[15] By the wording of contracts dated November 22, 1646 (New York Col. MSS. ii. 152), it appears that Teunissen was called "Schout of Breuckelen" before this date.
[16] As we have seen, Rapalje, who made one of the earliest purchases (1636), did not begin living on his Wallabout farm until probably 1655.
[17] "No other figure of Dutch, nor indeed of Colonial days is so well remembered; none other has left so deep an impress on Manhattan history and tradition as this whimsical and obstinate, but brave and gallant old fellow, the kindly tyrant of the little colony. To this day he stands in a certain sense as the typical father of the city."—Theodore Roosevelt, New York, p. 26.
[18] Bayard Tuckerman, Peter Stuyvesant, p. 62.
[19] Stiles, History of Brooklyn, vol. i. p. 229.
[20] "Among the Dutch settlers the art of stone-cutting does not appear to have been used until within comparatively a few years, with but few exceptions, and their old burying-grounds are strewn with rough head-stones which bear no inscriptions; whereas the English people, immediately on their settlement, introduced the practice of perpetuating the memories of their friends by inscribed stones. Another reason for not finding any very old tombstones in the Dutch settlements is that they early adopted the practice of having family burying-places on their farms, without monuments, and not unfrequently private burials, both of which the Governor and Colonial Legislature, in 1664 and 1684, deemed of sufficient importance to merit legislative interference, and declared that all persons should be publicly buried in some parish burial-place."—Furman, Antiquities of Long Island, p. 155.
[21] New York, p. 29.
[22] A Dutch war-ship sold twenty negroes into the colony of Virginia in August, 1619.
[23] The call of the Breuckelen Church to Dominie Selyns was by him accepted, and approved by the Classis of Amsterdam, February 16, 1660(-61).—Brooklyn Church Records.
[24] Mr. Campbell and other recent writers, actuated doubtless by some resentment toward the complacency of New England, have unquestionably exaggerated in certain respects the essential position of Holland in educational advancement, and offered a somewhat stronger plea for the leadership of the Dutch in popular education on this continent than a strictly judicial examination of the case seems to justify; but there can be no reasonable doubt in the minds of impartial students that serious misconceptions have existed, and that these justify the championship of the Dutch, of which Mr. Campbell's The Puritan in Holland, England, and America is so brilliant an example. The early claims for English and for Puritan educational traditions not only ignored but excluded the Dutch, and it was inevitable that the effort to do justice to Holland's remarkable services for popular education should result in occasional overstatement.