THE FIGHT WITH THE DUTCH FOR THEIR SETTLEMENT OF NEW NETHERLAND
A new epoch in colonial history was reached when England adopted a
warlike policy to obtain mastery in the West. During the Protectorate,
England and Holland were for the first time engaged in desperate
warfare. The numerous common interests that existed in the two
countries, such as religion and republicanism, were of no avail to keep
the peace. The war that brought such honour to Admiral Blake was not a
war against a "natural enemy," but rather a contest between trade rivals
using the same methods and having the same opinions. The spirit which
animated Cromwell in naval affairs was not Puritanic; it was rather that
of the Elizabethan epoch. The old naval enthusiasm which had so long
slept in the stagnant days of the first Stuarts had now awakened with
renewed vigour, as if its long years of drowsiness had afforded true
refreshment. The celebrated Navigation Act, "the legislative monument of
the Commonwealth,"[166] was the outward and visible sign of this change
in 1651. "It was the first manifestation of the newly awakened
consciousness of the community, the act which laid the foundation of the
English commercial empire.... It consummated the work which had been
commenced by Drake, discussed and expounded by Raleigh, continued by
Roe, Smith, Winthrop, and Calvert."[167] The Dutch, "the Phoenicians
of the modern world, the waggoners of all seas,"[168] were severely
injured by the new law, for goods were no longer to be imported into
England save in English vessels or those vessels belonging to the
country of which the goods were the natural product or manufacture. This
important protective enactment was reissued in the reign of Charles II.,
and, as on the former occasion, it was one of the main causes of
embroiling England and Holland.
For the proper enforcement of the Navigation Act, the English colonies
in the West required a geographical compactness which in the central
period of the seventeenth century they did not possess. A formidable
foreign rival held a valuable commercial settlement between the northern
and southern colonies, for the Dutch possessed in New Amsterdam the very
best harbour along the coast. By the reign of Charles II. the hatred of
the Dutch had become a passion amongst Englishmen, and it had not only
been fostered by the Cromwellian war, but by trade-jealousy both in the
East and in the West. In America the rising colonies of New England, in
particular, looked with greedy eyes upon the splendid waterway of the
River Hudson, which was the finest route for Indian trade. They had,
too, suffered at the hands of their rivals; both the settlements in
Connecticut and Long Island had for many years engaged in innumerable
land disputes with the Dutch, nor did the people of New Haven forget
that some of their brethren had been driven out of New Sweden, which the
Dutch now held.
The Dutch had made their first settlement in 1626 as an outcome of the
foundation of the Dutch West India Company five years before. In its
functions this corporation very closely resembled the English East India
Company, for it made a special combination of naval and commercial
affairs, and almost its first work was the establishment of the New
Netherland settlement on Long Island and along the River Hudson. Their
chief town was planted on Manhattan Island and called New Amsterdam, the
population of which soon after its foundation was 270 souls. A
contemporary narrative speaks cheerfully of the probable success of the
colony, and states that they had a prosperous beginning and that "the
natives of New Netherland are very well disposed so long as no injury is
done them."[169] But from the very first the governors were bad; it was
in fact irregularities in administration and want of enterprise and
courage that caused the recall of Van Twiller in 1637. His successor
Kieft proved himself equally incapable, for he was arbitrary and
ill-advised, earning the detestation of both Dutch patroons and English
settlers. The colonists themselves were few and poor, and the methods
employed by the Company lacked any trace of liberality or real knowledge
of colonial affairs. Peter Stuyvesant, "that resolute soldier," came
into office in 1647; he was the best governor who up to that time had
been sent out, but he was nothing more than a martinet, without either
sympathy or flexibility. Van der Douch in 1650 described the colony as
sadly decayed, and gave as the reasons that "the Managers of the Company
adopted a wrong course at first, and as we think had more regard for
their own interests than for the welfare of the country.... It seems as
if from the first the Company have sought to stock this land with their
own _employés_, which was a great mistake, for when their time was out,
they returned home.... Trade, without which, when it is legitimate, no
country is prosperous, is by their acts so decayed that the like is
nowhere else. It is more suited for slaves than freemen in consequence
of the restrictions upon it ... we would speak well of the government
... under Director Stuyvesant, which still stands, if indeed that may be
called standing, which lies completely under foot."[170]
It may have been this complaint or feelings similar to those stated
therein that forced Stuyvesant to do something that would show that his
rule over the colony had a stimulating effect. He had regarded for some
time with jealousy the little settlement of New Sweden, or as it was
known in later years, Delaware. This colony had been established by one
Minuit, who had been formerly employed by the Dutch West India Company.
