Hendrick Oothout, Jr.

Hendrick Oothout, Jr. was born in May 1742. He was the first child born to the marriage of Jonas Oothout and his first wife Elizabeth Lansing Oothout. She died in 1754 and Jonas remarried. Their large family lived on a substantial piece of property north of the city and near the cross-river ferry. For the most part, this biography relies on information for "Henry Oothout, Jr." Another (more prominent and older) similarly named contemporary complicates our ambitions.

In September 1765, this Henry married Albany native Lydia Douw at the Albany Dutch church. By 1786, ten of their eleven children had been christened at the church where he was a member, pewholder, and regular baptism sponsor.

In 1768, his wife was left a substantial bequest (of money and property) in the will filed by her father.

In December 1777, he witnessed the will of his wife's uncle.

During the War years, Henry Jr. was a member of the Committee of Correspondence (in 1775) for Rensselaerswyck and a "First Lieutenant" in the Third or Rensselaerswcyk regiment of the Albany County militia. Afterwards, he was accorded a land bounty right in conjunction with the third regiment.

In September 1779, "Henry Outhout, Jun." was among the Albany people who signed a petition for the return of Dr. Henry Van Dyck.

In 1788, "Henry Oothout, Jr." was one of those who made an inventory of the estate of Hendrick Bogert. He and a number of his kin were named as creditors in the document.

His name has not been found on city assessment rolls consulted thus far. However, the Albany assessment roll for 1779 was signed by "Henry Oothoudt, Superintndts of Taxes." Perhaps his household was configured on the Watervliet census in 1790.

Hendrick Oothout, Jr. died in May 1818. Once we lock in the death date of the other Henry Oothout, we expect to be able to further articulate this individual's profile.

Sources: The life of Hendrick Oothout, Jr. is CAP biography number 430. This sketch is derived chiefly from family and community-based resources.

We understand that this seemingly non resident individual does not meet the criteria for inclusion.