethnic environment created a cultural frontier, where no one cultural group could establish cultural hegemony. As early as the late seventeenth century through the eighteenth century, the founders and their descendants willingly and proactively constructed a fluid and changing hybrid culture, using Walloon, Dutch and English cultures as source material. However, their Walloonness was lost relatively early, except in very limited ways, and they ultimately created a Dutch-Anglo culture. This cultural hybridity was seen through their language use, their construction of gender, and their architecture. The patentee descendant community members deemed this hybridity acceptable and even desirable because they felt culturally threatened by neither the local Dutch-American population nor the English colonial government. While English political and legal forms were unavoidable, the patentee community chose who filled local offices, could manipulate English legal forms for their own cultural purposes, and could maintain economic power through extensive land ownership. Thus, power was divided between the local non-English and the English colonial government. While the majority of the members of the patentee descendant community accepted cultural hybridity, there were anomalous individuals who resisted such hybridity and fluidity. There were also those who actively anglicized in order to cross the cultural frontier, motivated by a resilient English and Anglo-American anti-Dutch bias. These three approaches—acceptance of hybridity and fluidity, cultural resistance, and active assimilation—existed simultaneously in New Paltz with little apparent stress until the 1760s. In that decade, conflict developed in the Dutch Reformed congregations in New York over the Americanization of the New World congregations. That conflict—the Coetus-Conferentie dispute—affected the cultural processes in New Paltz, which caused those following all three of the cultural approaches to come into open conflict. INDEX WORDS: Walloons, Dutch-Americans, Hudson River Valley, Dutch Reformed Church, Coetus-Conferentie, cultural frontier, cultural hybridity, Colonial New York, Ulster County New York STONE HOUSE DAYS: CONSTRUCTING CULTURAL HYBRIDITY IN THE HUDSON VALLEY by KENNETH SHEFSIEK B.M., Ithaca College, 1986 M.M., New England Conservatory, 1989 M.H.P., Georgia State University, 2000 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ATHENS, GEORGIA 2010 © 2010 Kenneth Shefsiek All Rights Reserved STONE HOUSE DAYS: CONSTRUCTING CULTURAL HYBRIDITY IN THE HUDSON VALLY by KENNETH SHEFSIEK Major Professor: Allan Kulikoff Committee: Peter Charles Hoffer Michael Kwass Kathleen Clark Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2010 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................v LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: THE HUDSON RIVER VALLEY, ETHNICITY AND THE COLONIAL FRONTIER..............................................................................................1 2 DIVIDED POWER.....................................................................................................17 3 “FRENCH, DUTCH AND TOLERABLE ENGLISH”: LANGUAGE USE IN EARLY NEW PALTZ................................................................................................61 4 HALLS, WINDOWS, DOORS AND BARNS: ARCHITECTURE AND ETHNIC CULTURE ................................................................................................................101 5 “I GIVE DEVISE AND BEQUEATH . .”: GENDER, PROPERTY AND ETHNICITY ............................................................................................................157 6 “DUTCH VERMIN”: THE VIEW FROM ACROSS THE FRONTIER...............211 7 SCHISM: THE GREAT AWAKENING AND CONFLICT ON THE CULTURAL FRONTIER..............................................................................................................242 8 EPILOGUE...............................................................................................................280 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................308 v LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2.1: Genealogical Connections of New Paltz Patentees .....................................................24 Table 2.2: Marriage Patterns 1750-1800 ......................................................................................56 Table 3.1: Language of wills, 1676-1800 .....................................................................................66 Table 3.2: Language of Financial Receipts (I)..............................................................................89 Table 3.3: Language of Financial Receipts (II) ............................................................................92 Table 4.1: Distribution of Barn Types ........................................................................................151 Table 5.1: Bequests to Widows ..................................................................................................175 Table 5.2: Special Bequests to Eldest Sons ................................................................................195 Table 7.1: Second Church Membership and Participation .........................................................259 Table 7.2: Tax Assessments for Highest Donors to Church Construction .................................263 vi LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2.1: Map—Ulster County ..................................................................................................18 Figure 4.1: Ezekiel Eltinge House, photo 2008 ..........................................................................101 Figure 4.2: Deyo House, photo before 1894...............................................................................101 Figure 4.3: The progressive development of the rookhuis .........................................................107 Figure 4.4: Three variations of a rookhuis with an insteek.........................................................107 Figure 4.5: Plan for the 1642 Johannes Winckelman house.......................................................108 Figure 4.6: A schematic of a Dutch-American rural house ........................................................109 Figure 4.7: A Dutch-American three-aisle barn .........................................................................109 Figure 4.8: The Parson Capen House .........................................................................................112 Figure 4.9: 1705 Maria Dubois House, probable original exterior (architect’s rendering) .......115 Figure 4.10: 1705 Maria Dubois House, probable interior layout (architect’s rendering) .........115 Figure 4.11: A Five-plate stove ..................................................................................................116 Figure 4.12: Abraham Lefevre House ........................................................................................117 Figure 4.13: Stairs to the attic the Samuel Bevier House ...........................................................117 Figure 4.14: Daniel Hasbrouck House front elevation (west) in 2008 .......................................118 Figure 4.15: Daniel Hasbrouck House rear (east) elevation (architect’s rendering) ..................118 Figure 4.16: Samuel Bevier House (south elevation) in 2008....................................................119 Figure 4.17: Samuel Bevier House (south elevation) (architect’s rendering) ............................119 Figure 4.18: Stairs to opkamer in Daniel Hasbrouck House ......................................................120 vii Figure 4.19: Deyo House at Bontecoe in New Paltz in 1903 .....................................................122 Figure 4.20: Jacob Hasbrouck House in 2008 ............................................................................124 Figure 4.21: Jacob Hasbrouck House in 2008 (architect’s rendering)........................................124 Figure 4.22: Matthew Ten Eyck House, Hurley, NY in 2007 ....................................................125 Figure 4.23: Matthew Ten Eyck House in 2007 (architect’s rendering) ....................................125 Figure 4.24: William Gibbs, plan for a house (1728).................................................................126 Figure 4.25: Westover, Charles City County, VA......................................................................126 Figure 4.26: MacPhaedris-Warner House, Portsmouth, NH ......................................................126 Figure 4.27: Cornelius