He was a friend of William Usselinx or Ussling, who had as early as 1624
obtained a charter from Gustavus Adolphus for a trading company "to
Asia, Africa, America, and Magellanica."[171] But it was not until 1638
that Minuit's Swedish following arrived in America and erected Fort
Christina, named after that extraordinary royal tomboy, the Queen of
Sweden. They soon had so far settled themselves as to be strong enough
to drive out a party from New Haven, but they had not calculated on the
hostility of the Dutch. Stuyvesant was determined to seize New Sweden,
and set out in 1651 to exert Dutch rights, and for their protection
established Fort Casimir on the site of what is now Newcastle, Del. This
was merely the beginning of a larger policy of annexation, which was
accomplished in 1655 when the Swedish settlement passed into the hands
of the Dutch without bloodshed on the appearance of the Governor with an
army of 700 men. The conquered territory was immediately sold to the
city of Amsterdam and a colony was established there under the name of
New Amstel. On the surface this energetic policy had much to recommend
it from the Dutch point of view; but in reality the people of the New
Netherlands gained but little, as in that colony there were no popular
institutions, no true self-government, and not even the advantage of a
really efficient despotism to give interior strength or possibilities of
exterior advance. The fact was that Stuyvesant's action resulted only in
harm to his colony, for in carrying out the extirpation of the Swedish
settlement in Delaware he absolutely drained his own resources and left
himself unprepared and incapable of resisting the onslaught of the
English.
The crushing blow fell in August 1664. In the March of that year Charles
II. granted to his brother James, Duke of York, all the territory then
held by the Dutch, on the plea that it was really British soil by right
of discovery. This was the mere reassertion of an old claim, for James
I. had demanded the territory by right of "occupancy" as early as 1621,
and Charles I. did the same by "first discovery, occupation, and
possession"; Cromwell too had attempted to make possession a real thing
in 1654, but the first Dutch War ended too soon. The action of Charles
II. may well be regarded as a very practical declaration of war. Colonel
Richard Nicolls was appointed to seize the New Netherlands. He was the
most important of the Commissioners sent out to report on the state of
the colonies, and was a good soldier, a man of great courage, but at the
same time forbearing and lenient. The colony which he was ordered to
attack contained a population of about 1500 souls, 600 of whom were of
English stock, dwelling for the most part on Long Island, which was
partially Anglicised by an influx of settlers from Connecticut and New
Haven. At the end of August Nicolls arrived off New Amsterdam with four
ships, and 450 soldiers and Connecticut volunteers. On September 4 he
sent terms to Stuyvesant, stating that "His Majesty, being tender of the
effusion of Christian blood, confirms and secures estates, life and
liberty to every Dutch inhabitant who shall readily submit to his
Government, but those who shall oppose his Majesty's gracious intention
must expect all the miseries of a war which they bring on
themselves."[172] Stuyvesant offered very little resistance, and Nicolls
soon found himself in possession of New Amsterdam. The Dutch West India
Company failed to see that they had been largely to blame for leaving
their colony inadequately defended, and preferred to pour out the vials
of their wrath upon the unfortunate Stuyvesant, who, according to the
Company, "first following the example of heedless interested parties,
gave himself no other concern than about the prosperity of his
bouweries, and, when the pinch came, allowed himself to be rode over by
Clergymen, women and cowards, in order to surrender to the English what
he could defend with reputation, for the sake of thus saving their
private properties."[173]
The conquest of the main city did not leave Colonel Nicolls idle. The
rest of the province had to be subdued, and by his commands the
Assistant Commissioner, Cartwright, went forward, took Fort Orange,
better known as Albany, and above all laid the foundations of that
friendship between the English and the Iroquois which was to prove of
such importance in future years. Sir Robert Carr was also sent to take
the settlements along the Delaware; but his violence and rapacity in
this work contrasted very strongly with the calm and firm rule of
Nicolls, and Carr earned for himself unenviable notoriety for his
severity, which, it has been said, was "the one exception to the
humanity and moderation shown by the English."[174] There were other
difficulties which presented themselves to the Governor of New York, not
the least being the foundation of New Jersey. James, Duke of York,
immediately after the capture of the Dutch settlements, granted all the
territory from the Hudson to the Delaware to Sir George Carteret and
Lord Berkeley. The district was named New Jersey, and Philip Carteret
was sent out by his kinsman to supervise his interests. Nicolls strongly
disapproved of this measure; he was a man with a keen political insight,
and he saw in this mangling of the province the seed of much commercial
and political dispute. His warning was, of course, unheeded, but that
he was right was amply proved by the later history of New Jersey.
Nicolls had also to undo the ill done in Albany by his second in
command, Brodhead, who had shown an extraordinary lack of administrative
ability, treating the Dutch colonists as an inferior and conquered
people, and making numerous arbitrary arrests upon the most trifling
charges. Fortunately for the safety of the colony, news of Brodhead's
action reached Nicolls and the despotic deputy was suspended.
The government of New York was no sinecure. It was probably the most
cosmopolitan town in North America, and though perhaps it is an
exaggeration, it has been asserted that eighteen languages could be
heard in the streets of the late Dutch capital. Before its capture it
had become more Anglicised, as Stuyvesant had not feared but favoured
the English. The first thing done by Nicolls was to put the town in a
state of defence so as to resist any attempt on the part of the Dutch to
regain possession, which was essayed by De Ruyter in 1665, but without
success. A far more oppressive burden to a man who really had his heart
in his work was the difficulty of obtaining supplies for the soldiers.
The English Governor wrote a most pathetic appeal to the Duke of York,
telling him how he was paying what he could out of his own pocket, but
that the people were starving. He describes how the inhabitants of Long
Island were in terrible poverty, and how New York was in "a mean
condition ... not one soldier has lain in a pair of sheets or on any bed
but canvas and straw" since the capture of the town. He said very
pluckily that he did not mind the ruin of his own fortune, but that he
could not bear the loss of his reputation; and then, probably to gain
his way, he concluded with a delightful sentence of praise that ought to
have won the Duke's heart, and which Nicolls no doubt intended that it
should. The colony, he writes, exhibited general joy and thanksgiving
for the signal victory of the Duke over the Dutch off Lowestoft in June,
and for the preservation of His Royal Highness's person, "the very news
whereof has revived their spirits and is antidote both against hunger
and cold."[175]
Meantime representatives from the English-speaking towns met in February
1665 on Long Island; here, acting in accordance with the wishes of the
Governor, a scheme of administration was drawn up; a code of laws was
promulgated, and no attempt was made to interfere with the Dutch
language. Every town was granted powers of assessment, and the right of
choosing a church was given to the freemen who were to declare its
denomination. In the cases of the two main Dutch towns of New York and
Albany, Nicolls was careful not to arouse ill-feeling, and he allowed
them to keep their own mayors. When the first governor retired in 1668,
a tribute to his excellent work was paid him by his fellow commissioner
Maverick; "he has done his Majesty very considerable service in these
parts," he says, "having kept persons of different judgments and divers
nations in peace, when a great part of the world was in wars: and as to
the Indians, they were never brought into such a peaceable posture and
fair correspondence as by his means they now are."[176]
Richard Nicolls was succeeded by Francis Lovelace, who had already acted
for three years as deputy governor of Long Island. He had before him as
governor of New York a far harder task. He followed a man of wonderful
power, and it was now his duty to carry on Nicolls' policy and bring the
preponderant Dutch population surely but quietly under the but recently
established British authority. To accomplish this he adopted a paternal
rule; he granted toleration to all religions; he attempted to gain the
goodwill of the Indians by purchasing their lands and refraining from
any action which might be regarded as aggressive. At the same time he
helped the colony very considerably by opening up intercourse between
New York and Massachusetts, and by the establishment of a regular post
between the two capitals. On the other hand, however, Lovelace was not
really suited to his post. He was a courtier of the conventional type,
and regarded his stay in New York as a form of exile. He speaks of being
in "Egyptian darkness," and asks in one of his letters what is stirring
on the stage in "Brittang." In writing to Sir Joseph Williamson he tries
to arouse his sympathy and says, "we had as well crossed Lethal as the
Athlantiq Ocean." The news from home came to him far too seldom, for the
conveyance of letters was as slow "as the production of _ellephats_,
once almost in two years."[177]
Lovelace's rule soon became unpopular for he was determined to carry out
his plan of paternal despotism and resisted very firmly every attempt to
create popular representation, which was continually demanded. He
angered the settlers by what they regarded a severe tax for defensive
purposes, and he showed his contempt for the freeholders of Long Island
by ordering their protest against his actions to be burnt. It was
unfortunate that this man should have so alienated both Dutch and
English alike, for his period of government coincided with a most
critical epoch in the world's history. In 1670 Charles had allied with
Louis XIV. against the Dutch, and one of the first acts of retaliation
on the part of the authorities in Holland was to retake their colony of
the New Netherlands. In July 1673 the Dutch Admiral Cornelius Eversen
appeared off Fort James when Francis Lovelace was away at New Haven. The
settlers, instead of resisting the Dutch, remembered their hatred of the
Governor, and Captain Manning, second in command, having fired one gun,
surrendered, an action which was called at the time "a shame and
derision to their English nation as hath not been heard of."[178]
Lovelace on his return found the Dutch flag flying over the settlement,
and, having no supporters, fled to Long Island, where the English towns
had refused to give way, not because of goodwill towards the Governor,
but because of patriotism. Here Lovelace met with a scanty welcome and
within a few days was arrested, ostensibly on account of a debt owing to
the Duke of York, and was sent back to England on the 30th July 1673,
where he died soon after.
Weary of a war which was solely for the advantage of the French, Charles
II. came to terms with the Dutch at the Treaty of Westminster, 1674. The
New Netherlands once more became New York, but the English ministers
made a great error in also restoring to Carteret and Berkeley their
rights in New Jersey. The advice of Nicolls was again neglected, and
instead of making New York a compact province, the chance of unity was
lost by severing from its jurisdiction the territory of New Jersey. Sir
Edmund Andros, who was now appointed governor, did his best to
neutralise the effect of this by contending that New Jersey was still
tributary to New York, asserting his rights with considerable vigour.
But the partners in New Jersey were too great favourites at court to
suffer any loss, and before the question was settled Andros was recalled
in 1680. His rule was particularly wise and moderate, and during his
governorship New York experienced a healthy expansion. One thing,
however, he would never grant, though the settlers were always
clamouring for it, and that was a clearly defined constitution with
political rights and privileges similar to those in the New England
colonies.
The exceptionally able Thomas Dongan succeeded Andros, but did not
arrive until 1683. He was forced to contend, as will be shown later,
with French aggression in the valley of the Hudson; his method being a
firm alliance with the Five Nations or Iroquois. They were a wild and
dangerous people, and as such have been described by one who knew them
well. "They likewise paint their Faces, red, blue, &c., and then they
look like the Devil himself ... they treat their Enemies with great
Cruelty in Time of War, for they first bite off the Nails of the Fingers
of their Captives, and cut off some Joints, and sometimes the whole of
the Fingers; after that the Captives are obliged to sing and dance
before them ... and finally they roast them before a slow Fire for some
Days, and eat them." It is interesting to note that the writer records
what must have been a great relief to his readers in the colonies, that
"they are very friendly to us."[179] This amicable relationship between
the English and the Five Nations was largely due to Dongan's good sense
and administrative genius. He persuaded them to become so much subjects
of Great Britain as to set up the arms of James II. upon their wigwams.
The English king, when he heard of his governor's action, informed Louis
XIV. that, as the Iroquois were now true British subjects, he expected
them to be treated as such. Dongan's work did not stop here. He was well
aware that the Iroquois' friendship was an uncertain prop on which to
depend, and therefore palisaded the towns of Albany and Schenectady,
thus beginning the famous system of frontier forts. By his actions he
gained the goodwill of the New Yorkers, to whom, on behalf of the
Proprietors, he granted a charter of incorporation in 1685. But this
acceptance of the views of the people was only very temporary, as it was
reversed in the next year, while at the same time all rights of
legislation were vested in a Council appointed by the Crown.
As has already been shown, James II. amalgamated the colonies in 1685
under Sir Edmund Andros and New York became part of New England. The
Governor was kept far too busy in Massachusetts to pay any attention to
New York, which was placed under a deputy-governor, Colonel Francis
Nicholson, with three Dutch councillors. Nicholson was a clearheaded,
observant man, who had had colonial experience, and would have been a
success except for the fact that he lacked moral force. His position
soon became a very awkward one, for in 1689 he heard that William III.
was all-powerful in England, while he held his commission from Andros,
the Stuart governor, who was in captivity at Boston. At the same time
France had declared war and the Canadians might invade the colony at any
moment. Unfortunately for Nicholson, although he summoned the
authorities, he quarrelled with his subordinate Cuyler, and things were
at a deadlock. At this point the people, seething under the restraints
and burdens which had been placed upon them during the reign of James
II., rose in open revolt, led by a German brewer, Jacob Leisler.
Nicholson was immediately deposed; a convention met, and ten out of the
eighteen representatives invested Leisler with dictatorial authority. He
was a man of some cunning, and under the pretence of possessing a
commission, by intercepting letters and by maltreating their writers, he
succeeded in keeping himself in office for very nearly three years. His
period of government was distinguished by the first Colonial Congress at
Albany, to which he summoned representatives from all the colonies to
discuss definite and united action against the French. Leisler himself
proposed a joint invasion of Canada, and it is probable that it was only
his own arrogance that prevented it. His followers soon came to be as
much hated as their leader, and one indignant citizen wrote in January
1690, "never was such a pack of ignorant, scandalous, malicious, false,
imprudent, impertinent rascals herded together, out of hell."[180]
Careful though Leisler had been to search letters and prevent the news
of his usurpation reaching England, he was unsuccessful. In 1690 the
English Government dispatched Colonel Slaughter to take Leisler's
place. The usurper was first met by a force under Major Ralph Ingoldsby,
second in command to the new Governor; a slight resistance was offered,
and Leisler "fired a vast number of great and small shot in the City,
whereby several of his Majesty's subjects were killed and wounded as
they passed in the streets upon their Lawful Occasions."[181] But
Leisler had lost his former following and he was captured and hanged,
together with his chief supporter Jacob Millborne.
As James II. had left New York without a constitution, a representative
assembly was called in May 1691, and a declaratory act was passed which
annulled Leisler's proceedings. It required that all elections in the
future should be annual, that the franchise should belong to the 40s.
freeholders only, and that the colony itself should be apportioned into
constituencies. At the same time it laid down liberty of conscience
except for Papists, allowing a declaration instead of an oath to please
the Quakers. But above all it declared that no tax was to be imposed
unless it was voted by the colony. The act seemed satisfactory enough,
except the important reservation with regard to taxation; a reservation
which was sufficient to cause the Crown to veto the whole document, and
New York was again without a true and defined constitution. Such a state
of affairs was particularly bad when the colony in 1692 passed under the
rule of the notoriously corrupt Benjamin Fletcher. There are, however,
two things to be said for this man, whose work has been spoken of as
full of deceit, fraud, and subterfuge. In the first place it has been
proved that in military matters he showed considerable skill and
activity; while in the second he undoubtedly realised before many men of
his day the danger of disunion. In May 1696 he wrote, "The Indians,
though monsters, want not sense, but plainly see we are not united, and
it is apparent that the stronger these colonies grow in parts, the
weaker we are on the whole, every little government setting up for
despotic power and allowing no appeal to the Crown, but valuing
themselves on their own strength and on a little juggling in defeating
all commands and injunctions of the King."[182] On the other hand it
must be allowed that Fletcher's methods were particularly scandalous,
for not only did he practically license smuggling and piracy by levying
blackmail upon those who carried on these lucrative trades, but he made
personal friends of them, as for example Captain Tew, "a most notorious
pirate," with whom, to the scandal of the inhabitants, he occasionally
dined.
As has been shown in another chapter, the Earl of Bellomont was made
governor in 1698 to prevent these nefarious undertakings, and as ruler
of New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts he did such
good work that he was universally and sincerely regretted when he died
in 1701. He was succeeded by Lord Cornbury, who was a profligate in
character and overbearing in manner. His rule was one of petty spite and
conflict, and having won the especial hatred of the dissenters and
generally alienated popular support, his recall in 1708 was as much a
cause of rejoicing as Bellomont's death had been of lamentation.
The first sixty years of the eighteenth century were to the inhabitants
of New York years of anxiety and peril, for there was the ever present
danger of the French to the north and west. The story of these years
will be told elsewhere, and here only a rapid sketch can be given of the
domestic history of the colony. Four governors or deputy-governors
attract particular attention during this period. The first was Governor
Burnet,[183] son of the celebrated Bishop, who made himself conspicuous
in 1724 by writing a pamphlet in defence of paper money. The
governorship of William Cosby was not without a constitutional interest,
ten years later, in the prosecution of John Peter Zengler, publisher of
the _New York Weekly Journal_, for criticising the government. He was
described as a "seditious Person, and a frequent Printer and Publisher
of false News and seditious Libels."[184] The same Governor had also a
hard struggle with his people, which caused him to write to the home
Government for more power and patronage, for "ye example and spirit of
the Boston people begins to spread amongst these Colonys In a most
prodigious maner, I have had more trouble to manige these people then I
could have imagined, however for this time I have done pritty well with
them; I wish I may come off as well with them of ye Jarsys."[185]
[Illustration: MAP OF NORTH AMERICA, 1755]
It is evident that as late as 1740 the position of governor was one of
lucrative importance; in that year George Clarke, junior, offered the
Duke of Newcastle £1000 if he would appoint Mr Clarke, senior,
governor, instead of lieutenant-governor as he then was. But this must
have been almost the last case that the post was financially desirable,
for it was clearly the reverse between 1743 and 1753, when George
Clinton was governor. He himself writes, "The Govern^t of New York will
not be near so valuable to Gov^r Clinton as it has been to his
predecessors.--The Province of New Jersey having always till now been
united with New York, and under the same government, and the salary paid
by New Jersey has always been £1000 besides other considerable
advantages, so that the making New Jersey a separate and distinct
govern^t makes New York at least £1000 a year less in value to Gov^r
Clinton than it was to his predecessors."[186] There were, however,
other reasons which in the near future would make the financial position
of the Governor still more precarious, and Clinton could hardly be
expected to foresee that the advantages gained over the French during
his lifetime would in later years be one of the main causes of entire
independence of official governors sent from England.
FOOTNOTES:
[166] Seeley, _Growth of British Policy_ (1897), vol. ii. p. 25.
[167] Seeley, _Growth of British Policy_ (1897), vol. ii. p. 25.
[168] Quoted by Fitchett, _Fights for the Flag_ (1900), p. 3.
[169] _Description and First Settlement of New Netherland_ (_1888_).
[170] _The Representation of New Netherland_ (ed. 1849).
[171] _Documents relative to the Colonial History of the State of New
York_ (1877).
[172] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 227.
[173] _Documents relative to the Colonial History of the State of New
York_ (1858).
[174] Doyle, _Cambridge Modern History_ (1905), vii. p. 41.
[175] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 337.
[176] _Ibid._, p. 606.
[177] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 111.
[178] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 525.
[179] Hazard, _Historical Collections_ (1792).
[180] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1689-1692, p. 209.
[181] _A Letter from a Gentleman of the City of New York_ (1698).
[182] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1696-1697, p. 5.
[183] He was also governor of Massachusetts, and died in 1729.
[184] _A Brief Narrative of the Case and Tryal of John Peter Zengler_,
etc. (1738).
[185] _Document relative to the Colonial History of the State of New
York_ (1855).
[186] _Documents relative to the Colonial History of the State of New
York_ (1855).